Edward Luttwak -- a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of many best-selling high concept treatments of war, strategy, and the international economy -- is a turbo-charged intellect wrapped in the garb of a John Le Carre-esque spy. I always feel like I'm learning secrets from him.

I run into him in the most unusual places -- whether it is an Okinawa kenjinkai culture and sake-tasting evening or hanging out with Cuban, German, French, Israeli, and Polish intelligence officials -- along with Richard Perle -- in Caen, France -- where Eddie Luttwak was there not for the company but to get his itch for Caen's shellfish scratched. He is a brilliant conceptualizer who sees through problems and twists and flips the component pieces in ways that reveal important realities. His "process" often makes his listeners squirm.

I think Luttwak has quite important insights into our mess in the Middle East, and I'm inviting TWN readers to a meeting I'm chairing with him tomorrow, Thursday, in Washington, DC at the New America Foundation -- 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor -- from noon til 2:00 p.m. If you would like to attend, just zap me an email at steve@thewashingtonnote.com.

His topic is "What to Do About I-rak and I-ran? How New Divisions in the Middle East offer the U.S. an Opportunity to Regain Influence in the Region."

Just for fun, here are the first two paragraphs and last two paragraphs of two articles that Luttwak has recently published -- one on Iraq and one on Iran:

To Help Iraq, Let it Fend for Itself

New York Times, 6 February 2007

The sooner President Bush can get his extra troops for a "surge" in Iraq, the sooner he will be able to announce that all American troops are coming home because of the inevitable failure of the Iraqi government to "live up to its side of the bargain." In fact, in the run-up to the surge proposal, it is unlikely that there was any real two-sided bargaining before Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was induced to issue promises -- particularly in terms of government troops taking on Shiite militias -- that he cannot possibly fulfill. Mr. Maliki, it seems, simply agreed to whatever was asked of him, to humor the White House and retain American support for a little while longer.

For the Iraqi Army and police to disarm the Shiite militias, the prime minister would have to be a veritable Stalin or at least a Saddam Hussein, able to terrorize Iraqi soldiers and policemen into obedience. Mr. Maliki, of course, has no such authority over Iraqi soldiers or police officers; indeed he has little authority over his own 39-person cabinet, whose members mostly represent sectarian parties with militias of their own. . .

. . .Were the United States to disenage, both Arab Sunnis and Shiites would have to take responsiblity for their own security (as the Kurds have been doing all along). Where these three groups are not naturally separated by geography, they would be forced to find ways to stabilize relations with each other. That would most likely involve violence as well as talks, and some forcing of civilians from their homes. But all this is happening already, and there is no saying which ethno-religious group would be most favored by a reduction of the United States footprint.

One reason for optimism on that score is that the violence itself has been separating previously mixed populations, reducing motives and opportunities for further attacks. That is how civil wars can burn themselves out. In any case, it is time for the Iraqis to make their own history.

And another piece this week that focuses on Iran:

Persian Shrug

Wall Street Journal, 27 February 2007

Almost everyone in Washington agrees that Iran is the big winner in the Middle East power competition, and the U.S. the big loser. Instead of the irremediably hostile Taliban, Iran now has a friendly Afghan government on its eastern border. Rather than having to face Saddam Hussein's regime, Iran has nothing to fear from an Iraqi government dominated by friends and obedient clients, many of whom lived as protected exiles in Iran for 20 years or more.

Having crushed Tehran's enemies, the U.S. finds itself under attack by Iran's rulers, who no longer have to worry about defending their own borders and can instead challenge American interests all over the Middle East, and as far away as Venezuela. At the same time, Iran continues to build facilities to process, gasify and enrich uranium, in spite of the International Atomic Energy Agency and solemn resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. . .

. . .Viewed from the inside, Iran is hardly the formidable power that some see on the outside. The natural outcome of increasing popular opposition to extremist rulers, of widening ethnic divisions and bitter Sunni resentment of Shia oppression is a breakup. Certainly there is no reason why Iran should be the only multinational state to resist the nationalist separatism that destroyed the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, divided Belgium in all but name and decentralized Spain and even the United Kingdom, along with other states large and small.

Once again, there is a better alternative to detente with a repulsive regime, and that is to be true to the Wilsonian tradition of American foreign policy by encouraging the forces of national liberation within Iran.

Should be an interesting session tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

(Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Washington Moroccan Club President Hassan Samrhouni, and Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III)

The University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs -- of which Philip Zelikow used to serve as Director before becoming Condi Rice's Counselor -- has announced the creation of a bipartisan commission that "will examine how the Constitution allocates the powers of beginning, conducting, and ending war."

Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher will co-chair this enterprise.

Regarding non-traditional wars, the Miller Center announcement states:

When armed conflict is looming, debates about separation of powers and the uncertainty they often generate can impair relations among the branches of government, cast doubt on the legitimacy of government action, and prevent focused attention on policy. Armed conflicts with non-state actors and other non-traditional "wars," as well as the courts' involvement in war powers questions, make the Commission's work relevant.

It will be important for the Commission to deal squarely and up-front with non-traditional wars as well as the ability of the President to issue "findings" ordering covert military action, military actions that are not officially called wars but often seem worse, and conflict conducted through proxies armed, funded, and virtually commanded by the White House and Pentagon. This group, it it is to be taken seriously, needs to consider the "privatization of war" and the many players -- not just on the other side of conflict but on our own side -- that are mercenaries hired to perform military and security functions.

Traditional war is not something about which there should be much concern on the Constitutional front. What is worrisome in 21st century conflict and Constitutional legitimacy are all the gray areas that have emerged and which power centers are exploiting.

On the Commission will be:

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III co-chair

Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher co-chair

Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton

Former Member of Congress Lee Hamilton

Former US Trade Representative Carla Hills

Former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh Jr.

Former US Attorney General Edwin Meese III

Former Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals Abner Mikva

Former Commander-in-Chief of the US Atlantic Fleet J. Paul Reason

Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft

Woodrow Wilson School/Princeton University Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter

Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott

Doris Kearns Goodwin will serve as "historical adviser" to the Baker-Christopher Commission, and Andrew Dubill, Juliana Bush, and W. Taylor Reveley IV will staff the project.

I had the pleasure of participating in a small dinner hosted by the Stanley Foundation on Monday evening with featured speaker Philip Zelikow, who offered a fascinating talk about the limits and opportunities of deployed force and power in today's world. I get the sense from his speech, which I may write about another time, that Zelikow is crafting a major article informed by his experience as one of the key players in the Bush administration's national security bureaucracy on what works and what doesn't when it comes to state-building, wars, and transnational institution building.

As a friendly nudge to the project, i think that the Baker-Christopher Commission is making a mistake by not inviting Zelikow to serve as one of its members. While I don't agree with all of his views, Zelikow is one of the few power players in this G.W. Bush era who has thought deeply about America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and how these have seriously shaken and, in some cases, confused and bewildered legal experts whose frames were guided by experience with more normal, classic wars than we are engaged in today.

Two other good resources for the Commission would be the incumbent Legal Adviser to Condi Rice, John B. Bellinger III, and the previous occupant of his job, William Howard Taft IV, who have both had to struggle with the legal mess of these wars -- and who both did battle with Cheney's staff on everything from authorizations for war and the treatment (and potential torture) of prisoners.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm getting a lot of "official statements" from U.S. Senators in my in-box all of a sudden commenting on the Bush administration's change of heart regarding attending official meetings with representatives from the governments of Iran and Syria.

This could be a pre-meeting for a true regional conference that draws together all of the key stakeholders in and around Iraq, and that is a key pillar of the Iraq Study Group Report's "New Diplomatic Offensive" proposal.

Time will tell whether this is meaningless flirtation -- or whether this is a carefully crafted "confidence building measure" that could lead to more meaningful engagement between the US and Iran over outstanding issues -- and between the US and Syria.

This has the markings of European and Saudi stage direction.

This writer has reasons to suspect that European Union High Commissioner for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and National Security Advisor to the Saudi King Prince Bandar bin Sultan have been moving chess pieces in consultation with departing US Ambassador to Iraq and incoming US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad to make this "neighbors meeting" work.

This is a necessary but not sufficient first step in re-establishing a new and more stable equilibrium of interests in the Middle East.

Here is what Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says about the "deal" to possibly deal:

"This is an important diplomatic initiative taken by the Iraqi government. We will not achieve peace and stability in Iraq without a regional framework that includes Iran and Syria. This conference can be an important first step towards creating that framework," Hagel said.

Here is presidential candidate and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden's statement on the White House's reverse course:

"The Administration is right to reverse itself and engage Iran and Syria on Iraq. Right now, they're a big part of the problem, but they have an interest in becoming part of the solution to prevent chaos in Iraq.

I hope this means that clearer heads in the Administration are beginning to prevail. If the conference is to have any impact on the sectarian violence in Iraq, it must enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors for a political settlement that would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis control over their daily lives. We don't need a meeting for the sake of meeting -- there has to be a clear plan and purpose."

I have not been able to find statements as yet from Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or other presidential hopefuls.

In lieu of a statement from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson though is a sensible op-ed that appeared today in the Washington Post promoting diplomatic engagement with Iran over "chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship."

Stay tuned. This just might be a beginning of a new, promising trend. But don't over-invest yet.

Not to be too snarky, it does seem remarkable that these kind of breakthroughs tend to happen when the Vice President is sidelined or flying off somewhere.

-- Steve Clemons

This short International Herald Tribune piece by the Nixon Center's Alexis Debat and Ghassan Schbley got me thinking about the simultaneously turbulent centrifugal and centripetal forces between transnational Islamist movements and state structures in the Middle East

It's a very short, clever article -- but here is the part with which I partly disagree and yet still find intriguing:

Nasrallah's recent turnaround has given away important clues about Hezbollah's ultimate hierarchy of allegiances. Confronted with a crucial decision between relevance and identity, the movement chose to amend what it wants, and sacrifice its sectarian credentials or international allegiances to reclaim the nationalist high ground.

Hezbollah is already reaching out to other constituencies, and getting in increasingly frequent arm twisting with both Iran and Syria.

The Saudis were key in defusing the crisis in Lebanon. The Saudis are also hard at work in Iraq and, as we have seen recently, in Palestine. In this process, the Bush administration should be careful to remain safely in King Abdullah's back seat.

First of all, despite patronage from Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has always been a political movement focused on the liberation of its constituents from Israeli control. It's core grievances are over land and self-determination.

This is not dissimilar to nationalist movements in revolutionary China and Vietnam that were to a significant degree misdiagnosed by the U.S. as primarily problems of transnational Communism.

It doesn't seem to me that Nasrallah made any stunning turnaround.

He simply exploited state-based regional stakeholders as well as the transnational Islamist movement in this crisis and extracted resources from them. If he had to flirt with transnational movements and identity, then that's a small gesture compared to his own desire to embed Hezbollah in the very fabric of Lebanese society and to one day have a hand in working the machinery of state.

The depiction of Saudi foreign policy activism seems spot on with me. The Saudis are filling a void that a faltering America has left open in the Middle East.

To say, however, that America ought to "remain safely in King Abdullah's back seat" overstates the degree of mutual coordination and collaboration between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia on the Middle East project. It is because of Saudi dissatisfaction with American policy and American results that the Saudis have heightened their engagement with Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere.

If anything the Saudis left America off on the curb -- and it's not defined yet whether they will be back to pick us up.

Nice piece nonetheless.

-- Steve Clemons

Vice President Cheney sure is active on the international travel circuit all of a sudden.

First, there was a trip to Japan -- allegedly to thank Japan for its support of America's war on terror -- though he did all he could to avoid actually meeting Japan's Minister of Defense because of Defense Minister Kyuma's candid comments that the war was wrong-headed.

Now, Cheney has made a surprise trip to Pakistan. I'm sure that Cheney's presence in Islamabad is a huge help bolstering President Musharraf and helping shore up support for the Pakistani government and its president against growing influence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. Not.

And what is happening at home while Cheney is traveling?

The jury in the Scooter Libby trial continues to deliberate.

Connection? Of course.

-- Steve Clemons

Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has a good short summary out today on the differences in the main Democratic presidential hopefuls on how to proceed in the Iraq War.

This blogger is quoted in the piece, but the interesting thing is that while every major candidate is now "tilting" towards a position that contender Dennis Kucinich and former Presidential possibilities Russ Feingold and Tom Vilsack advocated -- getting out of Iraq immediately -- none of the others think that the US should begin withdrawing forces right away.

The article does a good job parsing the nuanced differences between Iraq related proposals from Richardson, Kucinich, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd.

-- Steve Clemons

I met former New York Mayor Rudy Giuiliani on Friday at a pre-fundraising mixer and got to size him up a bit.

Rudy Giuliani is coming out on top in numerous polls -- and surprising a it may seem, he is shown in some of these surveys as the only Republican able to beat either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards -- if the election was held today.

Polls this early are deceptive, but this enthusiasm for Mayor Rudy may indicate another political reality that could hamper the many in the Senate who hope to move into the White House.

Americans don't seem to like to elevate Senators or Congressmen directly to the White House. They seem to need to show other executive abilities -- being in charge of something rather than just voting on legislative proposals.

Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy are the only two presidents in American history that moved from the United States Senate directly to the White House. Nearly every other President was Vice President or a Governor or a General when running for the presidency -- anything it seems but a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative.

This proclivity to promote "executive types" to the White House over "legislative types" is more nuance than definitive but does give some extra sizzle to the candidacies of wannabe White House occupants like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Mayor Giuliani ran a city and has been inducted into a virtual American Hall-of-Fame in the minds and memories of many citizens for the decisive and brave leadership he showed when New York was hit hard by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda acolytes on September 11, 2001.

But what does he think about things?

My colleagues Peter Bergen, who moonlights at CNN's terrorism analyst and is a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, and Paul Cruickshank, a Research Fellow at NYU's Center on Law and Security and frequent collaborator with New America foreign policy projects, have a great Mother Jones cover story piece out measuring the impact that the invasion of Iraq had on globlal terrorism as well as terrrorist incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To see what Iraq has helped bring to the bottom line of the terrorism trend, read the "Iraq Effect."

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

After a week of some too chilly days and uncooperative ice flows (though things are now warming) in Washington, Tucson is paradise. Tonight I saw the stars -- all of them, well, lots of them -- and a great sunset on a 70 degree evening from the Skyline Country Club where I enjoyed a very interesting evening with about 110 members of the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations.

These committees which are in many cities of the United States -- all networked together in an organization called the American Committees on Foreign Relations -- are packed with retired military, foreign service officers and ambassadors, and academics as well as folks just interested in the world. The political orientation, while representing every complexion of the political establishment, is mostly fixed on just being engaged, interested, and hoping for debate.

I enjoyed an interview tonight on KUAT-Channel 6 PBS tonight on a show called Arizona Illustrated with host Bill Buckmaster. We talked politics, and you can watch the clip here if you like. I liked the exchange quite a bit.

Bill referred to my blog as one of the top ten in the country -- when it is really on Congressional Quarterly's top ten in Washington political circles, but who's counting.

And following are a couple of television clips from encounters I had earlier in the week about politics, the internet and blogging on France 24 -- sort of France's answer to CNN.

I really enjoyed this too -- though my co-panelists -- Derek Thomson, editor-in-chief at France 24.com, Guillaume Payre, and Jerome Guillet -- earned my envy as they got to walk off the stage into Paris, and I was in Washington. Here is the segment on "Politics and the Internet."

And then here is a second segment that ran on France 24 more specifically on "Blogs and Politics."

Just submitted for your interest.

I really apologize to the Tucson students and bloggers who contacted me wanting a coffee session. Regrettably I have to catch a 6 am flight back to DC, but I really wish I could hang out and see the big rodeo festival and talk Tucson blogs with some of you. The annual rodeo here combined with a golf extravaganza including Tiger Woods and some other golf stars has taken every available room in the city tomorrow and through the weekend.

I fly back to Washington tomorrow -- and will try to report more on the Chuck Hagel dinner I helped organize the other night and more on what I have learned about Iran's May 2003 offer to the U.S. suggesting comprehensive negotiations.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today is giving an important speech on US-Iran relations at the University of Nebraska at Kearney's James E. Smith Conference on World Affairs.

Hagel suggests that we can't leave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to turn even more ulcerous and not be resolved. He posits that diplomacy, UN mandates and engagement, regional deal-making, new regional security frameworks and credible economic incentives are in a tool kit that can be used to offer something between the bleak, binary, "false choice" between appeasing a nuclear-armed Iran or bombing Iran.

Here is a section of Hagel's diagnosis and prescription on Iran:

Today, the Middle East is more combustible and dangerous than any time in modern history. It is experiencing political upheaval driven by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, religious and ethnic differences, radical Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, despair and the war in Iraq.

Forces and events in the Middle East cannot be neatly categorized. The swirl of Middle East history creates layers upon layers of complexity. There is little transparency in the Middle East. That is a reality that is inescapable and cannot be assumed away. To ignore this reality is to risk being trapped by false choices. . .false choices such as the question, "which is worse -- Iran with nuclear weapons or war with Iran?"

These are not our only choices in dealing with the Middle East and Iran. Diplomatic initiatives, UN mandates, regional cooperation, security frameworks, and economic incentives are part of the mix of international possibilities that must be employed to comprehensively address the challenges of the Middle East.

We will fail to protect and advance America's interests -- in the Middle East and around the world -- if we allow ourselves to be trapped in a self-constructed world based not on reality but on flawed assumptions and flawed judgment leading to flawed policy and dangerous miscalculations.

The United States must approach the Middle East with a clear understanding of the complexities of the region. Our strategic policies must be regional in scope. . .integrating Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, violent Islamic extremism, access to energy supplies, and political reform into a comprehensive policy equation.

This should be developed through consultation, cooperation, and coordination with our regional allies Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel. This will require a new regional diplomatic and economic framework to work within. . .a new Middle East frame of reference.

This makes so much sense and is exactly the sort of regional concert that Under Secretary of State Nick Burns mentioned last night during Q&A at his Atlantic Council speech. Burns noted that Iran has some choices -- and can move a normalization agenda forward and that Condi Rice will directly meet Iran's foreign minister if it meets some key conditions. While I think we should meet without those conditions, Burns made it sound as if we were ready to deal.

Burns noted that Iran's friends in the world today were Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. He may have tossed another nation or two in there -- but he failed to mention Iraq. He also noted that it is remarkable to see Egypt and India voting against Iran on the IAEA Board of Governors. So, an integrated approach to foreign policy is possible -- though this seems not to be something that the Vice President or President seem to want to talk much about.

Hagel also has called for the President to appoint a special Presidential Envoy to represent the "day-to-day bolting together of a Middle East peace process." I think that the person to play that role for the President is former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

While emissaries like John Bolton are now doing all they can to undermine the President's emerging foreign policy in cases like North Korea -- Powell has been studiously loyal to Bush. He won't write or say anything of import that will undermine the President he served -- at least not until after the next President of the United States is sworn in.

Bush should take advantage of Powell's loyalty and the respect that Powell still commands globally and make him the Middle East arm-twister. Elliot Abrams, who is not a productive player when it comes to moving a new stable equilibrium forward in the Middle East, would be trumped by Powell's status and engagement.

Yesterday evening, I posed a question to Under Secretary of State and former US Ambassador to NATO R. Nicholas Burns at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council of the United States. I think the meeting will appear today and during the coming week on C-Span.

I suggested that:

While former Ambassador Bolton is saying highly critical things of America's recent deal with North Korea -- and I admit that there may still be some difficulty in the implementation of that deal -- there was an "equilibrium of interests" among the key stakeholders around the North Korea problem that snapped into place.

It seems to me that that "template" which may prove successful is not a new one. It's the same kind of template that we applied to Afghanistan in 2002 when Ambassador James Dobbins, Zalmay Khalilzad, Ryan Crocker and others worked with Iran and other regional stakeholders to pull off the "Bonn Conference" stabilizing Afghanistan at that time and punctuating President Karzai's launch.

If we could negotiate and interact with Iran in 2002 -- which we clearly did under this Bush administration -- why can't we attempt such a regional approach, or regional template, with Iraq? Not to do so seems to me to be very "un-Nick Burns like."

Burns was terrific. He did not address the John Bolton complaints about North Korea and said that a problematic history of US-North Korea relations requires us to watch carefully how this deal is implemented. He said that China's commitment to a deal became the new ingredient for success in this case. He didn't take my bait on Iraq -- but suggested that the multi-party framework that worked with Afghanistan (then) and recently in North Korea -- was what we needed to deploy in dealing with Iran.

He said that the equilibrium of interests around Iran among major stakeholders was beginning to click and that he sensed important and noticeable new flexibility seeming to appear on Iran's side.

Burns skill at answering my and other questions in the room last night was pretty mesmerizing. He's an outrageously good diplomat, sort of like the antithesis, as I see it, of Ambassador Bolton.

But John Bolton is going to give the world some insight into his diplomacy. Was the bluster really just diplomatic tactic? What was behind his public call that Cuba was developing biological weapons of mass destruction -- which turned out to be false? Or his view in 2001 and 2002, we should be bombing North Korea rather than reaching out diplomatically? Who was he checking up on in those famous National Security Agency Intercepts that arguably became the item most important in ultimately blocking his confirmation as US Ambassador to the United Nations in the U.S. Senate? Did he see his boss and immediate supervisory authority to be the President and/or Vice President, skipping past Colin Powell -- or did he mostly behave under the supervision of Powell and Richard Armitage?

There are a ton of questions John Bolton might delve into in a perhaps "tell-all" or "tell-some" book, to use Al Kamen's phrasing, that Bolton may publish before year's end.

Here's a snippet from the Washington Post "In the Loop" column:

Speaking of authors, John Bolton's tell-all book on his days at the State Department and as ambassador to the United Nations could be coming out as early as the end of this year.

All right, maybe not a classic "tell-all" -- perhaps just a "tell-some" -- but top folks in Foggy Bottom and at the United Nations are most surely not going to be happy when this one comes out. The buzz is that it's going to focus mostly on Bolton's work at the United Nations, where he's said to be still upset at his inability to lop off 10 of the building's 38 floors that he had said were expendable. The book is likely to rank the floors in order of those most expendable.

Unclear how Bolton will treat his most recent bosses, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. His view of Rice may have altered a bit after last week's agreement with North Korea on its nuclear program, an agreement Bolton and other conservatives have criticized as "a bad deal." There are others at State sure to come in for their share of abuse.

No working title yet and no publisher, although several have expressed interest. But if this is to come out before Christmas, he'd better get typing.

A friend of mine who is very close to John Bolton told me that The Washington Note will probably not make it into any serious Bolton expose on his style of diplomacy and his vision of American national security interests. I was told that Bolton wouldn't want to give this blog such pleasure or recognition. That's fine -- and that 's a quite honest answer.

But whether one appreciates John Bolton's "applied Jesse Helmsianism" to global affairs or not, the book should be fascinating.

It will be interesting to see whether Bolton will thank Nick Burns, Condi Rice and Colin Powell for their professional and personal guidance and counsel during his years of work with them. Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Tomorrow night, Thursday, I will be speaking at the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations. Regrettably, I show up at about 4 pm, do a television interview, and then the dinner and return to Washington the next day at 6 am -- so no coffee house gatherings this round.

On Friday, I am going to participate in a roundtable discussion with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and then participate in a dinner with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, who I saw tonight as well at the Atlantic Council. I'll have something posted on Nick Burns' speech tomorrow.

Last night, I organized a salon dinner for Senator Chuck Hagel on the topic of getting America's national security portfolio back in shape. It was a fantastic evening -- and need to get that material posted as well, probably tomorrow during the air flight.

Sorry I'm dragging on a few of these interesting sessions -- including more commentary on the Iran conference last week, but I'll get the key parts up soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I received an email yesterday evening from Leigh Ann Ambrosi, Director of Marketing for Sterling Publications, announcing that Sterling's new imprint, Union Square Press, had signed Alan Weisman -- "a veteran producer with CBS News, 60 Minutes and Charlie Rose -- to write Prince of Darkness -- Richard Perle: The Kingdom, the Power, and the End of Empire in America.

Weisman authored Lone Star: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Dan Rather. The release refers to Richard Perle as a "hugely influential foreign policy thinker" and "a fixture of the Washington establishment for more than three decades."

Strobe Talbott actually dubbed Perle "the prince of darkness" in his important Reagan era arms control book, Deadly Gambits: The Reagan Administration and the Stalemate in Nuclear Arms Control in which Talbott chronicled the near constant dueling between then Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and then State Department Director of Politico-Military Affairs Richard Burt.

But what caught my eye in this otherwise OK press announcement of a book not out until Thanksgiving this year was this bit:

While not an authorized book, Perle has granted the author extraordinary access, with multiple one-on-one interviews.

Maybe I'm just too skeptical of Perle's willingness to cooperate. While Sterling may be a good publishing house, this is not a Seymour Hersh expose on him. Perle is probably cooperating because he thinks he can trade his stories in a quid pro quo deal for kind treatment in the book.

The publisher and writer must be aware of what animates Perle's interest to cooperate. In such a release announcing a biography of not only a hugely influential foreign policy thinker but a hugely controversial personality who was part of the bandwagon that duped America into a reckless war against Iraq, it would be useful to know what the writer is doing beforehand to make sure that he is not in fact seriously manipulated by Perle -- who I admit is one of the most effectively shrewd, compelling, and frequently disturbing policy personalities in Washington.

I still want to know what Richard Perle knew and when he knew it when he told me in October 2002 that we would not find WMDs in Iraq.

-- Steve Clemons

The New York Times ran a lead editorial today suggesting that to keep its ranks full, the US military is digging more deeply into the available American labor pool than it perhaps should and has already issued more than 125,000 "moral waivers" to new enlistees.

The article suggests that in some cases, the military is putting weapons into the hands of serious criminals.

The editorial, in part, reads:

To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of "moral waivers," which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks.

Last year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women -- or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America's four military services.

Most of last year's Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 -- double the number in 2003 -- were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems.

Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.

But the Pentagon is discharging more than 700 people a year who are determined to be homosexuals -- who in nearly every case have performed their service honorably on behalf of their country and uniformed service.

But it goes beyond troops on the front line. The military apparently has little problem putting major weapons systems into the hands of criminals while at the same time discharging Arabic-speaking linguists.

Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) recently made a colorful comment to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the disturbing trend of discharging smart, gay language experts. Ackerman actually suggests that the U.S. military seems so fearful of homosexuals that the terrorists might figure this out and recruit "a platoon of lesbians to run us out of Baghdad."

A report on Ackerman's comment:

Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) today urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to consider hiring military linguists discharged under the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. During hearings on the 2008 State Department budget, Ackerman pressed Secretary Rice to address the government's foreign language deficit by employing discharged lesbian and gay linguists with training in Arabic and Farsi.

"Considering the critical shortage of linguists in the armed forces, a platoon of Arabic-speaking lesbians may be just what the military needs."

Secretary Rice responded that she "certainly will look at what we are doing right now," when asked by Ackerman if the proposal was realistic.

"(I)t seems that the military has gone around and fired a whole bunch of people who speak foreign languages -- Farsi and Arabic, etc.," Ackerman said. "For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are (of) terrorists, but they're very brave with the terrorists," he continued. "If the terrorists ever got hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad," Ackerman said.

"Considering the critical shortage of linguists in the armed forces, a platoon of Arabic-speaking lesbians may be just what the military needs," said Sharon Alexander, deputy director of policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "In fact, faced with the shortage of language experts, the military would do well to consider Congressman Ackerman's point. We cannot afford to lose critical personnel because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' There are many brave gay men and lesbians who report for duty every day, and their contributions are immeasurably important to our national security."

Changing the culture of any major institution is difficult -- and the Pentagon is an institution strongly hardened in more ways than one -- but it should concern military leaders and our political representatives that military culture can so easily adapt to a proliferation of "moral waivers" permitting criminals into the ranks -- rather than permitting homosexual men and women to perform military service.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Freedom to Serve has nice follow up post that links to other good material on this subject.

-- Steve Clemons

Annie posing as a "puppy wrap"

On a good ziggy romp. . .

Over the hill and through the woods and under the log. . .

The Dynamic Duo in action -- DC bad guys watch out!

Hey -- Oakley. . .Annie. . . .Wait for me!!

-- Steve Clemons

This is an intriguing story that hit Newsweek on the role and influence of a relatively unknown super lobbyist and former staffer to Richard Lugar, Richard Hohlt.

Hohlt is one of the major heavyweights in Republican party fundraising. Check out how he has spread the wealth. He's not well-known across America, but all the elite folks running the country will take Hohlt's calls.

Apparently, before Robert Novak wrote his column outing Valerie Plame, he sent a pre-publication copy to Richard Hohlt. Hohlt then sent the Novak story to Karl Rove to give him a "head's up."

Fascinating. That is the way Washington works. Circles within circles.

Hohlt did not know that Rove had already dumped what he knew about Valerie Plame Wilson to Novak -- but still the way the web is woven is important for outsiders to see.

He has for many years run an elite dinner group called "Off the Record." Top tier DC pols regularly attend. I have never had the opportunity.

I had heard of Hohlt but don't think I have met him before.

This is part of the political machine in Washington. An important journalist needs sources, lobbyists need access, the presidential adviser needs to know what is going on, and they all trade in information.

-- Steve Clemons