Let's not forget that Nixon went to Syria, too, but he didn't have the time needed to pursue a full opening.

Contrary to the current incumbent, Nixon was willing to show leadership...

Why shouldn't Iran be a friend?
The Iranians I've met throughout my life have been sophisticated and open-minded---more so than other people from the ME.
Unlike most Arab countries, Iran is very modern, with some tremendous science programs.
Personally I wouldn't mind visiting Iran, just to see some universities.

JohnH...I don't disagree.

But...

It's important to remember that Nixon's anti-Communist bona
fides were WELL established. He couldn't be accused of being
"soft on Communism," as the saying went.

His right flank was well covered and he was only likely to get
approval from his left flank.

Christ, he was able to propose a health care plan like the current
one (better maybe) and not get accused of a "government take
over" of health care.

And of course the communications feedback loop was a lot
slower and spotty back then.

So the challenges Nixon faced then (and the courage he required
and showed) really aren't comparable to what Obama faces
today. He can hardly take a step without being damned for
socialism on the one hand and damned for being a zionist toady
on the other.

May I suggest a book that does a great job putting a lot of this into context. Charles Osgood (not the CBS Sunday Morning guy) wrote a book called "An Alternative to War Or Surrender." In it he details a rapproachment track called GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocal Initiatives in Tension reduction). It's a fascinating book.

What is this ?

The quoted examples (except the one about China) are horrible

1) Norway/Sweden : it was exactly the contrary : a separation from an Union. Peaceful OK (even if the Swedish military mulled the use of force for a while), because the Swedes thought that it wasn't worth the strife. It didn't stop the Swedes to intern in camps Norwegian resistants and to turn over to the Nazis the whole Norwegian fleet that seeked shelter in Gothenburg, with the result of 500 deaths in extermination camps.
2) Malaysia/Indonesia : At that time the Brits "ruled" Malaysia. After they defeated the Indonesian army and a coup in Indonesia, the Indonesians gave up. Kind of a rapprochement.
3) Brazil/Argentina ??? Two fascist dictatorships collapsed at that time. The emerging democracies used probably more diplomatic exchanges after a lost soccer game, an event that REALLY counts, over there.

the comparison with Iran is preposterous. Last time democracies tried to appease fascists, a World War followed. Iran is a fascistic theocracy, the worse combination one can imagine. One can never be friends with THOSE guys, they can only be crushed. Then becoming "friends" with the replacing acceptable democracy afterwards, is another story.

Is this guy advising Obama ? then prepare for the worse...

"Last time democracies tried to appease fascists, a World War
followed."

Who do you think Iran intends to invade first - America, Europe,
Russia, or China? Personally, I think they'll make a parallel attack
on America and China, and secure a victory on these two fronts
first, before islamizing Europe and the rest of Asia.

fun talking with lunatics, isn't it?

Paul, you're Norwegian aren't you ? Heja Norge

Iran recently tried to seize oil fields in Iraq with force, just poking a little. Iran might have claims on Azerbadjan and I wonder how they will react if the Kurds proclaim independence. And after all, Afghanistan's Pashtuns are historically Iranians...

Hitler didn't start with a frontal attack on France, the UK or the USA. He invaded Sudetenland. No big deal we said, after all they are Germans. And Austrians too... One day he came to Norway...

The problem is what those guys COULD do, specially if sitting on nukes someday (even if they don't use them). And even if we do nothing, I don't think that Sunni Arabs will let them rule the region. A clash is then probably unavoidable, with an exploding Gulf region, one of the worlds most important geostrategical areas....

What will we do then ? Peace in our time ?

Ja, jeg er norsk, frenchconnection.

Syns du overdriver noe voldsomt når du sammenligner Iran idag
med tyskerne i 1939. Hitler er kjekk å ha når man vil demonisere
en fiende - Bush far og sønn gjorde det samme med Saddam. Det
ustabile Pakistan har allerede en bombe, og utgjør en langt større
trussel enn Iran (som ikke har angrepet ett land i moderne tid) -
hvis bomben i Pakistan skulle komme i gale hender. Og Israel har
vel to-tre hundre bomber av det slaget man antar at
Achmedinejad ønsker seg.

Vive la France!

BTW frenchconnection,

your version of what took place between Sweden and Norway in
1905 is historically correct.

"Washington should be prepared to exchange concessions that are timely and bold enough to send signals of benign intent; otherwise, each party will be unconvinced that the other is sincere in its quest for reconciliation."

What about the other guys? Shouldn't they be expected to send some tiny signal that they are the slightest bit open to reconciliation?
So far, we have had the opposite. I believe its safer to take people's threats at face value, and not interpret them as 'posturing'.

This analysis presented in this piece is( beside being factually incorrect) naive and dangerous.

The Israel Lobby will not allow friendship between the US and an Islamic Iran. Or a secular Iran that supports the Palestinians or enriches Uranium.

"May I suggest a book that does a great job putting a lot of this into context. Charles Osgood (not the CBS Sunday Morning guy) wrote a book called "An Alternative to War Or Surrender." (BigB)

I agree (and I think I actually referenced it in these comments some years ago). I read the book in the early 60's, and it specifically relates to the arms race of the time, but I believe it's principles apply today. As I recall one underlying principle is that you don't even have to trust your 'adversary' to initiate the process.

But, today I wonder. The defense establishment,and the neocons and their ilk don't seem to be interested in rapproachment. They seem to want continued war, based on continued tension as an article of faith. They seem to want to dominate. Presumably, there is still some semblance of non-insane civilian policy making capability extant, but I've yet to seen see much of a willingness to take a risk for peace, even the initial small risks Osgood posits.

Enemies into Friends is Ben Katcher's title for this post. What does Katcher think international relations is all about; a third grade food fight? Does he think that China and the United States used to fight and now because of Nixon we're best buds? Give me a break; the thesis is inane.

1) China is not a "friend" of the United States nor is it an ally; it's merely a nation with whom we have normal diplomatic relations and a nation with which our economy is intertwined just like many other nations and just like the EU.

2) There is every reason to believe that Nixon's opening to China was a severe strategic mistake; at least in the long run. Nixon's goal in reaching out to China was to achieve a temporary strategic advantage in the American struggle with the Soviet Union. The policy succeeded in the short run and failed miserably in the long run.

Nixon exempted China from the Cold War. Virtually every other communist dictatorship not exempted from the Cold War is a liberal democracy today. In fact, most of the former Soviet republics and satellites that didn't get "a pass" from Nixon are not only peaceful and prosperous; they are true "friends" to the United States. Think the Czech Republic; Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Croatia. Had Nixon not exempted China from the Cold War it is entirely possible that China too would have evolved into a liberal democracy. Taiwan might not be under threat; Tibet might be free; the Muslim regions of China might not be under the thumb of the Han Chinese imperialists. With the exception of Cuba, the only communist dictatorships left are in Southeast Asia; they’re still there because the United States lost a war in South East Asia; North Korea is still a communist dictatorship because America didn’t win its war on that continent; it accepted a draw. But these exceptions prove nothing. But for Nixon’s tragic mistake, China might very well look like Russia today or one of the developing nations of the former Soviet block.

Had Nixon not forged a grand bargain with the Chinese Communist Government, China might not be evolving into the strategic adversary of the United States that it appears to be becoming. Does the United States have more to worry about from Russia or from China? The answer is obvious and suggests that Nixon's opening to China was an error.

What about the profoundly dysfunctional relationship between the Chinese and American economies that have caused severe financial dislocations throughout the globe; would those problems exist but for Nixon's opening to China? Would the United States have lost so many manufacturing jobs to China but for the decisions of Richard Nixon? Would the United States have been able to finance its massive trade imbalances and budget deficits at incredibly low interest rates and suffered the attendant consequences but for the decisions Richard Nixon made 40 years ago?

The long term consequences of Richard Nixon's decision to engage China have been horrendous for the United States, for the Chinese people (with the possible exception of the Han Chinese) and for the rest of the world.

Citing it as an example of what the United States should do with Iran is not only simple-minded and ahistorical, it's wrong.

3) Charles Kupchan is an interesting and engaging fellow. He's articulate, he writes well and when Steve Clemons invites him to participate in panels that Washington Note readers can view through web broadcasts, it is clear to anyone watching that Kupchan is smart.

But Kupchan is wrong at least as often as he's right. Kupchan was one of the prime advocates for the United States and Europe to recognize Kosovo's independence. In the past few years, he's written two articles for "Foreign Affairs" explaining why a unilateral recognition of Kosovo's independence (despite the lack of assent from the United Nations) was the smart thing to do. Kupchan made it sound like once Kosovo's independence was recognized by the United States and EU nations; most of the problems of that part of the world would begin to dissolve.

How has that worked out? I would take anything Kupchan says with a grain of salt.

Wig,

I agree that China is not a friend or ally.

However, I find your number 2 here a little bizarre. I can't speak
to all the former republics, but I think it's a stretch to call Russia
a liberal democracy or even a friend of the U.S. In what sense, a
friend? Like the way they treated Georgia? Or the way they cut
off gas supplies to Western Europe?

It's even more of a stretch to imagine that had Nixon not made
an opening to China our economic problems with China would
not exist. Where's the line of causation that leads from then to
today? China's rise as an economic power and competitor of the
US can be attributed to many things, foremost among them
internal changes, but not to Nixon's opening up relations.

How so?

Paul

jag pratar inte norska, men svenska (har bott i Sverige trettio år och är fransmann). Jag har varit flera gånger i Norge och har alltid blivit mycket väl bemött. En gång var jag i Narvik och hade tandvärk, och när jag skulle betala tandläkaren, han ville inte - "som en gentjänst för den franska interventionen". Jag förstår vad du skriver men skall ta det på engelska, för dem andras skull...

OK, I reached the Godwin point after a couple of posts, but my comparison is more rethorical than direct. What I mean (and I can say I "represent" more or less the official French standpoint on the Iranian question) is that you cannot make "friends" with the current clique in Teheran.

France is more bothered by the current Iranian leading ideology which makes them the "Armageddon Evangelicals" of the Muslim world than of rest which is bothering enough. It's more bothering actually than Al Quaedas delusions about the "Caliphate". And if you combine this with a potential acquiring of nukes, the risk becomes really explosive, no pun intended. Remember that Iran has perpetrated bombings and assassinations against France (the suicide bombing of the French army barracks in Beirut (23 Oct. 83), which killed 74 and wounded about 15 and the liquidation of Iran's former Prime Minister, Shahpur Bakhtiar, the leader of one of the main Iranian opposition groups (6 Aug. 91) in France. The investigation of this incident led to the arrest of three Iranians (including a diplomat), who probably belonged to the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. The trial exposed the involvement of various Iranian agencies (the Ministry of Communication, Diplomatic representatives, commercial companies, “Iran Air”) - all of which assisted in the liquidation. Currently Iran is holding a completely innocent French hostage.

The recent brutal repression of the Iranian opposition after rigged elections shows that you cannot trust these guys. They are rogue. And there are no other major players that can really contain them. The Russians are starting to get cold feet (they have always been sensitive to a "peaceful" environment in the Caucasus and south of it, and are not interested in an Azerbaidjan/Armenian conflict, fueled by Iranians, which could force them to intervene). The Chinese are probably damping them in exchange for oil purchases, but are not in position of a 24/h regime change like they could do in North Korea if it suited them.

So the West policies must be containment first and intervention as last resort. Better we do it than the Israeli. But "making friends" is ridiculous.

The Nixon-Mao parallell isn't accurate. The US was losing its proxy war against China/Soviet and it was a genial move from Nixon to split the communist front. There is no such a bargain possible with Iran, Iran isn't "reasonable" like the Chicoms, due to its religious nature. And what would the bargain be ? leave Israel in "peace", pacify Afghanistan and we let you take over Iraq, the Kurds and pester the Saudis and other Emirates ? Talk about opening a Pandora's box.

Sweetness, I would respond to you in two ways:

(1) Russia is no liberal democracy; but it is far freer than China. Russia has opposition newspapers; it has genuine elections; it doesn't censor "You-Tube." China does all of those things. For the most part, as a result of the Cold War, Russia's colonies have been set free. It's not just the Warsaw Pact nations; it's the former Soviet Republics like Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Tajikistan and the others. Compare that with China's colonies; Tibet, Hong Kong, the Uyghur regions; they are locked into China as firmly as ever largely because of the mistakes Nixon made 40 years ago. And Russia poses far less of a strategic challenge to the U.S. today largely because it was defeated in the Cold War rather than exempted from it. Because of Nixon, the same thing is not true of China.

2) But for Nixon's opening to China it is highly doubtful that China would have experienced the rapid development that it has. Like the Japanese, the Chinese jump started their economy by focusing on exports to the United States. Of course, China now exports its products all over the world; but it all stared with their new economic relationship with the United States that Richard Nixon first made possible.

Because it's a dictatorship, China feels perfectly free to keep hundreds of millions of its citizens impoverished and is perfectly capable of inhibiting domestic demand. The net result is that China builds up massive surpluses that it can then use to finance irresponsible fiscal behavior by the Americans and others. The Gordian knot of American profligacy and Chinese mercantilism is one of the proximate causes of the recent financial and economic meltdown that afflicted billions of people around the globe.

Think about it Sweetness, if the Chinese let their currency float and accommodated increased internal demand, its surpluses would be far smaller. Had that happened those surpluses wouldn't have been deployed to finance things like the recent U.S. housing bubble that led to such an economic catastrophe.

All of this was enabled by Richard Nixon. If China was a true democracy or even less authoritarian; its currency policies would be different and so would its trade policies; an empowered citizenry wouldn't tolerate less. While China, true to its Confucian heritage, would still have been a frugal nation, its export driven philosophy is likely to have been somewhat abated.

Nixon made the decision to say to China; we don't care what you do to your people; we don't care if you ever become a democracy; we don't care if you rape and murder the Tibetans or destroy their culture; we don't care if you ethnically cleanse your minority groups by exporting Han Chinese to regions that they never lived in before. Nixon's price was simple; Chinese neutrality in the American contretemps with the Soviets.

The world is a far worse place because of Nixon's decision and it wasn’t necessary; the United States would have emerged victorious in the Cold War one way or the other. Nixon did the same thing with China that the crack cocaine realists want the United States to do with Iran; sell the people down the river for a temporary strategic advantage. It’s a mistake that hopefully Obama won’t make.

Ben Katcher, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett want the United States to double down on Nixon's bad bet. If they had a better understanding of history they would realize what a mistake that would be.

ps: Nixon's decisions about China essentially made the development of democracy in China impossible or, at the very least, delayed it by a long time. Here's one of the consequences of that decision,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/asia/13china.html?ref=asia

wild talk from frenchconnection:

fc: "Iran recently tried to seize oil fields in Iraq with force"
news report: "There are no signs along the largest portion of international borders. These were obliterated during the Iraq-Iran war which continued from 1980-1988. . .the countries [Iraq and Iran] were discussing ways to develop joint oil fields and how to share output or revenues. . .He said an Iraqi delegation was currently in Tehran with the aim of reaching a final agreement."

fc: "Iran might have claims on Azerbadjan"
news report: Iran, Azerbaijan vow to broaden cooperation on Caspian Sea

Iraq. No signs on the border ? Who are you kidding ?

A group of about 11 Iranian soldiers seized a portion of the remote Fakka oil field in Maysan Province in southeastern Iraq early Friday, according to Iraq.

Government officials in Baghdad said they had summoned the Iranian ambassador to protest the military action, but diplomatic efforts had so far failed to resolve the dispute.

Ramin Mihman-Parast, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, denied on Saturday that Iranian soldiers were occupying an Iraqi oil field, said the Iranian state news agency.

But a statement attributed to Iran’s Armed Services Command took a harder line.

“Our forces are on our own soil, and based on the known international borders this well belongs to Iran,” the statement said, according to Iran’s state news agency.

Iraqi soldiers in the area said they had frequently had disputes with Iranian troops over the oil field, with each side replacing the other nation’s flag with its own every few weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html

flags, arms, sorry I didn't see the stop sign

Azerbaidjan

Yadigar Sadigov, head of the local branch of the opposition Musavat Party in Lankaran, just north of Astara, said the majority of local clerics have studied in Iran, and it is widely believed that the Iranian secret services are supporting the flow of religious literature across the border.

"They use them to spread their influence in Azerbaijan," Sadigov said. Iran's case has been helped, he said, by recent crackdowns on fundamentalist Muslims in Azerbaijan; the continuing poverty of many Azerbaijanis despite recent oil boom riches; shortcomings in elections; and the arrests of independent journalists.

The rise of Islamic militancy is unusual in this country, which has had a laid-back approach to religion. Even now, Azerbaijanis attend mosques in relatively small numbers, and many have difficulty specifying the theological differences between Sunnis and Shiites.

Then, last fall, 15 members of an Islamic charity went on trial on charges that the group was a front for a militant organization backed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Prosecutors alleged that members of the group, identified as the Northern Imam Mahdi Army, were in communication with Iranian intelligence agents. They were accused of trying to pass along detailed engineering information about the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, or BTC, oil pipeline and details of the activities of U.S., British and Israeli agencies in Azerbaijan.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0083.html

we are all brothers, peace

Iranians in Iraq? I'm shocked that Iran is taking advantage of the US defeat of Iraq this way.

Maj Gen Steve Lanza, the chief spokesman for US forces in Iraq, says that Iran is now moving from what he calls "direct influence" in Iraq to using "indirect" means.

"What we've seen in some cases is what we call a malign influence. And that influence in some cases has come from Iran, by money and by resources that are being applied within the state, money that is coming in to influence and shape the elections."

You cannot trust these guys. Why don't they have a non-interference policy, like the US does?

The bad part is that Iraq hearts Iran! Fancy that.

news report:
Baghdad has praised its neighbor Iran for facilitating voting for the Iraqi expatriates in the country's key parliamentary elections.

Iraq's ambassador to Tehran Mohammad Majid al-Sheikh thanked Iran for providing the High Electoral Iraqi Commission with facilities to hold the elections.

According to the envoy, nearly 50,000 Iraqi expatriates in Iran are eligible to vote in the parliamentary elections which began Friday.

He said polling stations were set up for Iraqis to cast their votes in 10 provinces across Iran. The voting will continue for three days.

If we are going to engage in the inane game of results-oriented analysis, here is my entry:

If Nixon would have isolated China and eventually "pressured" them into democratization, then its "empowered citizenry" would have demanded a consumer economy, which in turn would have drawn the US and China into an epic global struggle for natural resources, driving up raw material and hydrocarbon prices and leading to numerous proxy wars.

This may actually occur in the future, but thanks to Dick Nixon and his China policy, God rest his soul, he forestalled that conflict by 30 years......

Oh, and Nixon is to blame for the the inadequate financial market regulation that lead to the sub-prime bubble.

Wigwag astutely notes, "The long term consequences of Richard Nixon's decision to engage China have been horrendous for ... the Chinese people (with the possible exception of the Han Chinese)," who just happen to represent 92% of the population!!!

Of course Balfour's decision was horrendous for the Palestinian people, who happened to represent over 90% of the population in Palestine at the time. But do you hear Wig complaining about how they were treated? Or how the Balfour decision planted the seeds of conflict and instability throughout the Middle East for a century? Of course not!

Nor do you hear Wigwag talk about the critical roles Bill Clinton and George Bush played in creating the enormous trade and financial imbalances with China and selling out American workers. No, Nixon is the bogeyman solely because he is being used as a model for dealing with Iran, and Wigwag hates Iran because it dares to challenge Israel.

As if in preparation for this post, Barry Rubin addresses what he calls the "criminal naivite" of believing that dictators cannot remain extreme, but must become moderate over time. He cites a 1936 Pittsburgh Press editorial that rejoices that Stalin was becoming more moderate. How did they know? Because Stalin had just given the USSR a new moderate constitution. Barry Rubin says he is not trying to laugh at the stupidity of the past, but to analyze the reason for their confusion so that we don't repeat the mistake:

"The confusion here is between a regime not being able to realize a utopian vision—from each according to his ability to each according to his needs; abandoning the early drive for revolutionary purity, as in the USSR's abolition of military ranks for a short period after the revolution—and of it being able to realize a nightmarish vision of a dictatorial, ideological state. And so, in "practical" terms, factory managers were paid more than workers while millions of people were still sent to concentration camps, shot, or perished in government-made famines.

This is not to say things were worse back in 1936 in terms of people making these mistakes about understanding dictatorships. True, the New York Times correspondent in the USSR whitewashed the oppression there, while Communist intellectuals and fellow travelers fell for all the same tricks. Similarly, there were those who thought Germany and Italy under fascism were just splendid societies. At that same time, the British and French governments--even if horrified by its internal policies--believed that fascism could be appeased into non-aggression.

But things are probably proportionately worse nowadays. One reason is that the societies in the dictatorial states being dealt with are so different culturally, and thus harder for Westerners to read. Another is that there is no organized left party, which means observers aren’t sharply divided into two camps, either for the Communists and the USSR or against them.

In addition, there are now dominant doctrines that forbid criticizing non-Western places or people as some kind of cultural imperialism and racism. Consequently, in contrast to the 1930s, right-wing Islamist dictatorships or revolutionary movement do not face the enmity of the Western political left. Regarding today’s equivalents of the Spanish Civil War, much of the left and fashionable intelligentsia support the “fascist” side.

Oh, one more thing. This editorial was discovered not long ago by a researcher in Moscow as he examined material that had been translated and circulated among the Communist Party leadership. They must have shaken their heads and say: how can we fail to defeat such suckers!

Today, too, this kind of Western thinking circulates among the extremists, bolstering their ideology and boldness. Before the attack on him in 1991, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was reading Western media saying that the United States would never invade and assuming that the level of opposition to that war (that's the 1991, not the 2003 one) would ensure his ability to annex Kuwait and dominate the Persian Gulf.

This reminds me of what an expert on Indonesia told me. When he visits radical Islamist leaders in that country invariably their bookshelves hold left-wing books by European or American authors portraying the West as evil and imperialistic. When challenged about their claims, the Islamists would then say that such wild assertions--America is seeking world empire; Israel is evil; the West wanted to destroy Islam--must be true because Western intellectuals had endorsed them.

The Western advocates of suicide, either through naïveté or ideology, inspire the suicide bombers. The prevaricators assist the dictators. The well-meaning strengthen the evil-intending."

Actually the picture that adorns this post is very interesting; a smiling Mao Tse-tung greeting a smiling Richard Nixon.

How many deaths was Mao responsible for? It depends who you ask; one authoritative study by Jung Chang and her husband Jon Halliday (co-authors of "Wild Swans" and "Mao the Untold Story") suggests that it was upwards of 70 million. The seminal biography of Mao by Edgar Snow suggests it was between 3 and 10 million.

And let's not forget the Cultural Revolution instigated by Mao and his wife, Jiang Qing. How many Chinese lives were destroyed by the Cultural Revolution? Was it in the millions or the tens of millions?

Of course, Richard Nixon couldn't boast of doing anything quite that venal. Nixon's outrages were limited to ruining Alger Hiss; conducting inquisitions while serving on the HUAC; illegally bombing Cambodia; ordering the burglary of the Democratic National Committee; committing obstruction of justice and laundering money. He was one of the two most corrupt presidents in American history (Warren Harding was the other)

Is it any wonder that the realists love these two guys? Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett, Ben Katcher and the rest of the crew, see Nixon and Mao as role models for international relations in the 21st century. They celebrate the deal between Nixon and Mao; they view these men as wise and sober leaders.

Tells you all you need to know.

Looking at a screenful-plus of Barry Rubin posted by nadine suggests a commonality of cause, and a depth of meaningless verbosity, that one would expect in one person, not two. Could it be?

When I look at China these days, I find that I am just too inspired by the resurgence of the world's largest enduring civilization; the emergence of millions of its people from destitute poverty and Maoist enslavement; the revival of its arts; the reconnection of its culture to its glorious historical past; and the unmistakeably palpable hope, opportunity and dynamism that have invigorated the Chinese people to have much room left over in my heart or brain to dwell on those things that can still get better, or on the various strategic challenges China might pose to the United States.

As for our "dysfunctional" relationship with the Chinese, I suppose the vast majority of the people in this world would look at the economic entwinement and partnership between the world's largest and most vigorous economies and say, "We should be so dysfunctional."

Zhong guo, jia you!

"Hitler didn't start with a frontal attack on France, the UK or the USA. He invaded Sudetenland. No big deal we said, after all they are Germans. And Austrians too... One day he came to Norway..."

The Anschluss with Austria came first. Then England and France were "prepared to exchange concessions that [were] timely and bold enough to send signals of benign intent" and Czechoslovakia was handed over. The German Sudetenland welcomed Hitler with open arms.

Paul asked facetiously, what is the first country Iran will invade? Let me give a serious answer: if the US decides to appease a nuclear Iran, the first Iranian invasion will parallel the Sudetenland, where, like the Germans before them, the Iranians will be welcomed: the Eastern Provinces of Saudi Arabia. The Eastern Provinces, which happen to sit on the Arabian Oil Reserves. The Shiite Eastern Provinces, whose inhabitants have been abused and suppressed by the Wahhabi Saudi government.

"When I look at China these days, I find that I am just too inspired by the resurgence of the world's largest enduring civilization; the emergence of millions of its people from destitute poverty and Maoist enslavement; the revival of its arts; the reconnection of its culture to its glorious historical past; and the unmistakeably palpable hope, opportunity and dynamism that have invigorated the Chinese people to have much room left over in my heart or brain to dwell on those things that can still get better, or on the various strategic challenges China might pose to the United States."

Why Dan, I never expected to hear such a paean to capitalist development from you.

Um, you do understand that it is not socialism that is raising millions from poverty, don't you?

Your hasbara apologists, Nadine,and Wig Wag, are an abomination. When Israel stops incinerating their neighbors perhaps your handwringing about other atrocities in the worlds will bear some relation to believable reality.

The incredible volume of propaganda you two put out is disgusting and you represent the worst side of Jewish identity.

Nadine, your black/white views about "capitalism" and "socialism" are crude. I have several times expressed my view that governments have a positive role to play in setting a country's strategic economic policy, underpinning an egalitarian social contract through law, and making long-term public investments in economic backbone and infrastructure. But I have also made clear several times my view that full-scale socialist planning is impossible, and an uneconomic drain on the creativity and innovation of day-to-day local economic decision-making in markets. I see the positive role of competition and market-driven innovation every day in my little corner of the business world.

Socialism and Capitalism only exist in ideological tracts. The rest of the world - the real part - practices one of several varieties of mixed economy. I suspect China could benefit now from a bit less government direction; I would like the United States to have a bit more of it.

By condemning Nixon, Wigwag and Nadine are both arguing without considering the alternatives available to Nixon. I suppose he could simply have adopted a stance of eternal belligerency and hoped and prayed that China would not one day work things out with the Soviets. Or, perhaps they could have simply hoped for China to collapse, which seems to be their position on Iran.

Eternal intransigence does not advance the interests of either side. In the case of Iran, intransigence makes the US into a visibly frustrated super power, whose limits are constantly on display. For Iran refusal to cede may lower economic output, but at the cost of gaining national sovereignty, something Iranians have made a priority for the last century.

The other thing Obama could do, JohnH, is follow Nixon's example; but not on China.

As you certainly know, Nixon wasn't adverse to regime change; in fact he actively plotted it in Chile.

Just 18 months after his famous trip to China, Nixon arranged through the offices of the CIA and with tremendous help from Henry Kissinger to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. The coup occurred on September 11, 1973.

Maybe that's the Nixon precedent that President Obama should be looking to; not Nixon's tragic mistake with China.

But there is one difference. Allende was elected as Chile's President in a free and fair election (although he only got about 36 percent of the popular vote). When Nixon plotted the coup to oust Allende, he was ousting a President who was the legitimate choice of the Chilean people (if only by a tiny plurality).

If Obama followed Nixon's lead and plotted the overthrow of Ahmadinejad he would be ousting an unpopular President who may or may not have won legitimately but certainly did everything he could to rig the election.

Nixon; Mao; the realists sure pick some great role models. At one time I would have been tempted to say that they were amoral; but considering whom their heroes are, it's hard to call them anything but immoral.

When you genuflect to Richard Nixon and Mao Tse-tung there's little hope for either your brains or your decency.

Maybe they should take the Beetles advice on all of this JohnH. Didn't they say something like,

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright.

"The US was losing its proxy war against China/Soviet and it was a genial move from Nixon to split the communist front. There is no such a bargain possible with Iran, Iran isn't "reasonable" like the Chicoms, due to its religious nature. "

Iran's front has been split for quite some time. The split borders Iraq.
(/Persia)

"Eternal intransigence does not advance the interests of either side. In the case of Iran, intransigence makes the US into a visibly frustrated super power, whose limits are constantly on display." (JohnH)

Iran clearly has a different opinion, for they have been intransigent for 30 years.

Every American President has tried to find an opening for diplomacy. The Iranians have nevery provided it. Obama tried high profile diplomacy, with letters to Ahmedinejad and "extended hand" speeches; the Iranians reacted with sniggering and defiance. The US has done nothing whatsoever in response. This does more than display limits to US power; it actively erodes US power.

JohnH asks a very appropriate and provocative question: instead of forging a "grand-bargain" with China, what else could Nixon have done?

I think there are many things he could have done.

1) He could have continued and expanded the covert efforts of the CIA to undermine Chinese rule in Tibet.
2) He could have expanded efforts to rile up the Uighurs in the attempt to get them to mount an internal revolt.
3) He could have maintained and expanded the trade sanctions that were placed on China during the Korean War.
4) He could have discouraged other nations from trading with China; this would have only been partially successful and the feckless Europeans, who wanted American protection without contributing anything of significance to the campaign against communism, surely would have squealed like stuck pigs. Nevertheless, these sanctions would have had a seriously negative effect on Chinese economic development.
5) He could have increased arm sales to Taiwan even beyond the sales that were already taking place.

Most importantly, he could have forged a grand bargain with Viet Nam instead of with China. Had Nixon done this it would have saved tens of thousands of American lives. Viet Nam never posed any threat to American hegemony and the prospect that it ever would was always ridiculous. Viet Nam had an extremely unhappy relationship with China; in fact they still do. China and Viet Nam actually had their own little border war in the late 1970s that Viet Nam actually won. Viet Nam and China also took opposite sides in the Cambodian Civil War. Stupidly and despicably, Jimmy Carter later sided with the Chinese by supporting the Khemer Rouge. Nixon should have realized earlier that the South Vietnamese Government couldn’t win and he should have made peace with Viet Nam earlier. Had he been smart, Nixon could have turned Viet Nam into a bulwark against China. Of course, this is what Jimmy Carter did several years later when he intervened in Afghanistan to help the rebellion against the Soviets. But Carter stupidly made a deal with the devil; Muslim extremists. Had Nixon made the same deal with the Viet Cong, he would have run none of the same risks Carter did.

In short, Nixon could have utilized all of the tricks against China that were utilized in American's Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Had Nixon done that, Tibet might be free; China's Muslims might enjoy freedom or at least greater autonomy. The Chinese economy might have deteriorated as the Soviet economy did, leading to a true people's rebellion, the fall of communism and the rise of a more decent society than we see in China today.

Is all of this speculative? Of course it's total speculation; but so is the thesis that the American experience with China can surely be recapitulated with the Iranians.

This is beyond wishful thinking. The President has reached out publicly on a number of occasions. Has, apparently, sent two private letters to Khamenei, neither of which were answered. Has made it clear that we wish to build a new relationship, sit down together and negotiate. At some point you have to take "no" for an answer.

In the long run it doesn't matter. Mao's China doesn't exist any more. Sure there is continuity of governance, but only the forms are left, everything he believed in has been undone. The same will happen in Iran, regardless of what we do or don't do. That doesn't mean they can't do a lot of harm in the meantime. But does anyone seriously think there will be a Supreme Leader (or whatever Khamenei is called) in 100 years... or 50... or even 20?

WigWag, this Mao stuff is crazy. It was the US opening to China that helped pull that country *away* from Maoism. Whether Nixon was a good man or a bad man, whether his motives were pure of impure, the decision of Nixon and a few far-sighted Chinese statesmen to open China to an economic relationship with the US is directly responsible for the fact that tens of millions of Chinese now enjoy a standard of living that their parents never came close to enjoying under the incompetent and totalitarian ideologue Mao. It is a standard of living based in large part on selling the fruits of their labor to Americans.

As I'm pretty sure you are aware, the growth of political liberty in the west was a long processes brought about by the gradual economic displacement of the old feudal aristocratic order by an expanding bourgeoisie. The contrast between the bustling, diversifying, imitative and creative China of today, and the weird, mysterious and closed totalitarian cult state of forty years ago couldn't be sharper. That old China wasn't much different that present-day North Korea.

The Chinese are growing freer by the day. Take a tour of the Chinese presence on the internet and drink it in. You should support that historical process, and the open economic policies that underpin it.

I can't believe that you really think the Hail Mary regime change measures you suggest would have resulted in some sort of outbreak of freedom and wonderfulness all over China. They likely wouldn't have produced anything but a war-torn, violence-racked China, a revolutionary cataclysm that would have killed millions, consigned the Chinese to decades of civil conflict, death squads, terrorism and misery, and left them poorer than ever.

I'm really fed up with meddling western romantics and revolutionary zealots with their casually endorsed political shock treatments and war-cures for the political ailments of humanity. Most of the revolutions of the West's own revolutionary age have been hideous bloody messes. We shouldn't be foisting more of them on other people.

I was much more optimistic, at the time, when Nixon opened up to China but have become more disillusioned over time. I prefer the path Russia has taken, towards a more open democratic society, to the more constrained steps that China has taken. Both, of course, are far from perfect but the full immersion, albeit with corruption, approach seems more natural to me. China has embraced predatory capitalism with corruption and a strongly oppressive central government. Time will tell which path leads to a democracy sooner. I think I would feel freer in Russia.

Nixon's approach was to divide Russia and China which worked to a certain extent, but both still supported the North Vietnamese, so he only partly succeeded in his aims. History also suggests that there was talk of opening up to China during LBJ's presidency which Nixon strongly opposed, only to embrace the very tactic when he came to power.

As to our current problems with China; I would say we wouldn't have so many problems if Clinton had not sponsored them for WTO membership. Once that was achieved, without a much more concomitant democratic opening of Chinese society, they could do what the wanted on their own time schedule.

Russia still awaits membership to the WTO and in my view is much more deserving.

WigWag continues the rant against a Red China that doesn't exist, a sort of naughty child that should be exiled to the back room.

China with its 1.3 billion people is a vibrant five thousand year old civilization that is rapidly developing a cooperative relationship in the world while rapidly expanding its own economy. It can't be isolated, and it won't be. China's people, polls show, are happy and proud of their nation and of the progress they're making.

WigWag needs to get out more. Go to China. I have. It's a wonderful place, with a high energy level. Go to a city park. Everyone seems to be in motion. They're doing line dancing, tai chi or kicking a ball around. Get lost in a city. and have them try to help you get oriented. It's fun. (But don't try the same thing in Detroit.)

Does China have internal problems? Sure. So does the US. But China doesn't involved itself in internal US problems, while the US has been deeply involved in supporting a China renegade province.

The Chinese show a forbearance and a patience that Americans often lack. They'll wait the Americans out, and they'll succeed in the end. Time and current political/economic trends are on their side, WigWag's rants notwithstanding.

Wigwag, you're getting delusional. Yes, Nixon could have done a lot of nasty things to China instead of opening up. Many of those nasties (regime change, Tibet and Uighur rebellions) were quite impractical given US access and influence in the area. Worse, most of those nasty things would have poisoned future relations with the US and motivated China to work more closely with the Soviets, despite their dislike for them. Now there's a brilliant idea for you!

Sadly, it's the same brilliant idea the forces Iran to work more closely with Russia and China, whom they're certainly wary of. And we already did regime change in Iran once (1953) and imposed the Shah's brutal dictatorship. That worked out brilliantly, didn't it?

And, Nadine, Iran hasn't been intransigent for 30 years. Try 100 years. With the exceptional of the Shah, various types of Iranian regimes have been steadfast in asserting their independence from Western interests for a century. The prospect of a future regime knuckling under to Israeli or Western interests is very slim. Yet wishful thinking springs eternal in Washington and Tel Aviv.

After the Iraq debacle, which has made the country highly nationalistic without achieving any of the goals Bush spelled out, you would think the geniuses in Washington and Tel Aviv would have learned a lesson or two.

But no, we must continue to divert attention from Israel's brutal occupation and find ways to keep defense contractors fat and happy.

Check out the most recent compilation of the world's richest men. It seems that Gates has become small potatoes internationally. China is the rising star as far as amassing personal wealth among the elite. Suprisingly, Mexico has the richest dude.

This phenomena will become more pronounced as the effects of shipping jobs overseas becomes more and more corrosive to our youth's ability to pursue trades and carreers domestically. We don't even teach trades in our schools any longer, so those teens that are less then gifted academically are falling into the black hole of poverty and unemployment. And those kids that are gifted academically are handicapped by a pathetic and underfunded system of education that is a disgrace by every measure and gauge.

But we have quadrillians of dollars to spend on these fuckin' sacks of shit in DC and their illegal and fraudulently justified wars. And we can ship billions to this racist little hellhole in the Middle East.

Why do we talk on these blogs as if we haven't already been sold out? Our unfounded optimism impedes constructive dissent and activism. We shoulda been on the streets years ago. The window is slamming shut, if it hasn't already, due to the Patriot Act and our apothetic attitude towards the crimes of our leaders.

We're screwed. Are these clowns like Reid, Steele, Pelosi, Palin, Leiberman, Bachman, etc, ad nauseum, really the kinds of people the founding father's invisioned as our "representatives"???? Spineless money grubbing power hungry narcissistic megalomaniacal back stabbing sacks of shit?

God help us.

(On another note, I feel somewhat vindicated by Wig-wag's recent "coming out". Her insincere veil of "moderation" has been ripped off, and she has exposed herself as the radicalized RW/Zionist fanatic I have always maintained was hidden under her mask. You simply can't hide ugliness with a coating of molasses, it ALWAYS runs off eventually.)

The communist nations during the Cold War were:

Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, China, Cuba, Hungary, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Poland, Romania, South Yemen, Soviet Union, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia.

I've left out several African nations that may or may not have been communist including: Angola, Benin, Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia and Somalia.

Of the 19 communist nations, 11 are true liberal democracies today (Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, the Czech Republic/Slovakia, East/West Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Nepal, Poland, Romania and the former Yugoslav Republics.)

Russia and the myriad of former Soviet Republics are all less democratic by Western standards but they are all dramatically more democratic than China. They hold legitimate elections; political power changes hands, there is a relatively free press, religious freedom is tolerated.

While Yemen and Laos remain a mess and while Afghanistan was destroyed largely as a result of the efforts of Jimmy Carter and Zbignew Brzezinski, even Viet Nam is developing democratic institutions at a far faster rate than China.

While the level of freedom in China is better than it is in North Korea and Cuba the question is why it hasn't reached the levels of the former Warsaw Pact nations or even of Russia and the former Soviet Republics?

Why does China still censor the internet? Why does it throw political dissidents in jail? Why is the rule of law so feebly enforced? Why is free expression of religion so barely tolerated? Why are minorities like the Tibetans and Muslims enslaved, culturally annihilated and oppressed?

I am sure that there are many factors, but one of those factors was Nixon's decision to announce to the Chinese Government that while the U.S. was going to fight for freedom all over the Communist world; China was going to be given a pass.

As many different commentators have noted on various posts at the Washington Note over the past several months, Chinese trade, economic and finance policies are disastrous for the entire world. In the recent economic calamity, while billions of people all over the planet were hurt by the economic downturn, ironically Chinese and American citizens, on a relative basis, weathered the storm better than most.

Chinese currency policies would not be possible if China was a democracy rather than a police state. An aroused citizenry would insist on enhanced purchasing power; China's currency would appreciate and this would result in an entirely more stable world economy.

Tricky Dick got it exactly backwards; he should have worked to undermine China and left the poor Chileans alone.

Wigwag, what's your point? It doesn't matter whether Chinese policies are dictatorial or even disastrous. The question is: how do you influence them?

My point is that eternal belligerence towards opponents rarely serves its purpose--it only makes the opponent more defensive in return. Nixon decided to reduce belligerency and engage, It's not his fault if his successors failed to capitalize on the opportunity.

But let's face it. Foreign countries are tough to move in a positive direction, even the best of friends. Israel best illustrates that point. If Netanyahu can stick his finger in Obama's eye with impunity, why wouldn't that serve as an example to Iran?

Completely OT, but...

Steve has something like 30-40,000 readers.

Isn't it strange and telling (telling of what I'm not sure) that 10 of
them, at most, make 98% of the comments on these threads?

Steve's readership, I imagine, is pretty highly educated and well-
informed. They read this blog and, no doubt, have things to
contribute. One would think they would more than they do.

And yet they don't.

"Why does China still censor the internet?"

As if Israel doesn't meddle with disrupting free and open internet discourse.

Well, I'm bewildered at this need that Wigwag is beating to champion the poor and human rights deprived Chinese. Actually it's pretty gutsy of you wigwag since you perenially ignore Palestinian deprivations an dare pretty coldly ruthless in supporting Israel (Nadine of course is in total denial that Palestinians exist, but if they do, they are not suffering and abhor the idea of peace).

But regarding the Chinese and the cold war scenario which always seemed to pose the Chinese as a greater, more unpredictable threat of atomic confrontation that the Soviets, we (that would be the US) are in far better strategic shape being interrelated with China economically than if we were military enemies. Or if our children dreaded the yellow menace, and learned to hate communists as a blanket category.

Not that our economic fate being linked to China is all roses, but it's better that the threat of hot war on many fronts. And our children now have new bogey men thanks to the fear mongers amongst us who can't see beyond 911 and the demonic Islamist devil that's replaced the communist devil in the continued conflict that seems to be required to reinforce the exceptionalist attitude of always being under attack.

All this concern by WigWag for the Chinese people is touching, but unnecessary.

Why does the US trail other developed countries in health care and maternal mortality? Why does the US, with less than five percent of the world's population, have almost a quarter of the world's prisoners, more than China with four times the population? Why are so many US urban areas unsafe to walk in? Why are US minorities oppressed?

Do the Chinese people care about these matters, or should they? They don't and they shouldn't.

Perhaps the Pew Foundation could do a global poll and find out whether what percentage of world's people in 2010 would prefer to be Chinese, and what percentage would prefer to be Bulgarian.

"Why does China still censor the internet? Why does it throw
political dissidents in jail? Why is the rule of law so feebly
enforced? Why is free expression of religion so barely tolerated?
Why are minorities like the Tibetans and Muslims enslaved,
culturally annihilated and oppressed?

I am sure that there are many factors..." (WigWag)

Apart from "old habits", I am almost certain that the main factor
is the Chinese leadership's permanent fear for a disintegration
of the vast country due to nationalism and ethnic tensions.

Constantly reminding them of their authoritarian rule and
violation of human rights would probably not make them
change course, but just increase the tension between the nation
criticizing and the nation being criticized. Now one of the big
questions are what will happen during the internal process of
economic growth, resulting in a much bigger middle class. Will
they demand more freedom (of speech), a multiparty system
and protest more against human rights violations, or will they
accept some sort of "Asian" version of capitalism - more or less
like the one we see now there and in places like Singapore? And
will the Chinese leadership attempt to exploit Chinese
patriotism more and more, as a glue to keep the nation
together - by, among other means, displaying or encouraging
hostility towards Japan and other neighbors?

hotmama2 - just leave the link and spare us having to scroll so much to get beyond your paste job... questions, is that you? lol

"Steve has something like 30-40,000 readers." (Sweetness)

I never knew that. How do you know what the number is?

I've always assumed the readership of the Washington Note numbered a couple of thousand or so at most. Is their a way to compare how many people visit this site on a regular basis versus other sites?

For example, do more people visit the Washington Note or the Huffington Post or the Washington Note or the Daily Kos? The posts by Steve and colleagues are so much more interesting than the fare at those other blogs so I would assume he gets more visitors but I know that quality and quantity don't always go together.

I'm impressed that so many people find this blog so enticing.

I don't know, Wig. I have some memory of Steve throwing out some
numbers, and those were the numbers I remembered.

But I could be wrong. But even if it's 2,000 or so, my point stands,
I think.

No doubt many more visit Huff and Kos--they're much better
known and broader (a bit) in their appeal, IMO.

Paul writes: "Now one of the big
questions are what will happen during the internal process of
economic growth, resulting in a much bigger middle class. Will
they demand more freedom (of speech), a multiparty system
and protest more against human rights violations, or will they
accept some sort of "Asian" version of capitalism - more or less
like the one we see now there and in places like Singapore? And
will the Chinese leadership attempt to exploit Chinese
patriotism more and more, as a glue to keep the nation
together - by, among other means, displaying or encouraging
hostility towards Japan and other neighbors?"

Yes, it will be interesting to see. Right now, they have something
of a lid on domestic consumption.

Wig, what if we grant your entire thesis...

I think most people here would be jumping for joy if the US
found a way to have the same kind of relations with Iran that we
had with the USSR through much of my life.

• Diplomatic recognition and full embassies in both places.
• Regular talks about key security issues.
• Cultural exchanges and economic exchanges (remember all
that grain we shipped to the USSR back when we were enemies?)
• Nuclear nonproliferation and test ban treaties
• Red phones sitting on desks in Washington and Moscow

Of course, there were the proxy wars. But I think you could
argue that we feared China as much, or more, as we feared the
USSR in Vietnam.

In short, we are treating Iran WORSE than we treated our worst
enemy back then and, arguably, with much less reason. For
one, the USSR really did have a whole bunch of nukes and they
were pointed at us. And they overtly supported Israel's enemies
with weaponry and propaganda.

Hey Hotmama2...

One of the ironies of putting Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope in
a footnote was that T&H was roundly criticized for not having a
single footnote in some 1000 or so pages.

Theories of the missing posters:

1. We say it all!
2. No one wants to be bashed, cursed at, spit upon, excoriated, excrementalized or the like.
3. Many of the readers are political insiders and they actually have to report all anonymous postings on their employment forms. (I read something about this when Obama was soliciting resumes for his admin.)
4. We have too much free time.
5. We are the only ones who haven't figured out how ineffectual we are!

Ok, can't make it a top 10 list. I'm a tv writer fail.

Wig writes: "I am sure that there are many factors, but one of
those factors was Nixon's decision to announce to the Chinese
Government that while the U.S. was going to fight for freedom
all over the Communist world; China was going to be given a
pass."

A couple of other points...

• Is it really fair to say that we "fought" for freedom in any way
that redounded to the benefit of the USSR's satellite countries?
Did deposing Allende, for example, help Poland?

• Wasn't the opening to China more a matter of not shutting
them out entirely any longer? The opening put China in the
same position vis a vis the US as the USSR: We were now going
to talk with them, have exchanges with them, do business with
them.

• My memory may be off, but I'd say that, far from it being the
beginning of preferential treatment for China, the opening gave
China parity with the USSR in their relations with us.

The whole thing became a "love triangle," rather than two
against one, or one against one with one sitting out because it
was locked out.

Guess who made (supposedly) 70 some trips to China after Nixon opened trade with China?

Why it's the same guy who virtually stole a few billion from taxpayers bailing out his investment house buddies! A guy who worked under Watergate planner, John Ehrlichman. This guy was trained by Nixon's under-handed and dirty-handed, win-at-any-cost crony.

Who is the mystery guest? Why it's your past Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson.

Paul Krugman wrote a few lines once about the intriguing Nixon/Ehrlichman/Paulson connection, but I never found any Krugman follow-ups.

I did find an old July '06 NYT Paulson story below. It probably would have been earth-shattering and astounding to know why he was really there so much, given today's changing economic global leader list. Was Hank there to "say nice things" to the translators or was he really trying to make money for international investment houses -- while flying 1st class on the taxpayers' 70 dimes.

Oh, to have been a fly on those Chinese walls! What exactly was accomplished during those 70 trips to China?

NYT 07/04/06
"The incoming Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., was awarded an $18.7 million cash bonus for half a year of work as the chief executive of the Goldman Sachs Group, the company said yesterday.

In its quarterly report, Goldman said the compensation committee of its board approved the payment on June 29 in recognition of Mr. Paulson's leadership for the six months ended in May, when profit doubled to $4.79 billion.

Goldman also agreed to buy, for an undisclosed price, stakes owned by Mr. Paulson and his wife in private investment funds it manages. A spokesman for the investment bank declined to elaborate on the filing.

"People in that business make an awful lot of money," said Brent Longnecker, president of Longnecker & Associates in Houston and a specialist in executive pay......

Goldman awarded Mr. Paulson about $38.8 million of compensation for its 2005 fiscal year, mainly in restricted stock, making him Wall Street's highest-paid chief executive."

why does the captcha hates me...

frenchconnection,
The captcha is notorious. Anti-spam in intention, irritating in actuality.

The trick is the following, while in the text box, hit control a and control c so that you have a copy of your posting before you send it. It'll never be lost this way.

Then, use the captcha at the bottom and you'll be rejected. User the browser back button to go back to the page with your post on it. Use the browser refresh button to refresh the page and generate a new captcha. Enter the new captcha and click "submit." Generally the second time works. Always make sure to block and copy though just in case!

"why does the captcha hates me"

Because it has integrity and inpeccable taste.

thanks questions

I had already figured the trick you name and never lost a post. The most irritating is to refill the information every time. It seems that WN doesn't set a cookie for me (which is strange since other sites do).

@pissedOff

if it was the case some of your posts would be automatically rejected

"Wig, what if we grant your entire thesis...I think most people here would be jumping for joy if the US found a way to have the same kind of relations with Iran that we had with the USSR through much of my life." (Sweetness)

You make some excellent points, Sweetness, but I think there is something that you're missing. Yes, even during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union had red phones in each other's capitals; they never broke off diplomatic relations and there were almost constant negotiations about one thing or another.

But that's not all the Cold War was about. It was also about Radio Free Europe; it was about American jet fighters and submarines shadowing Soviet jet fighters and submarines; it was about spy satellites gathering data about the Soviet Union 24 hours per day; it was about covert CIA activities; it was about massive defense spending to starve the Soviets into submission. It was about constant U.S. propoganda campaigns directed against the dictators in places like Hungary.

As a result of all of that, tens of millions of citizens in Eastern Europe are now free and intensely pro-American.

During the Cold War with the Soviets, the United States never claimed that regime change was not our ultimate goal; in fact, regime change was the raison de'etre for the Cold War against the Soviets.

The realists who support a "grand bargain" with Iran aren't recommending red phones or diplomatic contacts; they're recommending that the United States, in order to achieve a grand bargain, take regime change off the table with Iran.

Had the United States done that with the Soviets; if we have retired from the Cold War against them in the same way that we did against the Chinese, thousands of citizens of the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Republics would still be enslaved.

It was good that we didn't give up on the idea of regime change for the Soviet Republics or Warsaw Pact nations; it was a mistake to do so with the Chinese.

The Eastern European nations are now free; the Tibetans and Uighurs are still enslaved. Russians enjoy basic freedoms; the Chinese don't. Russian economic policies aren't manifestly bad for the entire world; Chinese economic policies are manifestly bad for the entire world.

Fighting for regime change in Eastern Europe was ethical and smart; giving up on regime change in China (as Nixon did) was wrong, indecent and counterproductive in the long run.

If giving up on regime change in China was a mistake, what do you think giving up on regime change in Iran would be?

"A couple of other points... (1)Is it really fair to say that we "fought" for freedom in any way
that redounded to the benefit of the USSR's satellite countries? Did deposing Allende, for example, help Poland? (2) Wasn't the opening to China more a matter of not shutting them out entirely any longer? The opening put China in the
same position vis a vis the US as the USSR: We were now going to talk with them, have exchanges with them, do business with them." (Sweetness)

I think the answer to your first question is "yes," Sweetness and the answer to your second question is "no."

Overthrowing Allende, who wasn't a communist and wasn't a Soviet puppet was immoral and immaterial. But the United States did alot to help the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. While we didn't confront the Soviets militarily after the Hungarian uprising or the Prague Spring, through Radio Free Europe we provided uncensored news to the Warsaw Pact states. We offered asylum opportunities to citizens of those nations who escaped and through overt and covert activities we worked to undermine the stability of those dictatorships. I suggest that you read Kati Marton's "Enemies of the People" to learn more about this.

While the Russia is viewed with disdain by most Eastern Europeans and while Western Europeans are viewed warily; the United States is wildly popular in the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltic nations. Why do you think that is?

In answer to your second question, I don't think that Nixon's establishment of contacts with the Chinese was about opening the same relationship we had with them as we had with the Soviets. After all, as the realist supporters of a deal with Iran will tell you, the first thing Nixon did to win the trust of the Chinese was tell the CIA to back off on its attempts to support the Tibetans. As far as I know, the United States never suggested that the Warsaw Pact nations should be enslaved by the Soviets forever.

Some people may think Nixon's abandoning of Tibet was a good idea; I think it was pretty ghastly. Look what's happened in Tibet since Nixon threw it under the bus. Tens of thousands have been killed and a great and ancient culture has been destroyed.

Wigwag, you were asking where the 40,000 visitors per month number came from. You can go to sites such as Alexa.com or Compete.com to get traffic stats for any site on the web.

From Alexa.com:

"Audience Snapshot

Based on internet averages, thewashingtonnote.com is visited more
frequently by males who are over 65 years old, have no children,
are graduate school educated and browse this site from school."

According to Compete.com, TWN has 16,762 unique visitors.
45,30 % down since last year.

"The Unique Visitors metric only counts a person once no matter
how many times they visit a site in a given month."

Apparently those old, childless males browsing TWN from school
are dying out rapidly...

Or perhaps last year's high numbers reflect a higher general
interest in politics in an election year, with famous politicians like
Palin, Clinton, Obama and McCain in the competition?

PN: "Or perhaps last year's high numbers reflect a higher general interest in politics in an election year, with famous politicians like Palin, Clinton, Obama and McCain in the competition?"

Perhaps TWN is not what it was a year ago.

Although I think the effect of Nadine's prolific habit of fertilizing each thread with toxic manure has diminished the quality of the comment section, I don't think the blog itself has diminished in quality.

In fact, Steve's campaign against Rahm Emanuel has seemed to increase traffic, as well as blog notoriety.

The only one who really has a handle on the true traffic stats is Steve and his techies, as his counter would be providing him with accurate numbers. The demographic stats advanced by Alexa would seem to rob these outside sources of their credibility.

But then again, essays such as Wilkerson's tend to rob the blog of its credibility, as well.

So who knows?

I've been reading this blog since 2003, and commenting quasiregularly since then. In no way would I say the quality of the blog has gone down. I do think some of the commenters who actually have government experience are fewer today, though.

I think most of us old men here know that the comment section has always been "interesting".
Remember bertignac? Nadine has nothing on that guy!
Nadine is actually the weakest right wing apparatchik who has been a regular commenter. She seems to be able to do nothing but parrot the stalest right wing talking points.
I used to hate coming here and seeing threads littered with POA's screeds, but I"m older and mellower now---I really do appreciate a blog with its own flavor.
I think the comment sections have been allowed to go to seed since the beginning, with far less moderation than other blogs. The fact that some arguments have been going on for years gives may be a feature, not a bug.

I would think it's less the content on the blog than the time
frame. As I said above, the period from March 2008 to March
2009 covered parts of the campaign, election, and inauguration.
Palin is a controversial figure, and many people who usually are
not so interested in politics got engaged for or against her.
Hillary Clinton has always been a controversial figure. And
Obama, needless to say, is too.

Steve covered this stuff, and every time he had Palin on the
menu, 300 new commenters came out of nowhere debating
here personal and political qualities or lack thereof. And then
you had PUMA and Hillary etc. And Obama was almost as
admired and hated as once John Lennon.

As POA said, only Steve knows - but I would guess that 2008
was an unusual year for TWN, because the outcome of the
election seemed so important, and because the personalities
involved in the election divided the nation in a time of crisis.

Now it's back to normal, meaning more stuff from abroad, and
most Americans tend to be less interested in Turkey's
relationship to EU than in Sarah Palin's children.

A blogger isn't necessarily responsible for the comments that appear on his or her blog. But it wouldn't be amiss to take some responsibility by indicating boundaries either. Or to wonder what, exactly, it is about the blog that would attract, for example, a proponent of the "New York banker" conspiracy theory of history to read and post here.

"A blogger isn't necessarily responsible for the comments that appear on his or her blog. But it wouldn't be amiss to take some responsibility by indicating boundaries either"

I agree. Allowing Nadine to post her zionist/hasbarist crap here doesn't make a whole helluva lotta sense, since the majority of us know she is lying 99.9% of the time.

But on the other hand, it certainly underscores the selective manner in which people like you determine what "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" you condone being posted on the net.

Cyberwar declared as China hunts for the West’s intelligence secrets

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article7053254.ece

Wig, my pet theory about your thesis on this topic is this: You're so bored with the stultifying uniformity of views on these comments that you decided to see if you could make a convincing case for the most far-fetched thesis you could think of and make it stick-:)

But let's keep going...

Wig: Yes, even during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union had red phones in each other's capitals; they never broke off diplomatic relations and there were almost constant negotiations about one thing or another.

SN: So our relations with them was miles ahead of what we have with Iran or had with China before the opening. Yes?

Wig: But that's not all the Cold War was about. It was also about Radio Free Europe; it was about American jet fighters and submarines shadowing Soviet jet fighters and submarines; it was about spy satellites gathering data about the Soviet Union 24 hours per day; it was about covert CIA activities; it was about massive defense spending to starve the Soviets into submission. It was about constant U.S. propoganda campaigns directed against the dictators in places like Hungary.

SN: I don't recall; didn't VOA broadcast into China? As I recall, much of this didn't apply to China because they weren't much of a military threat. They had the biggest army in the world (I think), but they couldn't project power. So we didn't really need fighters and subs to counter the threat. Did we really stop satellite surveillance of China, even after they got the bomb? I don't recall, but would be surprised if we stopped all of that.

Wig: As a result of all of that, tens of millions of citizens in Eastern Europe are now free and intensely pro-American.

SN: Maaaybe. Seems to me the Chinese like America, too. There was a story in the NYT recently profiling a Chinese businessman who wears a yarmulke. Turns out all his friends are Jewish-:) Also, all that love we showered on the USSR doesn't seem to have helped them economically. What does Russia do except pump oil and make arms? Roumania makes glass and crystal. And it's been 20 years since the wall fell. The Chinese seemed to have picked up the American and Western approach to economic growth much better than our friends.

Wig: During the Cold War with the Soviets, the United States never claimed that regime change was not our ultimate goal; in fact, regime change was the raison de'etre for the Cold War against the Soviets.

SN: Sure, but did we ever really try to depose the regime in any serious way? I know there was all kinds of skulduggery, but did we really think we were going to topple the regime. They actually had a pretty reliable method of succession.

Wig: The realists who support a "grand bargain" with Iran aren't recommending red phones or diplomatic contacts; they're recommending that the United States, in order to achieve a grand bargain, take regime change off the table with Iran.

SN: No more than we took regime change in the USSR and the end of communism off the table. We recognized it would take a while and it did. So, in the meantime, we had a rich modus vivendi, and that's what people are arguing for now, IMO. I mean, we wouldn't have gotten very far if every time we met Gromyko, we handed him a flyer saying Death to the Politburo. But each side knew where the other stood and what our respective aims were. It's just that we weren't going to send in the Marines and Air Force to depose Brezhnev. The same thing applies here. The only reason you hear anyone singing the praises of the Iranian regime--or the only reason you SHOULD hear the singing--is to counterbalance folks who want to bomb Iran.

Wig: Had the United States done that with the Soviets; if we have retired from the Cold War against them in the same way that we did against the Chinese, thousands of citizens of the former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet Republics would still be enslaved.

SN: Keep your friends close; your enemies closer. I would say that the Soviet bloc fell (primarily) of its own weight and internal rot and the foresight and patriotism of Gorbachov. Seems to me we did all kinds of business with Russia and the Warsaw Pact. It's just that they didn't have much to sell and their currency was phony. The Chinese are much better than the Eastern bloc at free enterprise. This may as much cultural as anything.

Wig: It was good that we didn't give up on the idea of regime change for the Soviet Republics or Warsaw Pact nations; it was a mistake to do so with the Chinese.

SN: I'd say we didn't give up; nor did we make it happen, at least not mostly.

Wig: The Eastern European nations are now free; the Tibetans and Uighurs are still enslaved. Russians enjoy basic freedoms; the Chinese don't. Russian economic policies aren't manifestly bad for the entire world; Chinese economic policies are manifestly bad for the entire world.

SN: And the Chechens? And the Georgians? Seems to me the Ukrainians have an uneasy relationship with the Bear, as do the Baltics. There are all kinds of funky things going on with the satellite states. And what of Serbia and Kosovo? It's not as if Russia has turned into a Western democracy and free market paradise. This is obvious.

The Russian policies aren't bad for the whole world because they don't have any economic clout. But they haven't been helpful with Iran, AFAIK, at least from our official perspective.

Wig: Fighting for regime change in Eastern Europe was ethical and smart; giving up on regime change in China (as Nixon did) was wrong, indecent and counterproductive in the long run.

SN: I don't think we've given up on regime change in EITHER place in the sense that we'd still like to see serious changes in both places. It's just that we're not going to stiff arm them the way we're shutting out Iran.

Wig: If giving up on regime change in China was a mistake, what do you think giving up on regime change in Iran would be?

SN: I don't think we would be. It's more a matter of how regime change takes place, or is allowed or encouraged to take place.

Overthrowing Allende, who wasn't a communist and wasn't a Soviet puppet was immoral and immaterial. But the United States did alot to help the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. While we didn't confront the Soviets militarily after the Hungarian uprising or the Prague Spring, through Radio Free Europe we provided uncensored news to the Warsaw Pact states. We offered asylum opportunities to citizens of those nations who escaped and through overt and covert activities we worked to undermine the stability of those dictatorships. I suggest that you read Kati Marton's "Enemies of the People" to learn more about this.

SN: I heard her on Diane Rehm; I will. Aren't the Chinese getting a lot of news from "the outside" despite the censorship? My daughter went to college with two girls from China. Their parents came here to visit. I'd have to say that the level of information exchange between the US and China is GREATER than existed between the US and the Eastern bloc back then. The Chinese people themselves have become a threat to the regime.

Wig: While the Russia is viewed with disdain by most Eastern Europeans and while Western Europeans are viewed warily; the United States is wildly popular in the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltic nations. Why do you think that is?

SN: Sure, I take your point. But the US is pretty popular among Chinese; that's why so many of them come here. And think of what Tai Shan is going to accomplish when he teaches the other pandas English and the pleasures of American bamboo?!

Wig: In answer to your second question, I don't think that Nixon's establishment of contacts with the Chinese was about opening the same relationship we had with them as we had with the Soviets. After all, as the realist supporters of a deal with Iran will tell you, the first thing Nixon did to win the trust of the Chinese was tell the CIA to back off on its attempts to support the Tibetans. As far as I know, the United States never suggested that the Warsaw Pact nations should be enslaved by the Soviets forever.

SN: And what have we done for the Chechens?

Wig: Some people may think Nixon's abandoning of Tibet was a good idea; I think it was pretty ghastly. Look what's happened in Tibet since Nixon threw it under the bus. Tens of thousands have been killed and a great and ancient culture has been destroyed.

SN: Terrible things have happened in Tibet. I agree.

Wig writes: "After all, as the realist supporters of a deal with Iran
will tell you, the first thing Nixon did to win the trust of the
Chinese was tell the CIA to back off on its attempts to support the
Tibetans."

I guess one last irony. We didn't tell the CIA to back off on Russia,
but wasn't the CIA as shocked as everyone else when the USSR
collapsed? That's my clear memory. So in what sense did the CIA
really speed the collapse? I guess, somewhat. But it's hard to make
a really strong case for it if even the CIA didn't know what was
really happening behind the Kremlin walls and through the empire.
Just doesn't add up.

Sweetness, I don't intend to be rude by not replying to your last comment; it's just that to be honest, even as loquacious as I am, I can't think of anything else interesting to say.

Not a problem, Wig. No offense taken.

This was very interested and informative. However, you neglected to mention Autodesk's products (Inventor, AutoCAD, Showcase), which seems to be an oversight. Also, at Autodesk University I recently heard of a new 3D holographic technology that could be used in place of 3D printing. Not sure if it has a place in this article but thought I would mention it. Overall a very nice and effective job.

Dream world is best place to enjoy hotel in karachi
thtu

This essay is adapted from his book How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace (Princeton University Press, 2010).