George Soros has published a significant truth-telling article in the Boston Globe this morning, "Blinded by a Concept," about some of the shortcomings of America's foreign policy and Israel's mistakes in its recent incursions into Lebanon and Gaza.

Soros's article convinces because it ticks through the challenges US policy faces in an unstable Middle East with surgical precision not only as to what started the current set of crises but which also sent Israel's security situation off the rails. Both America and Israel really did fail to set Mahmoud Abbas up for success, and that key mistake has generated enormous consequences that have cost lives and harmed fundamental security in the region.

While Soros provides three key weaknesses of the "war-on-terror" as an organizing principle of foreign policy -- much like RAND strategist James Dobbins did recently at a meeting I helped organize -- let me start at the third in his article. Soros makes a point about fine-tuning our approach to divergent groups and factions if for no other reason than to be effective. Recently, Flynt Leverett in an important American Prospect cover story makes precisely the same point.

Soros writes:

A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish among Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because both have deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between them.

Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, allowing an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt; and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands. None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas's electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to allow the Palestinians to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal with a Hamas government. The effect was to impose further hardship on the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel -- which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front.

That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress.

Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to the escalation of violence. The process has advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy. Israel is now more endangered in its existence than it was at the time of the Oslo Agreement on peace.

I highly recommend that those who want to think about how metaphors of war and conflict can be dangerously exploited, read Soros's book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.

I have invited George Soros to speak about his book at a public meeting of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program in Washington, and he has accepted.

For those of you interested in receiving an invitation, be sure to email me. The meeting will be taking place on the late afternoon of September 13 at the offices of the New America Foundation. We will have books there for sale -- and Soros has agreed to sign books and to engage in a "quality discussion" about fallibility and our current conflicts.

-- Steve Clemons

Want a lesson in real democracy -- as the founding fathers meant it?

Watch this video clip of Keith Olbermann taking on the administration and Donald Rumsfeld in the most compelling oratory I have heard in some time.

Keith Olbermann deserves our thanks and praise for taking Donald Rumsfeld to the woodshed for undermining our democracy. Turning historical conventional wisdom on its head, Olbermann compares Rumsfeld to Neville Chamberlain -- another pretender to omniscience-- and by implication really argues that the historical equivalent to Churchill, whom Chamberlin harrassed, is John Murtha.

Here is the text of Olbermann's awe-inspiring, profound commentary tonight -- which I hope helps knock Rumsfeld out of his Pentagon perch:

Chris Nelson who writes the bloggish "Nelson Report", rarely posted on the internet and just packed with great analysis and often good gossip, has a good report on Iran tonight. I post this in full with his permission.

I should note that when I last wrote about Iran, I stated that analysts I recently met with think that even if there is only a bleak binary option of either acquiescing to Iran's nuclear pretensions or bombing Iran, the diplomatic option must be 'credibly' pursued. Rumsfeld and Cheney are making the feat of credible diplomacy more difficult, but it is clear that even if he attends to strike Iran later, Bush must 'act' like he is pursuing non-military options.

Tomorrow though, Iran will spurn the UN Security Council deadline.

Here is Chris Nelson's superb analysis of the Iran mess as it is thus far:

The Nelson Report -- Samuels International Associates

Wednesday, 30 August 2006

BUSH IRAN FOCUS STILL TALK, NOT FIGHT, DESPITE US MILITARY FEARS

SUMMARY: Iran will not "meet the deadline" tomorrow at the UNSC to suspend its nuclear activities. . .that everyone accepts without question. So the US will follow-through with its determination to pursue a sanctions regime, via a second resolution, one with the continued support of the EU, Russia and China.

Also note that while Iran won't meet the deadline, it's response is not expected to be a clear "no", although this may be difficult to discern, given the usual rhetorical habits of President Amadenijad. More on Iran's possible negotiating position, below.

Further, say our sources, the White House fully understands that it is embarking on a process of weeks, even months, and that if the US pushes too hard, or demands the impossible, that both China and Russia will drop out of the international coalition, thus reducing US options, and raising international fears of a genuine crisis.

Full acceptance of the current White House posture remains to be gained, given continued opposition to serious negotiations with Iran held by Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. That's why mistrust of the motives and judgment of the Bush Administration remains strong, within the US military establishment quite as much as with US friends and allies, and in both parties on Capitol Hill.

Everyone should calm down a bit, while remaining vigilant of both Bush and Iran, say sources who feel they are familiar with the real intentions of the President at this time.

No one, of course, is comfortable predicting the internal workings of the Iranian regime. But it sounds like the President, at least for now, is listening to Secretary of State Condi Rice, who in turn is listening to Undersecretary for Political Affairs (and possible Deputy Secretary to be?) Nick Burns. The result: Burns will be in Europe next week, testing the waters to see just how far the EU is prepared to go on sanctions to pressure Iran.

The real conversation, of course, will be between Burns and the Russians, and the assessment of Moscow's willingness to allow anything more than very limited sanctions remains what it has been for months.

So, say sources familiar with the current White House thinking, Burns' task will be to keep the EU, Russia and China on the same page. The anticipated agenda will discuss specific, very limited sanctions such as partial travel bans, and possible bans on nuclear related sales, perhaps also weapons. . .all to be hammered out over the next few weeks.

This elastic sense of timing is key to understanding the nature of the current stage of the Iranian nuclear "crisis", our sources argue. While they understand that the US military community is aghast at the very notion of a shooting war with Iran (and Rumsfeld's latest bloviations show exactly why the brass detests and mistrusts him, not to mention Capitol Hill critics now being accused of "appeasement") our sources maintain that barring some dramatic move or provocation by Iran, the President's focus remains on a diplomatic track.

Assuming that Burns' negotiations start to bear fruit, and at some point this Fall the UNSC agrees to a program of limited, targeted sanctions, it still will take months, not weeks, to see what effect, if any, those sanctions are having on Iranian policy and nuclear programs.

This means that there will be ample time, and constant opportunity, for Burns and Secretary Rice to keep US allies calm, and to keep at least a façade of unity, while exploring quiet negotiations with Tehran over possible solutions to the crisis.

That's the current, hoped for scenario, our sources maintain. But of course there must be planning for "what if" the UN process starts to break down, or just fails quickly. That would seem to open the door for the more testicular thinking of Cheney and Rumsfeld, however much the President is represented as understanding the need for time and care.

But if the UN track seems to falter, then expect the President to authorize the "coalition of the willing" approach to more a more vigorous sanctions regime, one which will bring new pressures and tensions between the US and current allies.

Expect, for example, renewed emphasis by Treasury on going after trade credits, lending and investments in Iran, which means deepening the current dialogue with the EU and Japan (a replication of the current, increasingly successful efforts against N. Korea).

In short, sources maintain that military moves are not on the agenda, even as contingencies. . ..at this time. . .and despite Rumsfeld, Cheney and the neo-con die-hards who have learned nothing from Iraq.

That assessment relies on current intelligence estimates that even if Iran continues, without check, its current course of nuclear research and development, that it would not be able to produce a workable nuclear bomb any sooner than four years from now. Bearing in mind that all such estimates are guesstimates, four years is an eternity in politics, and it helps explain why President Bush, at least for now, thinks he has time to give diplomacy a real chance.

So that leads us to the question of whether Iran is simply playing a stalling game, and that it will stall right up to an announcement that a bomb is ready. . .something many observers of N. Korea now think is clearly the case for the DPRK.

About the only thing our sources agree upon is that the Iranians are immensely clever and sophisticated negotiators. But for every expert who thinks that a real Grand Bargain, or leveraged buyout of the Iranian nuclear weapons program is possible (you know the suggested "package", which includes full diplomatic relations, trade, etc., etc.) there are experts who continue to maintain it's all a trick.

Certainly, the State Department is willing to let time produce some of the answers, and to send interesting signals. . .see the decision to grant a visa to former President Khatami, who will deliver peace lecture, no less, at the National Cathedral in Washington, on Sept. 7. State claims there are no plans for private meetings with the presumed leader of Iran's presumed moderate faction, but you can be the judge of the likelihood of letting that opportunity go by.

Nick Burns is an extremely capable diplomat, but part of the problem in this particular diplomacy is that Iran's leadership weighs the value and consequences of a hot collision with America differently.

Former Iran President Khatami -- who will be in Washington on September 7 -- wants to avoid further aggravation and tension, but he's not going to run against the perceived will of the majority of the Iranian public and step away from nuclear energy. There are lots of options on how that path can be maintained in Iran without proceeding down a war path.

The problem, however, is that I feel that Ahmadinejad does invite war. It's the easiest way for him to validate himself as the new true leader of the Middle East. America must not give this guy what he wants. He's egging Bush on with the call for a debate, for christening the start of a major heavy water nuclear reactor, and other obnoxious moves.

More later. But thanks to Chris Nelson for this great thinking and writing.

-- Steve Clemons

I was up recently visiting Swallow Falls State Park in Maryland -- which claims to have one of the oldest unharvested spruce and hemlock forests in the region. Quite a beautiful place.

Just a bit of notice that I will be live on MSNBC at 1:45 pm ET discussing former Iran President Mohammad Khatami's visit to Washington as well as current Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's challenge to President Bush to a televised debate.

-- Steve Clemons

Talk about Orwellian thought control. This is one of the strangest political ads I have seen in a long time.

It's on YouTube; 29 seconds long.

Well worth watching. Relax, and think about good stuff. . .

-- Steve Clemons

The Forward is becoming a daily read for me. It does a superb job of captruing diverse views about issues related to Judaism and Israel -- and is one of the few American portals I know of where the debates taking place in Israel are published relatively unfiltered.

This editorial sees some parallels to 1973 when regional insecurity and change in geostrategic allignments produced opportunities for Israeli deals with some of its neighbors, achieving partial peace.

The article starts:

As Israelis began trying this week to make sense of their bruising five-week war in Lebanon, discussion has returned again and again to the traumatic Yom Kippur War of 1973. Then as now, Israel's vaunted military machine was caught with its pants down, locked into a strategic concept -- static defense lines then, air dominance now -- that had become obsolete. Then as now, the war ended in a victory that felt more like defeat, leaving Israel's enemies crowing and Israelis fearing for their very future. This time, with Israel's military deterrent exposed as lacking and jihadist rage mounting among the world's billion Muslims, the fears feel very real.

But there is another, more hopeful parallel between 1973 and now, for those willing to see it. Back then, the mixed results of the war reshuffled the strategic balance in the Middle East, opening the way for a diplomatic flurry -- tirelessly orchestrated by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger -- that ultimately led to a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel's most powerful Arab foe. This week, growing numbers of Israeli strategists are speaking of a similar opening arising from the latest war. They see an opportunity for Israel to reach out to moderate Arab and Muslim states, a chance to forge a common front against the extremist threat from Iran and Hezbollah. The price of admission: a regional peace accord, including a resolution of the Palestinian issue and genuine Arab recognition of Israel, that enables the moderates to unite and thus isolates the extremists.

"We need a realignment in the region," says veteran Labor Party lawmaker Ephraim Sneh, a reserve brigadier general and former deputy defense minister. "We need to create a new balance with the all the moderate countries on one side" -- and the extremists on the other.

By "moderate countries," Sneh is thinking first of all the nearby Arab states that have made peace with Israel or hinted at it clearly in recent decades, beginning with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians. Not coincidentally, all of them are Sunni Muslim societies that view the Shi'ite Iran-Hezbollah axis with fear and loathing.

As it happens, every one of the target nations has sent urgent signals to Israel in recent weeks, making it clear that they want to do business. Israelis must now ask themselves what price they would have to pay to join the game, and what role they need their American ally to play to make it work.

The Egyptians, as usual, are leading the way. Their security services have been working frantically in the past month to separate the Hamas-led Palestinian government from its Hezbollah allies, to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and to create a unified Palestinian negotiating partner for peace talks with Israel, under the clear leadership of the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas -- at least its local wing in the territories -- seems desperate to buy in; it has endorsed the Egyptian initiative and cracked down on rocket fire. This week it approved a unity government with Fatah and announced that it had "no problem negotiating with Israel."

I agree with much of this article -- but the key question is "where is the indefatigable Kissinger today?"

Does anyone see a top tier strategist in the making in the administration now?

No Acheson, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Scowcroft, Kennan, or Nitze in sight.

Stephen Krasner does impress me. He is now directing Policy Planning at the State Department but thus far lacks the inter-agency muscle to prevail in the battle he'd need to win to pull off a fundamental strategic reallignment.

One note on Ephraim Sneh, mentioned in The Forward piece -- General Ephraim Sneh to his friends -- he will be speaking at a New America Foundation event on the morning of September 15th in Washington, D.C. Daniel Levy will be chairing the meeting.

Email me if you'd like an invite.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is jarring news, positive news. I know very little about conservative Judaism and have the gut feeling that this line of Judaism differs from the orthodox.

But even then, what will Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say about this? I can't wait.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm going to spend the day with friends and my dog, Oakley, fishing and kayaking on the Chester River in Chestertown, Maryland as I tick off another year today.

Lyndon Baines Johnson and Mother Teresa both share my birthday of August 27th. Confucius, Many Ray and Pee Wee Herman too. So do Nick Scogna and Brian Strom -- friends from high school and college respectively I haven't seen for years. Happy birthday guys.

Thanks again to the Washington Post for publishing this article today.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

(Yasukuni Shrine where the souls of Japan's soldiers who died on the battlefield -- as well as WWII class A war criminals -- are deified)

The Washington Post has just published an article of mine,"The Rise of Japan's Thought Police," that will appear in tomorrow's Outlook pages, but which is available on the web now.

The subject of the Japan-focused piece is the rise in intimidation tactics -- verbal and sometimes violent -- that hawkish nationalists in Japan are directing at intellectuals, journalists, business leaders, and even some politicians who have questioned Prime Minister Koizumi's flirtation with symbols of Japan's past manic militarism.

Last week, I wrote about an incident that triggered the oped earlier on The Washington Note. My latest piece starts:

Anywhere else, it might have played out as just another low-stakes battle between policy wonks. But in Japan, a country struggling to find a brand of nationalism that it can embrace, a recent war of words between a flamboyant newspaper editorialist and an editor at a premier foreign-policy think tank was something far more alarming: the latest assault in a campaign of right-wing intimidation of public figures that is squelching free speech and threatening to roll back civil society.

This battle between the editor-at-large of the Sankei Shimbun, Yoshihisa Komori, and Masaru Tamamoto, the editor of Commentary published by the Japan Institute for International Affairs has begun to receive wide-spread attention on blogs, in think tanks, in academic chat room focused on Japan, and in general discussion.

Some of the other resources to understand what is at stake are a PacNet forum article by Sheila Smith and Brad Glosserman, this blog post by Gen Kanai, the Japan-U.S. Discussion Forum on the website of the National Bureau for Asian Research, and this excellent site assembled by William Sturgeon that has actually recreated the materials (from cached archives) of the now suspended JIIA Commentary website.

I think that my Washington Post article will continue to underscore the seriousness of healthy debate and discussion in Japan about evolving national identity and nationalism issues.

It is important to understand that this battle is not just a war of words. On many levels, that would be worth applauding if the debate was robust -- even if it was nasty. But serious violence and harrassment is beginning to envelope those leading lights in Japan trying to promote healthy national discussion.

There are exceptions to this. The Yomiuri Shimbun, mostly a conservative paper in Japan has prepared an outstanding series of articles on "war memory". The project is headed by Akira Saito, a former Washington Bureau Chief of the Yomiuri who now heads the Yomiuri Research Institute. He is an internationalist and knows that Japan needs to find a new, healthy nationalism that will also be compatible with Japan's international relations.

I would also be remiss in not applauding the Sankei Shimbun -- the very paper in which the attacks on Tamamoto and so many others noted in this article began in writing -- for criticizing the burning of Koichi Kato's parental home. While Prime Minister Koizumi and his likely successor in September Shinzo Abe have said absolutely nothing about this arson incident against one of Japan's major politicians -- it was refreshing to see the Sankei speak out against this.

But the trends remain deeply troubling and fear is running high among many of Japan's best and brightest who now prefer generally to stay away from controversial topics rather than suffer substantial consequences trying to help Japan work through some of its biggest identity challenges.

Here is a bit from the piece that focuses on some of the other incidents that have occurred in recent years:

Emboldened by the recent rise in nationalism, an increasingly militant group of extreme right-wing activists who yearn for a return to 1930s-style militarism, emperor-worship and "thought control" have begun to move into more mainstream circles -- and to attack those who don't see things their way.

Just last week, one of those extremists burned down the parental home of onetime prime ministerial candidate Koichi Kato, who had criticized Koizumi's decision to visit Yasukuni this year. Several years ago, the home of Fuji Xerox chief executive and Chairman Yotaro "Tony" Kobayashi was targeted by handmade firebombs after he, too, voiced the opinion that Koizumi should stop visiting Yasukuni. The bombs were dismantled, but Kobayashi continued to receive death threats. The pressure had its effect. The large business federation that he helps lead has withdrawn its criticism of Koizumi's hawkishness toward China and his visits to Yasukuni, and Kobayashi now travels with bodyguards.

In 2003, then-Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Hitoshi Tanaka discovered a time bomb in his home. He was targeted for allegedly being soft on North Korea. Afterward, conservative Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara contended in a speech that Tanaka "had it coming."

Another instance of free-thinking-meets-intimidation involved Sumiko Iwao, an internationally respected professor emeritus at Keio University. Right-wing activists threatened her last February after she published an article suggesting that much of Japan is ready to endorse female succession in the imperial line; she issued a retraction and is now reportedly lying low.

Japan does need a new nationalism -- but this nationalism that is silencing moderates is not characteristic of either a healthy nationalism or a healthy ally.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: For those of you interested in communicating your views about the hasty agreement to suspend JIIA Commentary and to censor ALL of the information on that website, please communicate your views to JIIA President Yukio Satoh through this website contact page, as yet not suspended.

-- Steve Clemons

Christopher Preble, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, just published this on the Partnership for a Secure America's blog.

Preble and I are two of the three executive committee members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

Chris Preble has organized a good forum at an awful time -- 8 a.m. Saturday morning, Labor Day weekend -- in which Preble, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver (now on the staff of the National Security Council), Seyom Brown and I will be addressing national security conceptualizations and what a bipartisan foreign policy might look like (in 30 years. . .just joking) at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Philadelphia.

Preble promises to publish notes from the session, but what he FAILS to say is that he has promised donuts to those who actually show up around the time the sun rises on a Phildelphia weekend morning.

-- Steve Clemons

UPI Editor Emeritus Martin Walker has put out a useful essay on a Royal Institute of International Affairs report on Iran and the U.S.

The Chatham House/RIIA report can be downloaded as a pdf here.

I love the line about American poker players and Iran's chess strategy.

Walker writes:

A detailed new report issued this week from Britain's top foreign policy think tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, says "Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the United States, and is increasingly rivaling the U.S. as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia."

Moreover, the report says, the Bush administration has directly helped strengthen Iran to become a major regional power.

"The war on terror removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- Iran's two greatest regional rivals -- and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so," it says, adding that "Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against U.S.-led policy."

Iran's role within other embattled areas in the region like Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely, says the report, which was prepared with considerable input from British officials and diplomats, as well as academics and regional experts.

"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds," says Nadim Shehadi, one of the report's authors and a fellow of the Institute's Middle East department.

The report stresses that the Bush administration and its allies have yet to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing -- a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West. As a result, the U.S.-led agenda for confronting Iran is "severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region."

"While the U.S. may have the upper hand in 'hard' power projection, Iran has proved far more effective through its use of 'soft' power," the report says. "The Bush administration has shown little ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests while Iran's knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given it a strong advantage over the West."

What worries me about Iran's perceptions of American weakness -- and America has become weaker in the region and globally -- is that superpowers with swagger and considerable ego don't usually acknowledge their failings. In desperation and attempting to show that their resolve is solid and military strength robust, big nations having a bad time strike out to prove a point.

George W. Bush may strike Iran not only because of a military rationale that his advisors assemble but because he wants to reassure the world that America still has the backbone and capacity to hit other countries -- ironically undermining the very perception of power he is trying to transmit.

The combination of a weakened U.S. and pretentious Iran is highly dangerous, despite many who think that rational calculators will prevail at the end of the day.

But bottom line is America better not only start playing chess but better get to mastering the three-dimensional version.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: The digitized video of today's event can be watched over the internet by clicking here.

My colleague Flynt Leverett has just published a superb American Prospect article that I discuss below -- but its sensibleness compels me to start with concerns about the President's key advisor on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams.

Few would question that Elliott Abrams is a brilliant guy. In many ways, he's a much more sophisticated version of the bombastic John Bolton, who has been quite successful in a pugnacious way at promulgating Jesse Helms' vision of American foreign policy -- as disagreeable and alarming as most find that to be.

But Abrams is a great strategist. Many like him, but he is a shape-shifter when it comes to figuring out who he ultimately works for and collaborates with. Sometimes his boss is Stephen Hadley. Sometimes it is Cheney himself or Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington. Other times, Abrams works hard to convince Condi's people that he is on their side -- though they know not to trust him. George Bush is so unclear about the direction he wants to go that in times when Abrams needs ambiguity, Bush is saluted as his task-master.

Abrams is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (with a special focus on Middle East Affairs), and he is one of Israel's protectors, defenders, and key stewards in the White House. Frankly, there are many defenders of Israeli security in the White House -- and I would be one as well, but not exclusively at the cost of long-term stability in the Middle East that secures 'both' Israeli and Arab interests.

If he was also concerned about America's state of relations over the long term with the Arab Middle East in addition to Israel's security, Abrams' hyper-closeness to Israel would not be a problem. But Abrams has done much to inculcate many in the White House that helping Israel ultimately means not yielding credible progress on an Israel-Palestine deal or not progressing on deal-making with other Arab neighbors.

Abrams has helpd turn the Middle East into a zero sum game between the US and Israel on one side and Arab states on the other. As Senator Chuck Hagel stated in a powerful speech at Brookings recently, juxtaposing Israel security against our interests in the Middle East is a dangerous "false choice" that must be avoided.

Elliott Abrams is pushing that so-called "false choice" in his current job and is undermining Condi Rice's efforts as well as long-term Israeli security. He is preempting moves that might lead ultimately to peace and stability in the Middle East, and in the end, he's harming America's foreign policy portfolio -- damaged as that already is from running into a quagmire in Iraq.

Abrams should be suspended in his current position; recused because of his bias and blind-spots on Middle East policy and assigned a new task -- like getting the federal budget balanced, or some other herculean effort that might satisfy Abrams' pretensions without causing the nation much damage.

The person the President should consult with in his stead is Flynt Leverett, my new colleague at the New America Foundation (and I should hasten to add here that Flynt Leverett not only does not know I am preparing this post but will probably object).

One chronologist has just noted that it has been exactly 1,800 days since George W. Bush said he would get Osama bin Laden.

What got in the way of Bush's plan? Two things -- Dick Cheney and Iraq.

Had Bush stayed on track, shut down bin Laden and gotten to work on redressing some of the bubbling grievances in the Middle East, the world might look substantially different today.

A few things.

First, remember this New York Times placed op-ad, "Uncle oSAMa Wants You!" that ran in the New York Times just before the invasion of Iraq? It's worth remembering.

Second, tomorrow night -- Wednesday -- catch my colleague Peter Bergen's brilliant two hour CNN special, "In the Footsteps of bin Laden."

It airs at 9 pm and 12 midnight eastern time. Christiane Amanpour narrates the thought-provoking and educational documentary. Peter Bergen's book that inspired this film production is The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader.

For those who did not catch it, Ezra Klein did a nice job in this Los Angeles Times oped building on a previous blogpost here on TWN.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

We have been so distracted by serious problems around the world -- and in Washington -- that we completely forgot that The Washington Note was founded on August 3, 2004.

Although we are past the date, we are still in the same month, and I thought that it is good to punctuate these things with a thank you to all of you who read this blog, and who engage in "mostly civil" exchanges in the comments sections.

For those of you who donate through the Pay Pal site, even bigger thanks.