A little over year ago after Paul Wolfowitz's unceremonious departure from the World Bank, the newly appointed head of the World Bank, Bob Zoellick, went on a "listening tour" both as a symbolic gesture to the world to repair damaged relations with investors, but also to gather real "intelligence" of sorts on the needs and demands of the institution's global stakeholders.

But listening, as a tactic, also has direct applications for national security and counterterrorism. Last week Sen. Russ Feingold highlighted the critical role for civilians in open source intelligence gathering to fill significant gaps:

The problem is our deficits in information collection, as well as reporting and analysis. By "information," I mean not just intelligence gathered clandestinely, but also information obtained through diplomatic reporting and all the overt channels through which our government learns about the world. Inside and outside the Intelligence Community, our government has failed to coordinate information collection across different departments and agencies...

Appearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Michael Leiter, Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, specifically noted that "much of the information about the instability that can lead to safe havens or ideological radicalization comes not from covert collection but from open collection, best done by Foreign Service officers." The problem is that it is not in the power of Mr. Leiter, or anyone in the Intelligence Community, to make sure that there are enough Foreign Service officers, in the right places, with the right resources.

I was in Beijing just a little over a week ago. Steve isn't kidding about the smog -- on the bad days, visibility is about 10 blocks. On the very worst day, I couldn't see clearly from one side of Tienanmen Square to the other. That was a Friday, which is important because, according to locals, that is the day of the week on which the clouds are seeded to clear out the pollution. I was told on a clear Friday afternoon that there would be heavy rain at precisely 7:30 and sure enough, the rains came.

A prediction: the big story BEFORE the Olympics start will be athletes complaining about the pollution. Right now, it's not a story because the bureau chiefs and in-country reporters who are there are used to it. After the torch arrives, it'll be all about the events (plus, the government plans to limit driving in the city and shut down local industry). But somewhere in the middle, when athletes and sports reporters arrive in advance of the games, this is going to be a big story.

Here's one more uncorroborated rumor passed along from an architect currently supervising the construction of the CCTV building, pictured above. According to the architect, the building will be the second largest building in the world by square footage to the Pentagon. More interestingly, its construction has single-handedly created a spike in world steel prices.

Can anyone confirm or deny? I'm curious.

-- Scott Paul

China's been out of the game for a few hundred years, but it's back.

The Chinese themselves believe that their collective ascendancy is fragile and fraught with problems -- particularly environmental degradation associated with growth. The smog in Beijing really stings the unconditioned eyeball.

I'm staying at the Beijing Friendship Hotel, originally built for Soviet technocrats. All the buildings are massive -- and I'm now across the street at a Starbucks enjoying free wireless -- but nearly got whacked a couple of times by cars and buses speeding by. There are no crosswalks on this large street -- people and autos sort of fight it out. It's kind of the more modern and deadly version of Pamplona.

As modern as China is in many ways, its consumer orientation is still undeveloped. I have gone through a bit of a nightmare in fighting a battle between Expedia and various hotel and airline operators here. Expedia's interface with flight data from Hainan Airlines is completely fouled up. Nothing is correct. So, I am booked on nonexistent flights around which I made a schedule. All of it is now up in the air -- and Expedia has required about 4 hours phone time to figure out how to refund parts of this that were caused by these problems. Not good. Be careful.

Just had an excellent meeting with one of the chief (talented) US watchers from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and also met separately a group of Chinese readers of The Washington Note. I was impressed with their degree of detailed knowledge on the political nuances that divided Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Also, the understanding that observers here in Beijing have between various camps inside the Bush administration was notable. I'd expect that from a high quality expert from CASS -- but the Chinese students and professionals I met were equally impressive.

Reality hit though when I got a 'Google alert' that I was quoted by Trudy Rubin in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. That seems to be one of the newspapers here that is blocked by Chinese internet filters. I have no access to it -- though I can get the New York Times, Washington Post, The Washington Note, Atlantic Monthly, and some others. Just my luck.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm glad Barack Obama's campaign has stated that it is giving up the morphed Obama/Presidential Seal podium sign. I didn't like it.

But Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars had an excellent retort on presidential seal hubris. See above graphic and the link to her piece.

-- Steve Clemons

About to board the direct flight from Dulles to Beijing. Look forward to catching up with TWN readers there.

But a great friend of mine who works for the State Department in Vienna sent me this clip that will make any travelers, or wannabe globe-trotters, smile.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Obama put out this statement today on his just announced trips to Europe, Israel and Jordan:

"This trip will be an important opportunity for me to assess the situation in countries that are critical to American national security, and to consult with some of our closest friends and allies about the common challenges we face," said Barack Obama. "Israel is a strong and close friend of the United States, and is confronting grave threats from Gaza to Tehran. Jordan has been a close partner in the peace process and a host of other issues of common concern. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come. This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security -- and global security -- in the 21st century."

I'm glad he's going. But let's hope that he focuses more on the problem of a DIVIDED Palestine rather than bringing up the issue of a "divided Jerusalem" again.

And just for the rhetoric spinners, it would be NICE that while talking about the importance of Israeli security and the threats faced by the lonely regional superpower (with wich I concur), he might also address the miserable living conditions of those in Gaza and the West Bank. Some empathy with both sides is more than appropriate -- and is practiced every day by leading Israelis who are debating these regional problems in far broader and more inclusive terms than is happening in the United States.

-- Steve Clemons

Some quick thoughts that I just shared on North Korea nuclear deal-making thus far:

-- Steve Clemons

We're hosting a session at New America Foundation this afternoon with National Economics Correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, Peter Gosselin, and CSPAN's BookTV on the shift of financial risk to individual Americans. Peter's new book, High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families, explains how during a quarter century of steady economic growth the consequences of illness, job loss, or separation can devastate the security of a family more than ever before.

Live Video streamed by Ustream

Many think of the past 25 years as a period of prosperity and growth, and rightly so. We've enjoyed high growth, low inflation, and millions of Americans enjoy more material wealth. What isn't accounted for in these statistics is the devastating consequences of falling off the track to prosperity.

-- Sam Sherraden

If I write "net nootrality" the way it should be spelled, my posts pop up on a zillion google alerts -- which produce an avalanche of emails from stakeholders in the debate.

I'm trying to get ready for a China trip so I can't handle an email tsunami this week. But suffice it to say that I've spent some time with players in the Net N standoff from across the spectrum and have some more commiserating and learning to do -- but this is a really intriguing, high stakes policy challenge.

However, at the end of last April, I received this email from some Net N enthusiasts committed to laissez-faire gaming rights:

This is awkward as the Australian American Leadership Dialogue meeting at which I posed a question to Vice President Cheney was off the record -- but it's out there now in the New York Times.

It was a fascinating, little bit scary moment because the Vice President after speaking for quite a while about a lot of tough subjects just went stone silent after I posed a question on North Korea.

I hear that Cheney did look back when he was leaving the stage and did flash me a semi-friendly grin, or at least others thought that was what it was. I'm not so sure.

-- Steve Clemons

Only a few hours ago a fourth rocket to hit Israel since a truce was agreed to with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip has cast further doubts on the durability of this stopgap measure. That coupled with an increasingly wobbly Olmert, besieged on all fronts by his own Kadima party, Labor, and Likud, feeds a cyclical dynamic that is wearing thin the patience on both sides.

Competing internal actors retain perverse incentives to play spoiler in order to preempt a resolution that leaves them weakened or excluded from power. In the case of the most recent rocket attack, it is the Fatah-aligned Al-Aqsa Martyrs that seems to be playing spoiler to a Hamas-initiated truce. Robert Malley and Hussein Agha had warned against such possibilities earlier this year writing:

The truth is, none of these two-way deals is likely to succeed. In tandem, no two parties are capable enough to deliver; any one party is potent enough to be a spoiler. There can be neither Israeli-Palestinian stability nor a peace accord without Hamas's acquiescence. Intra-Palestinian reconciliation will not last without Israel's unspoken assent and willingness to lift its siege. Any agreement between Hamas and Israel over Abbas's strong objection is hard to imagine.

For any of these dances to go forward, all will have to go forward. Synchronicity is key. Fatah and Hamas will need to reach a new political arrangement, this time not one vigorously opposed by Israel. Hamas and Israel will need to achieve a cease-fire and prisoner exchange, albeit mediated by Abbas. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will need to negotiate a political deal with Abbas, who will have to receive a mandate to do so from Hamas.

The current mind-set, in which each side considers dealmaking by the other two to be a mortal threat, could be replaced by one in which all three couplings are viewed as mutually reinforcing. For that, the parties' allies ought to cast aside their dysfunctional, destructive, ideologically driven policies. Instead, they should encourage a choreography that minimizes violence and promotes a serious diplomatic process. Otherwise, no matter how many times President Bush travels to the region, there is no reason to believe that 2008 will offer anything other than the macabre pattern of years past.

Perhaps the vacuum opened with the United States going MIA allowed some durable options to emerge through regional leadership from Ankara and Doha. But despite some recent success on other fronts, the Middle East will continue to command U.S. attention and remain the defining challenge of this (and perhaps future) decade(s).

To examine these prospects and the contours of a durable equilibrium and why these Middle East challenges won't go away, the New America Foundation will be hosting a discussion with American Strategy Program Fellows Ghaith Al-Omari and Daniel Levy -- two of the most prescient observers of the conflict. Joining them will be Aaron Miller, a former U.S. negotiator and important voice on this issue.

For those who cannot attend in person, the discussion will stream live by webcast on this page.

-- Sameer Lalwani

One of my best international politcal pals is head of the Green Party in Germany, Reinhard Buetikofer. He has been an outstanding leader of his party -- and I hear is soon stepping down to run for the European Parliament. Interestingly, another favorite of mine -- Cem Oezdemir who is now a Green Party member of the European Parliament -- is planning to run for the Chairmanship of the Greens. It's a perfect swap.

Today, I'll be having a discussion with Buetikofer live on TWN from 12:15 pm til 1:45 pm on the subject of China and climate change.

-- Steve Clemons

I've just returned from an epic trip in Russia, Central Asia and China to find this -- a tentative plan by Gazprom to build a direct pipeline from Russia to Abkhazia, a breakaway region in Georgia that is currently the major wedge between Russia and Georgia.

What I reported two days ago about the White House asking Congress to remove North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terror list was confirmed a few moments ago by President Bush.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Bush also suspended sanctions on North Korea that are tied to the "Trading with Enemies Act".

This is huge news -- and is a giant step in putting US-North Korea relations on a new and more constructive track. This is a success for the Bush administration -- and more importantly for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacfic Affairs Christopher Hill who has been a punching bag for former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton who has been spitting on Hill's deal-making for the last year.

There are still a lot of questions ranging from the interesting issue of North Korea cooperation with Syria's alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel and other issues -- but when President Bush gave Colin Powell the positive nod in the first week of April 2003 to proceed with the Six Party Talks, Bush and Cheney ignored Iran's offer of a structure for normalized US-Iran relations the very same week in 2003.

The contrast in circumstances between where America is today with North Korea and where we are with Iran is vital to note. We 'engaged' North Korea and blew it with Iran.

Congrats to Christopher Hill, John Negroponte, Condoleezza Rice, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and his successor William Burns. And for those who want to knock China around, they should know that this entire process was impossible without China's impressive, collaborative diplomacy.

Barack Obama's inclination towards engagement with problematic leaders around the world now is now buttressed by an experience of the George W. Bush administration. Too bad so much of the rest of America's foreign policy portfolio didn't get this same kind of attention.

-- Steve Clemons

The "Media Consortium" via correspondent and former New America Foundation research associate Brian Beutler posted this short clip of three questions posed to Senator Russ Feingold during his recent talk before the New America Foundation.

He addresses FISA and also articulates concerns that an Obama presidency may not walk back the many powers usurped by the Executive Branch during the George W. Bush administration.

It's an important five minutes of video.

-- Steve Clemons

On June 11th, I posted a link to a videologue of McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis walking through Senator McCain's strategy with the public.

Today, the Obama team has released a set of powerpoints that campaign manager David Plouffe used in a "strategy" discussion with the media. I've attached the pdf file here.

One of the most interesting -- and obvious -- graphs shows an "Enthusiasm Gap" between Republicans and Democrats. I prefer to call it a "Sizzle Gap."

Voter enthusiasm among Dems is running at 61% and among Republicans 35% (despite the Gallup poll results which show these two tied. . .at least for today).

So, the obvious question is whether Obama -- in style and in policy substance -- will remain bold and dramatic, or instead make himself more bland to appeal to the center. And what will McCain do to upgrade his sizzle?

-- Steve Clemons

I check in with the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll frequently and think it has been consistently on target. Today, Gallup has Obama and McCain tied at 45% each.

But four days ago, Newsweek had a poll out showing Obama 15 points ahead. Those on TWN who want to help me (and others) understand the basis of this gap would be most appreciated.

I see some close to Obama thinking that he's got some real distance now but that the race will have its ups and downs, zigs and zags. But if Gallup is right, this is surprisingly neck and neck -- even with the American middle class feeling squeezed from so my directions simultaneously.

-- Steve Clemons

Today at 12:15 pm EST, I'll be having a discussion with former John Edwards campaign Senior Economic Policy Adviser Leo Hindery and ISI Group financial markets expert Tom Gallagher. We will be discussing high oil prices, declining home values, and what all of this means for the American middle class.

You are welcome to watch live here at The Washington Note.

Here is a link to the video and audio of the event that was streamed live.

-- Steve Clemons

(Asst. Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill)

Tonight, The Washington Note confirmed that the Bush administration will "ask Congress" to de-list North Korea from America's "terrorist watch list." This request will be made on Thursday -- if there are no last minute, unexpected interventions.

Rumors have been kicking around that this might be happening, but no administration officials would confirm until today that this was finally decided.

During the day today, I spoke with officials from the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense, President Bush's staff, and the Office of the Vice President -- and several sources from these departments confirmed that the administration was moving forward on formally asking Congress to remove North Korea from the controversial watch list -- which is seen as a key confidence building step by North Korea and China in moving towards North Korea's eventual return to the nuclear non-proliferation club.

Sources also tell TWN that while the Bush administration will take this step Thursday, Vice President Cheney's office was a dissenting voice in the administration's internal discussions.

While North Korea's behavior continues to be erratic and often troubling, the Bush administration's decision will be considered a major victory for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary John Negroponte, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others -- but the real winner is Department of State Asst. Secretary for East Asia Affairs Christopher Hill -- who has been under almost constant assault from John Bolton and others opposed to deal-making with North Korea.

More on the implications tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

Sam Sherraden is a Program Associate with the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program and writes for Global Economic Snapshot.

As my cab approached Dulles Airport last week from my Washington home 45 minutes away, I looked up and was astonished to see the meter at only 45 dollars. After the driver paid for gas on a 60 mile ride (the 30 mile drive to the airport and 30 mile drive back to the district where he could get another fare), costs of vehicle maintenance, and one and half hours of time, I couldn't believe he turned much of a profit. I leaned forward and asked him a question to that effect. "It's not just gas, man!" he replied. "Milk and all those things I feed my kids. They are ALL more expensive."

Oil prices peaked last weak at just under $140 a barrel and gas prices nationwide have risen above $4 per barrel. Middle income Americans and small business are struggling to find ways around higher food and energy prices. The Wall Street Journal offered some dismal advice last week on how small business can survive with higher prices by rerouting deliveries to save fuel, using energy efficient light bulbs, and holding meetings online instead of paying for airfare. But when compared the rising cost of inputs for business and families, these savings are limited in scope and impact. The cab driver and many other folks I've spoken with are not feeling any relief.

Nor does it appear relief is on the horizon. High prices of energy and food coincide with a deflating housing bubble and sinking consumer confidence. Much of the optimism about the economy has been torn apart and replaced by anxiety. The stimulus checks appear to have provided a bump to consumption, but it is unclear that once that shot in the arm wears off the economy will be on a path to recovery. Trouble in financial markets is spilling into the real economy with more financial institutions on loose footing and access to credit continually difficult. The Fed has aggressively cut interest rates, but this erodes the dollar, causes inflation, and forces international investors to look toward the euro. Put simply, the outlook for the remainder of 2008 looks grim.

To discuss these issues and a set of policy solutions to reorient the economy during the next administration, we booked two events at the New America Foundation this week.

On Wednesday, June 25 Leo Hindery, former Senior Economic Advisor to John Edwards and current unofficial advisor to Barack Obama, and Tom Gallagher, Senior Managing Director of International Strategy and Investment Group, Inc., will speak about structural changes we need to strengthen the economy.

On Friday, June 27 Los Angeles Times National Economics Correspondent Peter Gosselin will speak about his new book, High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families.

-- Sam Sherraden

Senator Russ Feingold's blunt and captivating discussion at the New America Foundation yesterday about America's strategic intelligence deficit can be watched here.

While his talk focused mostly about the structure of the national intelligence system and its capacity, during questions, he goes after the FISA compromise and calls it a farce that hides the real issue -- which is that Americans who communicate electronically abroad are going to be spied on more invasively than ever before in the nation's history. The Q&A is quickfire, substantive, and should be listened to.

The entire presentation was important and provocative. A pdf of his prepared comments can be accessed here. (his text can also be read on the web below this related article by Nick Juliano at Raw Story).

For those who prefer, this is an mp3 of the meeting.

-- Steve Clemons

(post-2007 Australian American Leadership Dialogue Dinner: Anne Keating, Anne Wexler, Steve Clemons, Lesley Russell, Bruce Wolpe, Former Prime Minister Paul Keating; photo credit: Ambassador Joe Duffey)

A number of readers have been asking me how a typical day of mine in blogland and the the world of think tanks goes in Washington.

The most difficult challenge I have in my schedule is just getting time to "think." The DC political scene is very time-consuming, wrapped up in meetings that I'm attending or hosting. There's so much that I read each day or run across that I want to blog about -- so I'm constantly scribbling, building a huge file of envelopes, napkins, the backs of flyers that I write on and then stuff in a folder hoping to one day get to in a future essay or blog post.

But over the next few days, I'm participating in the Australian American Leadership Dialogue -- which corrals a powerhouse group of Australian political and business leaders with an equally high end crowd of Americans. An Australian political bridge-builder named Phil Scanlan on the Australian side and Anne Wexler and former USIA chief Joe Duffey among others helped launch this annual meeting 16 years ago -- and I feel fortunate to be part of it.

Streaming Video by Ustream.TV

The subject is national security intelligence and information gaps. I'll be hosting Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) for a talk on legislation that he and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have offered to help address some of the structural problems in national intelligence.

The meeting will start at noon and end at 1:15 pm EST.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: On a related note, You can read selected excerpts of the talk by National Intelligence Chairman Thomas Fingar on June 4th.

Note to Obama Spokesman Bill Burton and Campaign Director David Axelrod:

This is probably not a good thing to repeat. Reflects hubris.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm up in Ottawa today speaking for the Canadian government's "Deputy Ministers' Retreat" along with former Ambassador and Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, Brookings governance policy czar Thomas Mann, and AEI's trade guru Claude Barfield.

But we quickly learned from local residents that we weren't the only Washingtonians who had invaded and that John McCain is in Ottawa today as well speaking to the Economic Club of Toronto (though the event is here in Ottawa).

My hunch is that McCain is intending to signal that he's not interested in re-opening NAFTA and positioning himself as the hyper-free trade globalist.

My hope is that in response, Barack Obama makes a compelling case that there is an economic strategy that drives the benefits of globalization and trade to the sectors of American society that have thus far been gut-punched by globalization. There is a principled "smart globalization strategy" that is neither protectionist nor manically neo-liberal. We need to have that debate, and Obama needs to become a proactive and articulate messenger for what 'Smart Globalization' could look like.

Just wanted to add this to the political notebook.

-- Steve Clemons

Patrick Doherty is the Deputy Director of the American Strategy Program at The New America Foundation, and the Director of our US-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.

The New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow will release the results of a Pakistani, pre-election public opinion poll today at New America at 12:15. Click here for more information.

I can't go into the details of these latest polling results because of an embargo, but you can be the first to hear them TODAY at the New America Foundation. I can show a little ankle, however. The polls promise a major change in attitudes towards U.S. policy, a large shift of support across the Pakistani political spectrum, and unprecedented trends in U.S.-Pakistani perceptions and domestic instability. Initial word from colleagues in Pakistan is that this will send shockwaves through the country.

Come join me and my colleagues Peter Bergen, Nick Schmidle, along with Ken Ballen, the president of Terror Free Tomorrow this afternoon for the global release of the results.

--Patrick Doherty

I read this today and boy, it seemed familiar. . .

and then I remembered I posted this yesterday on Douglas Feith, Lawrence Wilkerson and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

I'm sure it's just coincidence. . .

-- Steve Clemons

Friday (tomorrow), I will be speaking at the Deputy Ministers' Retreat in Ottawa, Canada. It's all off the record though. Then back to DC.

From June 29 - July 2, I will be in Beijing.

July 3 - July 4, in Guilin, China.

July 5-6, Xian.

July 7- 9, Shanghai

July 10-13, Hong Kong.

-- Steve Clemons

I'll be moderating a session with Senator Russ Feingold on Monday, 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm EST on America's "National Security Intelligence Deficit."

You can watch live streaming of the event here at The Washington Note.

For more on the substance of the event, read Andrew Lebovich.

-- Steve Clemons

In light of the September 11 attacks, the incorrect reports of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the current debate over Iran's nuclear weapons, the American intelligence community has received an incredible amount of scrutiny in recent years. This criticism has brought with it a strong desire for reform, one that is being treated very differently by various scholars, intelligence professionals and policy makers.

In his 2007 book Enemies of Intelligence: Knowledge and Power in American Security, renowned political scientist Richard Betts deals with the reform agenda in intelligence by outlining the number of challenges to gathering effective intelligence. These "enemies" as he terms them are imposing obstacles to intelligence collection, and bolster his claim that people are at times too quick and to harsh in their judgment of the intelligence community.

I agree with Barack Obama's rejection of public financing in his presidential race because he is right that the ecosystem of campaign finance remains warped and that one side running tied by the rules of public finance and the other side essentially not would produce a disputed, potentially unfair outcome.

Yesterday, former Defense Department Under Secretary Douglas Feith failed to show up at a Congressional hearing investigating abusive interrogation techniques used on combat detainees because he did not want to appear along side former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.

I happen to know that Wilkerson would have conducted himself as a courteous professional with a profoundly different view from Feith -- but it is true that Wilkerson has offered some colorful comments in the past about the pro-torture pro-harsh interrogation techniques Defense Under Secretary and close pal of Ahmad Chalabi. These were made at a session I hosted at the New America Foundation and which were featured on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show:

But for the public's benefit and the record, here is an html copy of Wilkerson's prepared testimony.

I have made a quick roster of the occasions Wilkerson mentions Douglas Feith in his prepared comments:

1. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld and certain of his subordinates wanted the war that was coming to be a broad, global one, not just against al-Qa'ida. Read Mr. Feith's book, War and Decision, and he will tell you in that book how seriously he and Mr. Rumsfeld wanted to broaden the war. He will also tell you that he and Mr. Rumsfeld believed the fight was not simply against al-Qa'ida but against every terrorist who might raise his head, from the criminal thugs in the Philippines called Abu Sayyaf, to the al Qa'ida derivatives in Southeast Asia known as Jemaah Islamiyah. From the tone in the book, one gets the impression that Mr. Feith would have dearly loved to throw Hamas and Hezbollah into the mix as well.

2. [Rumsfeld] also set up a sort of intelligence "red team" in the office of his Undersecretary for Policy, Mr. Feith. This team vetted the intelligence community's raw materials, analysis and findings.

3. These were the lawyers who set the legal background against which other-than-standard interrogation methods would be explained away as "in accord with the Geneva Conventions", "not constituting torture", "fully within the Article II powers of the Commander-in Chief", and so forth. At Defense, Jim Haynes and Douglas Feith would adapt these views to their needs at the Pentagon. Indeed, in the recent book Torture Team by English barrister Philippe Sands, in extended interviews Mr. Feith appears to express no small degree of pride in having helped make the Geneva Conventions adaptable to the needs of the new interrogation regime. In my view, this was done largely through artifice not unlike the angels sitting on the pinhead. Such artifice may appeal to certain lawyers but I assure you soldiers have no use for it for they know how dangerous such arguments are when put to the hard act of execution in the field.

4. Meanwhile, the operational end of this affair was orchestrated by the Secretary of Defense and his subordinates, Haynes, Feith, Stephen Cambone and I'm quite certain others. Certain of these individuals, including Addington, even visited the prison at Guantanamo Bay in September 2002 to get a better grip on what was happening to acquire actionable intelligence and to inform their own views about what was possible.

I think Wilkerson's comments about Feith were fair, honest, and seem consistent with the facts as they have been presented by many in this debate on all sides of the aisle. If Feith didn't like what Wilkerson said about him outside of the hearing room, one must wonder how thin Feith's skin is -- and Feith should revisit the many unkind comments he has made about his ideological rivals inside the Bush administration. And besides, Wilkerson's comments about Feith were really quotes of what General Tommy Franks had said about Feith. Wilkerson just offered a bit of a twang and flourish to Franks' assessment.

This brings me to an interesting and potentially disconcerting auction of lunches with foreign policy personalities being orchestrated by Young Professionals in Foreign Policy -- disconcerting only in that I fear that I will not see the luncheon with me bid on by anybody as all of the other possibilities are provocative and interesting.

Folks will be bidding on "lunch dates" with the following crowd:

Paul Wolfowitz, John Podesta, Danielle Pletka, Richard Perle, Norman Mineta, Bruce McNamer, Roderick von Lipsey, Robert King, Walter Isaacson, John Hamre, Lee Hamilton, Michele Flournoy, Douglas Feith, Steve Clemons

Someone please bid a couple of bucks on me -- just so that I can maintain some dignity next time I'm paired on a show with AEI's Danielle Pletka or even Paul Wolfowitz, who I know will get some bids.

But to spice up the lunch possibility with Douglas Feith and to appeal to the possibility of higher principles in Feith and Lawrence Wilkerson for this charity-directed fundraiser, YPFP should ask Wilkerson and Feith to double date. That would be interesting -- and also let a Daily Show camera in on the fun.

-- Steve Clemons

(Pictured Above: Dr. Susan Rice with Barack Obama)

On a conference call this morning, Dr. Susan Rice, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), and Greg Craig (whose client's have included Russian dissident writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Elian Gonzalez's father, Mr. Juan Miguel) defended Barack Obama against recent criticisms from Sen. McCain and other prominent Republicans about Obama's approach to counterterrorism.

The Obama camp went to great lengths to show the nuances of Obama's counterterrorism plan. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Rice's argument that in addition to being strong militarily, Obama's plan will "dry up support for extremists" in part by upholding at home the values we preach abroad, even with respect to terrorists and extremists. This claim requires more explanation as the campaign continues, but is a promising start. I have also not heard any mention of reducing terrorist support as a means of fighting terrorism from the Republican side, and it is an often overlooked but important factor in reducing the effectiveness of terrorist groups.

The real zinger of the call also came from Dr. Rice, criticizing former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In response to Giuliani's criticism of the Supreme Court decision allowing Guantanamo Bay detainees to petition for the right of habeas corpus, Rice read a quote from a 1994 New York times article about the trial of the bombers in the first World Trade Center attacks. Giuliani said that trying the bombers, "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon--the law." Rice then said that Giuliani thus, "was for the law before he was against it."

Look for more attempts to show McCain and his surrogates as "flip-floppers" on important issues as the Presidential campaign wears on. But for now I was very pleased to hear Obama's more complex, but also more pragmatic and reasoned approach to fighting terrorism.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Former Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Martin Feldstein pens a case in today's Financial Times for Saudi Arabia to remove its currency's peg from the dollar to ease their inflation problem. Inflation has raised political and economic risks for the region by stretching consumers' household budgets with rising food prices and shrinking remittances sent back home by migrant workers, particularly from South Asia.

Though there may be an economic case for this, Saudi Arabia will not move on this in the near future -- as Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann wrote last Sunday in Abu Dhabi's newest publication The National -- as their peg to the dollar is more of a strategic calculation than a purely economic one. However Leverett and Mann point out that the costs incurred from this relationship by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are rising and can only be sustained for so long before they overwhelm the strategic rationale of the dollar peg. They write:

On the strategic front, are GCC states prepared to use their financial support for the United States to influence the ways in which Washington exercises its military hegemony in the region? In private, Gulf Arab officials and elites complain about the consequences of US strategic initiatives in recent years, voicing concerns that US foreign policy may be creating more numerous and potent threats to the security of GCC states than those against which the US military protects them.

But, for all that GCC states complain about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example, they have effectively financed the whole operation by continuing to purchase US treasury securities and other dollar-denominated reserve assets. Will GCC states be so accommodating again -- if, say, the United States initiated a military confrontation with Iran?

Attacking Iran would obviously change the equation but in a "geopolitical marketplace," even the aggregate of minor provocations prod the GCC states to diversify away from their strategic ties with the US. Such a provocation could come in the form of the recent case being advanced by eleven US senators for the US Trade Representative's Office to bring suit against eight OPEC states (including four GCC states) that are also WTO members.

Andrew Lebovich is a Research Intern with the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program

The Obama campaign and various surrogates jumped on comments made by Senator John McCain last week that it was "not too important" when American troops come home from Iraq, but rather what the conditions on the ground are.

Yet this is not the most interesting quote from Sen. McCain's remarks. The focus should instead be on his statement that "General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when we are [ready to withdraw]." This is reminiscent of President Bush's assertions lat September that he would only base his decision on the future of the surge primarily on Petraeus' recommendations.

When President Bush or Senator McCain defers to Petraeus in this way, they are abdicating responsibility for decisions made about Iraq policy. This is a feeble attempt to hide behind the legitimacy of the military, one of a declining number of institutions viewed favorably by Americans (a 69% approval rating in a 2007 Gallup poll, as opposed to 14% for Congress).

But it is more problematic if McCain or others rely on Petraeus because they genuinely believe only the generals can make the correct decisions about Iraq. This is not at all to say that generals are incapable of national leadership on important issues; many people, including Steve Clemons, have written of the importance of prominent military and civilian leaders such as Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower's experience commanding military operations in World War II helped to inform a balanced approach to foreign and domestic policy. Eisenhower was an avid centrist, famously using his final speech in office to warn against the growing military-industrial complex in America.

Unlike the centrist Eisenhower, however, Petraeus has already been wittingly or unwittingly politicized by the war in Iraq. He, President Bush, and now Sen. McCain have staked their credibility and reputations on the success of the surge. Setting aside arguments on the effectiveness of the surge put forward by respected scholars like Michael O'Hanlon on one side and the New America Foundation's Nir Rosen on the other, this confluence of interest has brought Petraeus before Congress and the American people not just as a general, but as a defender of the Iraq war and advocate of administration policy.

Further, allowing only the Army to make major decisions about foreign policy sets a dangerous precedent. This action would establish the Army essentially as an independent force, and undermines the concept of civilian control of the military. This control allowed President Truman to rein in the extremely popular General Douglas MacArthur, who had plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against China. And in the absence of this control, allowed General William Westmoreland to tell Congress and the American people that the end of the Vietnam War was in sight, even on the eve of the Tet offensive of 1968.

General Petraeus is by all indications a highly intelligent, thoughtful, and capable general. But If Sen. McCain would simply rely on Petraeus to make decisions, he or others on both sides of the political spectrum reduce the office of the President to a vessel that blindly follows others' suggestions instead of weighing different options from different perspectives, and choosing the most appropriate for a given situation.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Pew Global Attitudes Video File can be watched here.

I'm stuck in San Francisco Airport after my United Airlines flight was canceled and many of us cattle were roughed up and redirected to other possible flights home. It's late -- and I'm still battling with United Airlines -- and I'm missing a great discussion meeting I was hoping to host in the morning with four visiting Saudi Majlis Al Shura members. Here is the delegation:

Dr. Bandar Al-Aiban, Member of Al-Shura Council; Chairman of the Saudi - US Friendship Committee; Former Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of Majlis Al-Shura

Mr. Osama Al-Kurdi, Member of Majlis Al-Shura

Mr. Youseuf Al-Mainani, Member of Majlis Al-Shura

Dr. Khalid Al Awwad, Member of Majlis Al-Shura

Instead, Afshin Molavi will host the meeting from 9:00 am - 10:30 am EST. The Majlis Al Shura is basically a privy council advisory body to the Saudi King. When I was last in Saudi Arabia, I had some very productive and interesting discussions with other members of this interesting advisory body.

I've invited just a few people to have a discussion on US-Saudi relations and Saudi views of the Middle East tomorrow -- but it will be on the record and aired live on The Washington Note.

Then, Bruce Stokes and another of his colleagues who worked on the latest round of the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey will release their results tomorrow from 12:15 pm til 1:45 pm EST. I hope to be chairing that meeting. That too will stream live at The Washington Note.

-- Steve Clemons

Osama bin Laden is not the most dangerous man in the world. And while George Bush and Vice President Cheney have been reckless and imperiled America's position in the world, they too don't rank all that high.

But A.Q. Khan does.

And given what we know of this guy, why hasn't an armed drone done to him what American and Israeli forces have done to lesser villains?

In part, I'm being facetious. But seriously, if Khan was out pushing sophisticated warhead designs, he ranks as one of the world's top tier criminals.

-- Steve Clemons

Tim Russert died today from a heart attack. He has been a giant in political news -- and he resisted for the most part much of the corruption of journalist celebratization, though clearly he knew he was a celebrity. I'm very sad about this news.

I remember when I was just moving to Washington and was working for the Nixon Center, I helped organize a forum with Richard Nixon at what was called "Jackson Place" -- a venue off of Lafayette Square in front of the White House that is often used to support the work and meetings of former presidents and as a place for side meetings held by Executive Office of the President staff. Russert came to the meeting and was working desperately to get Nixon on "Meet the Press." Bill Clinton had just begun to consult with Nixon on what to do about an imploding Russia.

Russert never succeeded, but his efforts and my communications with him cemented a many years long acquaintanceship in which Russert regularly complemented the growth and impact of the New America Foundation and this blog, The Washington Note.

This leaves a huge hole in my view in our contemporary political journalism, which is so shoddy and unattractive in many corners.

-- Steve Clemons

Ben Katcher is a Program Associate with the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program.

At the Center for a New American Security "Pivot Point: New Directions for American Security" conference Wednesday, the question was raised of whether the next president is likely to invest his political capital in the domestic or the international sphere.

It is clear from McCain's lack of domestic policy proposals, his record in the Senate, and the way in which he has run his campaign, that as President he would spend his time and resources on international affairs. The question of where a President Obama would spend his capital is trickier.

The political climate favors focusing on domestic issues. This is due to both the current president's excessive emphasis on foreign policy and the inevitable focus on the economy that accompanies a recession. Indeed, a recent poll indicates that a full two-thirds of Americans think that the economy is an extremely important issue, while fewer than one half of Americans attach extreme importance to Iraq.

That said, the next president will inherit two hot wars, an enormously complex and important change in the Asian balance of power, and an international community starved for proactive, positive American engagement. But with the consequences of a diminished American primacy more distant and less palpable to most Americans, pocketbook issues will likely prevail in guiding the agenda after the election.

As J.W. Kingdon's Streams Model shows, the policy-making process involves the complex interplay of ideas, specific challenges, and the prevailing political context. In particular, the decision of where to invest political capital results from a combination of domestic politics, a president's personal inclinations, and how events unfold.

President Clinton tilted toward domestic policy for all three reasons: the Democratic Party is traditionally stronger on domestic issues, the end of the Cold War seemed to provide an opportunity to address domestic challenges, and President Clinton was personally most interested in domestic issues.

President Bush successfully managed a turbulent transition in international affairs with the fall of the Berlin wall, the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War. But his neglect for domestic issues ultimately played into the hands of Clinton's "It's the Economy, Stupid" campaign.

President Reagan was a rare president who was able to implement both a domestic and a foreign policy agenda. This can be attributed to his immense political popularity as well his ability to articulate solutions to both the Cold War and the nation's economic woes that resonated with the American people.

The case of the current president demonstrates the importance that events play in shaping the focus of a president's term. While Bush will certainly be remembered as a foreign policy president, this was not necessarily his intention when he took office. Grover Norquist reminds us that Bush's campaign speeches called for a humble approach to foreign policy in which America would lead by example rather than by empire. Furthermore, as Steve Clemons has argued, the events of September 11 allowed hardliners within his administration to win his "foreign policy soul."

Matt Yglesias has suggested, Obama won the nomination in large part due to his opposition to the Iraq war and his call for diplomatic engagement with dictators, which allowed him to differentiate himself from Hilary Clinton. The issue most likely to compel Obama to focus on foreign policy is Iran - whether it is an escalation of hostilities, a decision to pursue a more robust diplomatic course, or the crossing of a nuclear red line.

Nevertheless, the criteria laid out above suggest that after an election, a President Obama would likely to tack back to domestic issues where he is stronger politically and where his background as a community organizer suggests that his passion lies.

-- Ben Katcher

Yesterday during the Prime Minister's Questions, British Parliament debated the proposal by Gordon Brown's Labor party to extend detention times for terrorist suspects from 28 days to 42 days. It was a type of debate we have had here in the United States, particularly around Guantanamo, military tribunals and habeas corpus but which we probably need far more of.

The most powerful and eloquent words came from the fresh-faced Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who made a compelling case that this measure was merely a brand of "ineffective authoritarianism" and stated:

Is there not a danger that as well as being unnecessary, it will be counter-productive? When former Attorneys-General and soldiers who served against the IRA in Northern Ireland are all saying that this sort of measure could help the terrorists rather than hurt them, are we not taking a bad step? Is it not clear that the terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and that when we trash our liberties we do their work for them?

As an aside, during this debate -- around 4:26 -- the camera briefly turns to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, (of whom this blog has expressed high praise here and here) who seems to cringe.

Some commentaries and news reports suggest that Gordon Brown might be seeking to outflank the Conservative party on the right by appearing tough on national security -- a maneuver that has also been attempted on occasion by the Democratic party. The fact that Brown tried to justify this policy on the basis of its public popularity didn't seem to help his case.

It is unclear to me (as I am hardly even a novice of British politics) if Cameron is genuinely the ardent defender of individual liberties he purports to be or if his stand is more a political gamble to cast himself as such -- what Brown has labeled "opposition for opposition's sake". I imagine he falls somewhere in between.

But the story seems to be spinning in his favor, even after losing the vote, and the more important lesson to glean for American politics is that he has advanced rhetorical template to push back against what Steve Clemons and others have described as the "high-fear politics" that has done a very poor job serving both US and British national security interests.

--Sameer Lalwani

One of the things I really, really liked when I met Howard Dean in January 2003 at an event that I helped organize between the New America Foundation and the Atlantic Monthly on the subject of the "Real State of the Union" was how ferocious and tenacious I saw he could be. Dean was smart too, had great ideas in my opinion, but he was a son of a bitch pit bull as well. I thought that only the toughest, most tenacious kind of personality could beat George W. Bush.

I have wondered whether or not Obama had a similar kind of tenaciousness. I knew that Hillary Clinton did -- but sometimes it's tough to see how long and how hard someone will fight under the banner of hope.

But today I saw something significant. Obama had to ditch his VP vetter Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson over some shenanigans related to preferential mortgage treatment from Countrywide Financial. We all have bad days.

But then Obama put out this statement through spokesman Bill Burton:

"We don't need any lectures from a campaign that waited fifteen months to purge the lobbyists from their staff, and only did so because they said it was a 'perception problem. It's too bad their campaign is still rife with lobbyist influence and doesn't see a similar 'perception problem' with the man currently running their own vice presidential selection process, a prominent DC lobbyist whose firm has represented Exxon and a top Enron executive, or their campaign chair and John McCain's top economic adviser Carly Fiorina, who presided over thousands of layoffs at Hewlett Packard while receiving a $21 million severance package and $650,000 in mortgage assistance," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

That's tenaciousness -- and it gives me hope.

-- Steve Clemons

Tonight, I'm going to a big bash celebrating the UN Foundation's 10th Anniversary at the brand spanking new Newseum.

Ted Turner chairs, Tim Wirth and Kathy Calvin run it, and John Bolton complains. (sort of like that old adage: Washington reigned, Hamilton ruled, and Jefferson complained. . .)

Tonight, they will be honoring Kofi Annan. Should be fun. Congrats to all at the UN Foundation and the Better World Campaign.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Prince of Petworth)

In the last few hours, I have received three emails from friends telling me my house was featured as "house of the day" on a local blog with which I don't think I have any connection.

It's gratifying that someone liked a house I've been working on -- but it's even more interesting that three people who don't know each other all randomly ran across this local blog. It's yet another confirmation that blogs are becoming standard in people's lives.

Thanks Prince of Petworth.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Patrick Doherty just posted this fascinating review of the major Center for a New American Security Conference titled "Pivot Point: New Directions for American Security."

In it, he captures something former State Department Policy Planning Staff Chief Mitchell Reiss said:

So in calling for the next president to hold another Solarium, Flournoy is calling for a high-level, official debate about U.S. grand strategy in the next administration. This is essential, even if CNAS, by its own admission, has yet to come up with a grand strategy. And it is important because of one reason that William and Mary's Mitchell Reiss identified, which might have been the keenest insight in this entire conference: one of the primary obstacles to coming up with a new U.S. grand strategy is that there has been little to no demand for such for at least a decade, since Bill Clinton gave up looking for the big idea and started managing the crises all around him. With no demand, most think tanks in Washington, with a few notable exceptions like New America and CNAS, have focused on day-to-day crisis management and incrementalism.

Will the next President essentially be an incrementalist and simply be reactive to crisis after crisis? Or will he push a proactive plan, a new cohesive grand strategy?

My hope is that Obama will leapfrog out of today's dominant incrementalism and push a new international social contract between the US and the rest of the world -- but that means being as bold and innovative on the tough problems like Israel/Palestine and Cuba as the rest of the portfolio.

-- Steve Clemons

Yesterday, I met with some Americans who have just returned from traveling to Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, and Libya. They met a number of high ranking state officials in these governments but also met with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah.

What they report back about the Carter mission to meet with Hamas is that there has been no follow up, no communications or ongoing dialogue since the high profile meeting.

I'm only hearing from Americans who were reporting what they heard -- and am not stating definitively that Carter and his Center have not followed up. But it is interesting that Hamas had hopes for an ongoing discussion -- which they are seemingly not getting.

-- Steve Clemons

Michael Desch in an oped today suggests that during election season, everyone wants to be a true friend of Israel which they incorrectly think means tilting substantially one direction in Israel's ongoing struggle for security and acceptance within a very tough neighborhood.

But I agree with him that Israel doesn't need and (from my discussions with Israeli government officials) doesn't want lopsidedness from the US or from the diaspora Jewish community in America. They need smart thinking and support for a process that will preserve a Jewish democratic state in Israel and help lead to normalization and stability with the Arab world.

Desch writes:

As longtime State Department Middle East adviser Aaron David Miller reminds us in his new book, "The Much Too Promised Land," "it's hard to compete and be successful in American politics without being good on Israel." And so when the AIPAC annual conference coincides with a presidential election, as it did this year, these speeches become bidding wars to demonstrate the fervor of the candidates' support for the Jewish state. Sen. Barack Obama declared himself the "true friend of Israel." And Sen. John McCain set the late Sen. Henry Jackson's uncompromising pro-Israel stance as his "model of what an American statesman should be." For both, friendship with Israel means embracing the notion that the Jewish state faces dire threats that require unwavering American support.

But the mark of real friendship, as abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher put it, is "to speak painful truth through loving words." By that criterion, neither of the presidential candidates qualifies as Israel's true friend. Rather, it has been individuals like former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger who have been Israel's real friends. As public officials, they had a realistic view of Israel's situation and were willing to criticize the Jewish state and push it at critical junctures in its history for it own good.

My take is a bit different than Michael Desch's. I have heard Prime Minister Ohlmert, Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon, former Deputy Minister of Defense Eprhaim Sneh and others who are hard-edged and tough about Israel's interests advocate for a two-state solution that to me seemed authentic. We also now know that Israel has been working out the plans to negotiate with Syria via Turkey. A good move in my book.

America doesn't always need to be tough on Israel. Sometimes we need to offer criticism -- like on settlements and road blocks. And sometimes we need to see that we ourselves are the roadblocks to progress.

The best friends of Israel will be pragmatists, realists, willing to engage in a no false choice process that presents wins and compromises for both sides of the Israel-Palestine standoff.

-- Steve Clemons

Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, sent out this link today to a McCain strategy briefing. It's fascinating as Davis recognizes the terrible political environment (for Republicans) they have to operate in. He also recognizes that the economy and the war in Iraq are the two biggest issues in the campaign.

This is important to watch to get an understanding of why McCain remains a compelling and competitive candidate.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm about to host a debate and discussion between DANIEL DEUDNEY (Johns Hopkins University), G. JOHN IKENBERRY (Princeton University), CHARLES KUPCHAN (Georgetown University) and PETER TRUBOWITZ (University of Texas at Austin) on the subject ot whether liberal internationalism is on the ropes or not in the context of the presidential election.

Essentially, Kupchan and Trubowitz will argue that liberal internationalism's days are over, building of an important artcle recently published titled Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States -- and Deudney and Ikenberry will try to decimate their argument.

Video file will soon be posted here.

It begins at about 5:30 pm EST (in a few minutes), and I'm going to run it live on this website.

-- Steve Clemons

Congressman Markey is known to be one of the leading policy wonks in the US House of Representatives. His reputation for employing one of the largest numbers of PhD's per capita on staff speaks to his interest in plumbing the intellectual depths of US policymaking, particularly US national security and nuclear policy. (It's part of the reason he's considered one of the leading candidates to eventually succeed Sen. Ted Kennedy).

While I have a great deal of respect for the gravitas and probity of Markey's policy positions, I find myself disagreeing with him more often than not -- most recently on his recent opinion article on Saudi Arabia in the Wall Street Journal. And though, Steve Clemons has already taken a first stab at the Markey article, there are still a number of assertions that need to be challenged.

First off, Markey makes a jab at the stability of the state and disingenuously suggests the prospect of revolution. He claims that tech transfers are dangerous citing previous cases where it ended up in the wrong hands, post the Iranian revolution. But despite the prognostications of neo-cons and their brethren (not to mention their accuracy) the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a relatively stable state, with a well-respected, pious, and progressive leader who is largely seen as legitimate in the eyes of his people. For one thing, rather than Instead of being installed through a US-led coup, his family unified the Arabian peninsula into a nation state. Though Saudi faces minor security threats from Al Qaeda in the near term and serious demographic and employment challenges in the long-term (both of which it is assiduously working to address) but nothing close to the popular discontent of the middle classes that fomented the 1979 Iranian revolution.

The use of language like "kingpin of the Sunni-Arab world" conveys a deep-seeded animus that is worrisome coming from one of America's most progressive leaders. And his use of the hackneyed, clumsy phrase "America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism" betrays an impoverished understanding of what animates terrorist networks as well as Saudi Arabia's recent about face, particularly after it became a prime target for this extremism in 2003.

Finally, though its true that nuclear assistance might be playing with fire, there seems to be a very legitimate strategic calculus to assisting the Saudi government -- namely, signaling to Iran the cost of going nuclear. Right now Iran has conventional weapons superiority in the region but a drive to nuclear weapons that results in proliferation would eliminate their advantage through nuclear-provided strategic parity. If Iran actually believes that other states in the gulf region are ready and capable of also going nuclear, it might rethink its strategic calculations and turn back from weaponization. Certainly one must be wary of this spiraling into an arms race, but there is also a conceivable strategic logic to the moves being played by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi and the GCC have already indicated interest in this nuclear project but also in dissuading Iran from its nuclear ambitions and ultimately developing a regional security architecture for the Gulf states as Thomas Lippman has argued. If some sort of Saudi/GCC peaceful nuclear venture is inevitable, its better the US be involved in guiding it -- commanding greater influence and knowledge of capabilities -- rather than China or Russia stepping in to assume the role of nuclear patron.

--Sameer Lalwani

I was a bit surprised to read this morning's Edward Markey authored oped in the Wall Street Journal titled "Why is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?"

With all due respect to Congressman Markey who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the article is laced with a hubris about American power that is out of sync with reality. The piece seems to suggest that America can dictate to the Saudis what energy systems they will build or not build and seems to think that the American taxpayer is carrying the burden for Saudi Arabian technological development.

Last September, I wrote a Salon.com article explaining the many reasons why despite neoconservative obsession with bombing Iran, President Bush would not do so. He had tacked a different direction.

Part of my case, though not all of it, rested on the fact that one of Vice President Cheney's staff members had allegedly told a private group in Washington that the VP himself was frustrated with the President's tilt towards Condi Rice, Bob Gates and others who emphasized a mix of diplomatic options over hard power gestures.

More recently, however, in the last six to eight weeks, many of my sources in the State Department, the White House, and the intelligence community tell me that the losers last summer and fall are winning again.

David Addington, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, is winning on virtually every battle he is fighting -- from not moving forward on new legal protocols that would be more internationally palatable on combat detainee rights to shelving the Law of the Seas Treaty ratification. But they say that the level of tension in the White House over Iran is also growing -- and the diplomatic game plan that before was dominant seems to have deteriorated significantly -- particularly since the departure of former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and the firing of Admiral William Fallon.

I'm not saying that war or conflict with Iran is imminent. In fact, I don't think America, even under Bush, will strike Iran first -- but I do think that there is an increasing chance of a trigger event driving a fast escalation of higher and higher consequence military options. This trigger could be a mistaken signal, a ship collision, an event engineered by the Israelis, or by the IRGC Al Quds force, or by some other splinter terrorist operation wanting to exploit regional tensions and the current fragility of affairs.

We need to talk more about this. While I was not a great fan of Barack Obama's AIPAC speech last week with regard to Israel/Palestine, I did think that he focused in a constructive and important way on getting Iran policy right. He pinned the blame for lack of progress on Iran clearly on the inattention and wrong-headed strategy of the Bush administration -- and this kind of sensible analysis and willingness to make a strategic jump in a new direction is what we need now. We need to demystify this challenge and derail the intentions of some who they will try to force the next President of the United States into a no choice situation.

Whereas David Wurmser allegedly (though he does deny it) said that Vice President Cheney felt it important to "tie the President's hands" when it came to Iran and to generate an event that would undermine the diplomatic track -- the worry now is that the crowd in power is really talking about tying the next President's hands. . .tying perhaps Barack Obama's hands.

This really could be cooking -- and I think it's important for White House watchers to realize that the folks we thought had knocked back the neocons are themselves losing leverage again.

Obama and his team need to speak to this, to demystify it, and to make sure that America does not find itself tripping into an accidental war that really was no accident.

-- Steve Clemons

Andrew Lebovich is a research intern with the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program.

Is Liberal Internationalism dead? Professors Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz certainly seem to suggest as much in a thoughtful paper published last year. Keeping in step with the ongoing Mahbubani/Ikenberry/Slaughter debate held here at The Washington Note, the authors postulate that changing domestic and external circumstances have brought about a fundamental change in the international system. These changes have rendered an American-led liberal internationalist order -- one based on multilateral cooperation and institutions backed up by a willingness to deploy American military power -- obsolete.

Domestically, they blame the collapse of the political center and the subsequent drastic decrease in bipartisan cooperation for making internationalism untenable. Democrats will favor international institutions but not support military force, while Republicans will tend to support the unilateral use of military force, but shortchange the value of institutions. Without bipartisan support, the authors argue, there can no longer be agreement on the kinds of pragmatic foreign policy that favored the emergence of liberal internationalism in the first place.

Internationally, the death of the Soviet Union helped solidify the decline of liberal internationalism. Without a clear external threat, Kupchan and Trubowitz contend, there has been no impetus for cooperation in Washington, and the parties have responded by becoming more extreme. There is also no reason for the average citizen to get involved; unlike World War II or the Cold War, the September 11 attacks engendered a small-scale military and covert intelligence response, and not a sustained citizens' contribution, whether it is in the military or industry.

The authors seem to sidestep (though perhaps not discount) the tectonic shifts in the global order cited by Steven Weber, Parag Khanna, Fareed Zakaria, et. al. that have problematized the liberal internationalist model as rising powers seek to modify or add new rules to the game. Because of this, it seems some of the proposals Kupchan and Trubowitz offer -- such as more restrained internationalism employing flexible rather than formal institutions -- will still encounter resistance, coordination problems, and counterbalancing efforts like the Shanghai Cooperation Council.

For those interested, the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program is hosting a debate tomorrow, June 10 at 5:30pm, with Kupchan, Trubowitz, John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney entitled "The Presidential Election and U.S. Foreign Policy: Is Liberal Internationalism on the Ropes?" (Steve Clemons will moderate.)

-- Andrew Lebovich

(photo credit: Patrick Andrade/New York Times)

Jason Furman, Director of the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project, has just announced that he is joining University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as part of Barack Obama's (paid) economic policy team. This is really interesting news given the tug and pull over economic policy that has taken place already inside the Obama camp.

There are exceptions in their broad policy profiles and work, but essentially, both Goolsbee and Jason Furman are serious economists who generally subscribe to a neoliberal economic policy framework. They would be called "free traders" for the most part -- and because no free trade is really a free trade deal given the thousands of pages and negotiated side arrangements that comprise an FTA, it's fairly easy for each to say that they are on the side of working families and want to prevent the worst impacts from hitting the American middle class while in theory, they would prefer to see a genuine, frictionless free trade system in which efficiencies are created throughout the economic ecosystem.

Furman (a friendly acquaintance of mine and close associate of one of my New America Foundation colleagues) is also well known for his budget-hawkery. He has been part of the Democratic Party economic class that has successfully stolen from the Republicans the ethic of fiscal conservatism and advocates a Social Security entitlement reform process that begins to wrestle with America's long term entitlement obligations.

To some degree, Furman manifests the interests and perspective of perhaps the leading neoliberal force in politics today, Robert Rubin. Furman could make a good case that his views may differ here and there, but my sense is that he's an essential spear-carrier of Rubinomics.

Given the rhetoric of Obama on redoing trade deals, of giving China a tough time on trade, and focusing on the real needs of working class Americans -- the choice of Furman surprises me though I certainly don't oppose it.

But calling a spade a spade, it's clear that Furman is no Dean Baker or Robert Blecker or Jared Bernstein -- all important economists who have been far more right as of late than the Rubin crowd in anticipating the stress points in globalization, the housing bubble, trade, and the like.

Leo Hindery, the CEO who has been advocating a stakeholder vs. 'winner takes all' capitalism as well as a national "on-shoring strategy", is part of Obama's advisory team -- but it may be wise for Obama to explain why those hired for the econ jobs pretty much reflect neoliberal orthodoxy and those 'only advising' in political roles are struggling with strategies on how to rebalance the economic results and impacts of globalization. I do a lot of work with Hindery whose earnestness in trying to rejigger the global economy towards fairness and growth is inspiring -- and my recommendation to Obamaland is to make sure that Hindery and others working on this front that is more skeptical of classic neoliberalism are elevated as well.

It's useful to remember however that whereas Robert Reich and Derek Shearer wrote Bill Clinton's economic plan for the 1992 campaign, it was Rubin and his followers on the neoliberal wing of economics who contained and essentially exiled those with alternative views.

So, congrats to Jason Furman on his new post -- but I am scratching my head wondering which direction Obama is really going?

-- Steve Clemons

This has probably been reported elsewhere, but I was heartened somewhat over the weekend by some things I had heard about Obama's approach to the beginning of his own campaign. Someone close to the presumptive Democratic nominee said that early in the process, Obama spoke to key stakeholders in his national campaign effort for the presidency (paraphrasing):

We have decided to take this campaign forward. The chances of us winning are low, but we might be able to pull it off. If you want to help us take it to the next level, we need your help -- but we need to keep our expectations in check.

We are going to make mistakes. The big mistakes will all be mine -- not yours. When we make mistakes, we will deal with them and adjust. We will learn and move forward. We want this to be a fun campaign, a happy campaign. No leaks -- no backbiting. We need to do this because we want to do good things -- and we are all good people.

What Obama really said may be quite different, but this is what came from someone who speaks to him now and then. But I know that that spirit he brought to his team did make a difference in the political climate and contrasted with the tenor of emotions within the Clinton camp.

I think Obama is something special and different -- but when he does things like say "Jerusalem. . .must remain undivided" in his recent AIPAC speech, my enthusiasm hits some severe road bumps. Barack Obama's Israel statement was worse than pandering because his perspective is actually to the right of George W. Bush and the incumbent Israeli government. This was not constructive, and it has made many wonder whether what they see in Barack Obama is real and something that can be depended upon if he secures the powers of the Oval Office.

But for now, I'm trying to keep an open mind and need to begin thinking about how to offer commentary about both McCain and Obama that remains fresh over the next half year and which will remain distinctive and honest about both of them. When the ecosystem of commentary both in mainstream media and the blogosphere is essentially dominated by people who have already made their minds up as to who should win the White House -- it is difficult to enthusiastically charge into the turbulent currents each day challenging the perspectives and comments of the candidates and their acolytes.

I'm going to keep at it -- but for regular readers, do not expect predictable commentary from me on either Obama or McCain. McCain has frustrated me with his obsession with continuing the occupation of Iraq and his flippancy about other wars in the Middle East. Obama, on the other hand, has taken two of the greatest foreign policy opportunities for change -- Cuba and Israel/Palestine -- and "triangulated" away from the boldness and creativity of some of his earlier foreign policy views and has defensively prepared himself for McCain attacks by adopting more incrementalist policies.

In other words, yes, even Obama is in spirit if not in explicit deed a flip-flopper. Perhaps they all are (as I've written before).

There's more to sort out, and I'll do it as incisively and as fairly as i can. Again I will remind that no one should presume my vote or support automatically. (this stand of mine does create costs for me among a great number of friends and in my private life, so don't think it's easy or trite. . .)

Unconditional support leads to abuses such as this one where Barack Obama tilted so far in the direction of the most extreme factions in one of the world's most important and consequential international disputes because one side has been loud and the other has largely acquiesced, choosing to see the happy campaign at the macro level and worry about the details later.

-- Steve Clemons

Yesterday, I presided when the incumbent Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis Thomas Fingar spoke about the National Intelligence Estimate production process.

This is really worth watching -- not only to learn about the framework, process, and analytic standards of NIE production but to learn about his views about the flawed Iraq WMD NIE and the 2007 Iran NIE of which he was lead author.

Among many things that were interesting to learn were the existence of a classified intelligence version of wikipedia called "Intellipedia" and that the Iran NIE report was more than 1500 pages in classified form -- and distilled down to three and a half pages for the public release.

Fingar was fascinating -- and this is important for the public to listen to.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise forced on Bill Clinton's presidency by a recalcitrant, (then) anti-gay Sam Nunn who stopped Clinton's plans to end discrimination against homosexual men and women serving in the U.S. military.

In fact, while Senator Nunn was still in the Senate, he fired two staff members when it came to light that these individuals were gay.

Now, Senator Nunn is recommending a "review" of the policy he helped fashion fifteen years ago, but he is not indicating whether his own views have changed.

I'm a fan of Sam Nunn's important work in trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other WMD related materials. I hear from many friends that he is an outstanding Board Chairman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and also Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

So despite my sincere respect for many of the good things Sam Nunn has done, I also think it is important for those whispering about the possibility of putting Nunn in the VP slot on the Obama ticket -- or in Obama's cabinet -- to realize that this blog and many others will not stand for someone who still harbors long standing, institutionalized discriminatory views against gay men and women, particularly in the arena of national security when we should be applauding any who want to serve this country.

It's time for us to be asking Sam Nunn what his views on gays in the military now are -- and he should tell us.

Let's move to "Ask and Tell."

-- Steve Clemons

The German Marshall Fund has a nifty new website designed to create a portal for Europeans interested in the American elections and policy issues, particularly foreign policy. I like the site -- and am pleased that a couple of TWN items have already been featured on the site's roster.

But it's a good site for everyone I think -- like Japanese, Saudis, Turks, and even some Americans who want a packaged collection of material and data. This is good for the Euro crowd, of course, but also many more.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, on this same screen below, I will be posting live stream sessions with former Iraq Foreign Minister and liberal secularist chief of the Iraq Democratic Party ADNAN PACHACHI. This will air between 9:30 am and 10:30 am EST.

Then between 12:00 pm and 1:45 pm EST today, I will be airing a live presentation from and conversation with National Intelligence Council Chairman and Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis THOMAS FINGAR. Fingar will be addressing how a National Intelligence Estimate comes together.

Live Video streamed by Ustream

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama has clinched the nomination. Watching his speech now. He's being gracious to those rivals who he beat, particularly Hillary Clinton. Good show. That is maturity.

I haven't heard or seen Hillary Clinton's speech tonight -- but the blog buzz is reverberating with an echo that hers was less gracious. Obama is right to step higher and credit her as he did.

Now the real race begins, and McCain is salivating at getting back in the headlines.

Wow. Obama just said that when the nation achieves universal health care, Hillary Clinton will have helped deliver it. As usual, he's delivering a moving, terrific speech.

Now he's got to pull it together -- and he needs to figure out how to be the force that can help the nation leap frog into new and better circumstances and get out of the political gridlock and policy incrementalism that dominate the political scene today.

I've been pointing to some areas in which Obama has triangulated a bit, but if his team is reading this, it's important to keep Obama making the big leaps. What we did yesterday means less and less to how we should approach tomorrow -- and he needs to instill confidence that he is not the incrementalist on important policy breakthroughs I sometimes feel he is.

I know John McCain pretty well -- and this is going to be an extremely tough race, but at least it finally begins.

-- Steve Clemons

Unfortunately, I did not receive a visa in time to participate as a speaker in the 3rd Annual Ravand Institute Conference in Tehran this year. I was invited along with Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution, Michael Kraig of the Stanley Foundation, and Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group. Up until the very last minute, we thought the Iranian Government might issue the visas that the Ravand Institute for Economic and International Studies had requested.

But given how the US government manages visa of visiting intellectuals, scientists, business people, and cultural leaders from non-visa waiver countries, I can hardly complain.

Though I wasn't at this gathering, I have now heard from other participants that this meeting was superb substantively and in terms of the regional personalities who attended. While Ahmad Chalabi (not one of my favorite people) was on one of the panels, the other participants were top rate.

The U.S. and Iranian governments should get out of the way of these kinds of events and conferences taking place. There should be more of them.

The American and Iranian governments are trying to establish rigid cartels in the intellectual arena, playing the role of gatekeepers in the flow of information and knowledge, and this is not helpful in sorting out current tensions and moving beyond them.

I admire what former Iranian Ambassador to the UK S.M. Hossein Adeli has done with Ravand and hope that he and the institution find a way to post the key nuggets of the conference or video clips on the internet next time around. That will promote some exchange and make the visa idiocy in America and Iran less of a block to policy dialogue.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't weighed in much on candidates for Congress, but I really do like Darcy Burner who is running in Washington State's 8th District.

Matt Stoller just posted this TV ad from the 2006 race in which her opponent Dave Reichert essentially called Burner a ditz. Stoller asks his readers "Want to see what sexism looks like?"

I agree with Stoller that this ad is offensive and sexist.

One of the best pieces of policy work out there that I have seen done thus far was Darcy Burner's "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." 54 Democratic candidates for the House have signed on to the proposal including Donna Edwards who is running in Maryland's 4th District, unseated a Democratic incumbent in the primary, and also closely affiliated with Matt Stoller's good work.

This "Responsible Plan" is a big deal. Read it -- I think that this is perhaps a more important fundamental playbook for thinking through an Iraq withdrawal than what we are getting from either of the two (well, barely two) Democratic presidential candidates.

-- Steve Clemons

(Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell chats with National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar)

To my knowledge, I've never met National Intelligence Council Chairman Tom Fingar, but I've been an admirer from afar of his work and approach to intelligence estimate construction.

That doesn't mean I'm always happy the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) products the public has been able to see, but I do know from a great number of intelligence professionals I'm privileged to pow-wow with from time to time that he is one of the best intel analysts and managers of covert information flow in the business.

I have been participating in the Directorate of National Intelligence's Open Source Initiative in which very senior national security intelligence officials have been meeting with and interacting with think tank representatives, academics, and others in order to open some of the portals on info flow into the frequently walled off intelligence analysis and packaging process. This conference along these lines looks to be interesting -- and I plan to participate.

Getting open source input from top intellectuals in the country into the intel pipeline is extremely important and could be one of the most important factors that cleans up the intelligence collection and assessment process that has gone so tragically awry in the past.

Largely because of the debate about NIEs -- about the flawed Iraq NIE that some thought laid the groundwork for a military invasion to the Iran NIE that suggested that Iran stopped its covert weapons program in 2003 to other NIEs that have received either applause or criticism, depending on the issue and the corner of the political spectrum one sat -- I have invited NIC Chairman Thomas Fingar to discuss at a public New America Foundation/American Strategy Program meeting the analytic standards and process by which an NIE is assembled.

I think that this could be one of the most fascinating lectures around for intel junkies and for anyone seeking to better understand the national security decision making process.

The meeting will take place on Wednesday, 4 June, at noon EST at the offices of the New America Foundation. The session is essentially full already -- but I will be transmitting live internet streaming of the Fingar meeting and discussion on The Washington Note website.

-- Steve Clemons

Well, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn't seem to be buying Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope or Dreams from my Father, but he does seem to be buying himself a copy of Bill Clinton's My Life.

If Obama does wrap up the Democratic nomination and win the White House, perhaps he should make Bill Clinton his emissary to help set up things for the meeting with Iran's leadership that Obama says he wants to do after some "prep work."

And while on that line, perhaps Obama should express regret for getting in Jimmy Carter's way on Hamas. It's time to put many of our former leaders back into the business of creating new opportunities and relieving pent up stress in the international system.

Hat tip to The Eyeranians,

-- Steve Clemons

I watched the debates and admired Barack Obama's strongly expressed commitment to "engagement" -- particularly with leaders of states with whom America was in conflict. This was a great contrast from Hillary Clinton's positon -- and even a starker contrast with McCain's.

Gallup has just released a poll showing that 2/3 of Americans favor this kind of engagement and that 6 in 10 Americans favor the President meeting Iran's president. Best I can tell there were no qualifiers, asterisks, special circumstances, and the like outlined in the poll tallies.

Obama has nothing to fear on this issue and should stop trying to back peddle on his earlier positions. Otherwise -- I hear a "I was for it before I was against it" line coming down the pike. . .if not by Obama, then by McCain surrogates.

-- Steve Clemons

Tom Edsall thinks so -- tomorrow night.

Edsall writes:

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities. In addition to help raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to help out black officials who endorsed her and are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.

"This has never happened before," one donor said, referring to the personalized request by email to attend the event in New York Tuesday night. Obama is expected to claim enough delegates to put him over the top that night at a separate event in Minneapolis.

I've been listening for some time to a number of my friends who have been active in the "net neutrality" debate. To some, this is a technical debate that mostly means keeping our current content out on the internet -- our current levels of blogging, of video, of emails -- flowing relatively freely across different platforms, like phones, laptops, blackberries. . .you name it.

For others, this debate has become a holy crusade that means a lot more -- and is fundamentally about a distrust for corporations and an embrace of "the people." I don't buy it.

I listened to Larry Page of Google recently, courtesy of my New America Foundation/Wireless Futures Program colleague Michael Calabrese -- and basically Page is hoping for a world where tomorrow all information is open access and that it plays across all platforms equally. To me -- perhaps at a misinformed level (I'm not sure) -- this not sounds like a heavy dose of utopian socialism but it sounds like something that would work at this point for Google's business plans -- but something at odds with many of the other infrastructure parts of the internet and telecommunications worlds.

Page is a great guy -- and Google's transformation of the internet and the portals it has created have been stunningly impressive to watch. I just worry about the too easy embrace of ideologies on the net, particularly the next net -- because I want better and more than we have today and sense America falling behind other states on telecom infrastructure, particularly Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Neutrality today to me seems fine -- but down the road -- I think that information flow is going to run differently -- and yes, will create new tensions between haves and have-nots. That has been the part of the growth story in our country and the world.

I have no problem with trying to maintain neutrality with current capacities -- but I'm all for new innovation, new investment, new build-outs of the telecommunications infrastructure in the country, and this may mean that business does carve out some privileged space for consumers on certain platforms. Otherwise, why would they invest?

I'm intrigued with this debate. I'm learning more -- and am going to a session today to try and better understand various parts of this sometimes ferocious discussion.

I heard Barack Obama recently say that he is "for net neutrality." I think we all may be -- but the problem is that so far I've found about four different definiitions for the term, and I don't think he is necessarily for what the most fervent leaders of net neutrality are for.

More on this later. I just wanted to signal that I am going to be writing and cogitating on this subject more -- and I realize that I might be swimming against some currents of friends and associates on here.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't had time to read General Ricardo Sanchez's book on the Iraq War and his critique of Bush and his team, but super editor and writer Tom Engelhardt has.

And in a fascinating treatment on bravado and the art of feigned (and real) insanity and irrationality among our nation's conflict-obsessed presidents, Engelhardt reported this bit of Sanchez's writing:

"'Kick ass!' [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell's tough talk. 'If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!'"

The more we learn about this president, the smaller he becomes.

-- Steve Clemons

General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency, was an early critic of the Bush administration's obsession with invading Iraq.

He called the decision the worst strategic mistake in American military history in the last century and perhaps since the establishment of the Republic. Word has reached me that he died yesterday at 75.

Odom was an occasional reader of The Washington Note -- and I will greatly miss both him, his fiery twang, and the volumes of national security information and perspective he would frequently share with me by phone.

When I was writing a great deal about Scooter Libby, his legal defense fund, and doing research into who was helping him behind the scenes, General Odom was a key source of material and smart thinking.

Odom's last published oped was co-written with Zbigniew Brzezinski and was a sane and realist outline of how America should approach Iran. Here is his and Brzezinski's Washington Post oped, "A Sensible Path on Iran."

General Odom was one of those conservatives with a conscience this blog gladly and enthusiastically salutes. Rest in peace.

-- Steve Clemons