Who deserves the credit for foreign policy victory on Korean Peninsula?

Houston Chronicle: UN nuclear monitor to visit N. Korea

Everyone in Washington and on the major cable news networks has embraced the idea that President Bush has a failed foreign policy, and to back up this audacious claim it provides the "lost" war in Iraq as their evidence.

The problem with politicians making the bold and extreme decision to classify a particular president's policy failed, whether in the foreign or domestic realms, is that it guides their rhetoric on when addressing each by-product of said policy and marginalizes the scope of any debate over the nuances of that policy.

The recent breakthroughs in the drawn-out standoff between North Korean and essentially every other government in the world, but primarily the US, have brought the promise that the nuclear reactor which has recently been utilized in the development of several nuclear weapons from the rogue regime of Kim Jong-Il. The multilateral diplomatic approach utilized by the State Department under Colin Powell and Condi Rice is essentially the exact approach advocated by the president's detractors on Capitol Hill, so it would not surprise me if claims come from current presidential candidates, particularly on the Democratic side, that they in fact are responsible for this resounding foreign policy victory rather than the president.

I agree with everyone who asserts that Christopher Hill is the individual within the Bush Administration that deserves the lion-share of the credit, and I believe that the Chinese were the single indispensable element of the entire diplomatic effort. I also believe that the South Korean cooperation, serious cooperation on the part of Putin in Russia, as well as Japanese diplomatic leverage helped push the envelope and keep talks moving forward. But if Bush is to be tossed to the dust-bin of history based simply on his effort in Iraq then we are unlikely to learn anything from his presidency and American politics may be forever doomed to death by sensational sound-bite.

I am curious if someone would like to explain to me why the recent developments are not a significant mark of success on Bush's record. Any answer will suffice, conspiracy theory or critically contrived op-ed.

Tags: North Korea, George Bush, State Department, Christopher Hill, China, Diplomacy, Kim Jong-Il, Nuclear Reactor, United Nations Inspectors

I'll trade you one Pryor, for a Hagel and a Smith...

In a flagrant and irresponsible move, the Senate voted on Tuesday along party lines (with two exceptions on the GOP side of the aisle and one on the left, which I alluded to in the title of this post and will expound upon below) to reject an amendment put forth by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to strike from the military appropriations bill language which calls for a time certain withdrawal of troops from Iraq, setting the target date for combat troop redeployment of March 2008, one year from this month and smack-dab in the middle of the presidential primaries all around the country. Essentially, the vote is a populist driven distortion of the Senate's true constitutional function, marking an overt attempt by the governing majority to impose a change in national foreign policy on the sitting president. Nearly 250 years of American involvement in global affairs, particularly matters of war, have been managed solely by the White House, with oversight and allocation of funding reserved as the main function of the Senate, but to attach an amendment that flies in the face of Executive authority, and if signed into law would radically alter and limit the president's ability to wage the battle in Baghdad, has me puzzled in almost every way.

The democrats are clearly governing based on the polls they have been reading in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, while still riding high after their resounding victory in the midterm elections, and sense that by forcing the president's hand early in the game they will be able to shape the debate in the lead-up to next years presidential election. Clearly the kool-aid being spewed by the Bush-bashing correspondents on MSNBC and CNN, not to mention the doubly potent elixir pompous finger-pointing pundits at the New York Times (yes Mr. Friedmann, I mean you) have been regurgitating since they decided to turn their backs on a situation in the Middle East that they are largely intellectually responsible for, has been happily lapped up by ignorant Democratic freshman and otherwise more reasoned Senate veterans alike.

Anyone who listens to the speeches given by Democratic Senators both on the floor of the Senate chamber and on the campaign trail, and actually possessed half a brain cell that they devoted to reasoned analysis, would probably find such a bold move away from fighting the "insurgents" in favor of retreating to safer ground to be confusing at best, dishonorable for sure. But more on this in a subsequent post...

Democratic Profile in Courage: Senator Pryor Casts Lone Ray of Optimism Amid Partisan Pandering

One profile in courage that I cannot go without noting (but likely to be overlooked by the folks at the Kennedy Presidential Library when they decide whom to award this designation to at their annual gala in honor of the former-president's graduate thesis at Harvard on similarly bold and courageous lawmakers unafraid of standing up to their political superiors in the name of pride and moral duty) was that of Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). In defiance of his caucus and without much being made of it amongst the talking heads, Pryor voted for the second time in as many weeks to reject a democratic led constitutional coup, and voted his conscience. The MSNBC producers were so confused by his vote that they improperly branded the charismatic and clearheaded Democrat a Republican during much of their coverage on Tuesday when they showed his photo during discussion of the impending vote! I found this particularly surprising considering they never failed to highlight his party allegiance when he was leading the charge against the attorney general for the previous two weeks, but that story has been moved from the headlines to Page 2 (maybe 3 or 4) for the time being; though I am confident it will be back, along with the capital D after Pryor's name in no time.

Bravo Senator Pryor; I commend your principled approach to your duties as a public servant, and I guess I can give you a pass for leading the unjustified and slanderous witch hunt against Alberto Gonzales (as long as you don't buckle under pressure when the time comes to vote on this measure again once Dubya has exercised his veto power when this bill reaches his desk later in the week).

Two Republicans Succumb to Opportunistic Impulse and Disgracefully Cast Deciding Votes with Democrats

Unfortunately, Senator Pryor's courage will never emerge from beneath the national political radar because of the reckless and opportunistic decisions of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE; left) to undermine their party's otherwise unified attempt to salvage the Senate's collective dignity and avoid delaying the much needed funding allocated in the DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. Voting along with his less than dignified colleagues on the left side of the aisle, Hagel is likely betting his chances on ever seeing the Oval Office from any other perspective than that of a humble guest on his clearly politically calculated vote yesterday, though I doubt Senator Reid is eager to share any of the dubious credit the media is eagerly looking to shower on the emboldened Senate radicals. On his Congressional website Smith gives his brief policy position on Defense and Foreign Policy, which reads as follows:

The American military and our foreign policy have a long history of benefitting not only our citizens, but also countless millions of people throughout the world. Our policies deter nuclear proliferation, fight terrorism, battle disease, and opens new markets by spreading free market and democratic values abroad.

The United States is the greatest humanitarian nation in the world, contributing assistance to some 150 countries worldwide. As you know, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, we have given millions of dollars to non-governmental organizations all over the world through a multitude of programs, fostering positive change and touching the lives of countless individuals.

Maintaining our global leadership in these areas also brings us great rewards – democratic allies and a safer world in which the U.S. and other nations can prosper.

Needless to say, the Senator's vote hardly reflects the principles he chooses to espouse rhetorically for casual observers, any of whom would have been unlikely to guess accurately how Smith would have voted on Tuesday after reading this brief statement, which gives an ambiguous and idealistic view of the role that America should play in global affairs. Shame on you Senator Smith, and you as well Senator Hagel; may you both lose your re-elections in the most embarrassing and humiliating fashions possible. If only we (Republicans) could trade your lame-asses for the brass balls and conviction of Senator Pryor; for I am confident in asserting that the country, our troops and the ideals of American leadership which you both dishonorably pay false homage to would be better off if that swap were made.

I will curtail my ranting before I scare away anymore readers, but I could go on forever. Several questions that I have been muttering to myself for the past few hours (to the chagrin of my girlfriend who is working diligently on her law school paper a few feet away from me) will likely produce a series of outbursts as the day wears on. Among the more perplexing are: Who is advising the democrats on which issues are worth the risk of alienating their moderate base? Where the hell was Senator Enzi? How can Bush effectively turn the tables on the Democrats when he presents his case for vetoing this measure (answer likely to follow shortly)? What is going to be the national/international reaction to this largely symbolic, though historic bill? When is the country going to start cutting through the crap? Like I said, I could rant for hours and thousands upon thousands of more words. For now, I will reflect...

Tags: 2008 Election, Senate, Democrats, Republican Party, American Politics, Fools, Washington DC, Constitutional Issues, Iraq, MSNBC, Politics, Primary Season, Road to the White House, US Foreign Policy, The Presidency, Troop Withdrawal, Bush, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid

What would a "not guilty" verdict in Libby trial mean for the mainstream media?

It is difficult to watch media coverage, mainstream or otherwise, of the ongoing Scooter Libby trial without coming out of the experience with the overwhelming impression that Libby must be guilty of something. For months now, ever since the Time Magazine and New York Times reporters were tossed in jail for refusing to expose their source when ordered by a federal judge, the media has been convulsing before our eyes. No rational observer would contend that Libby, or Vice President Cheney for that matter, have been given the respect deserved of the nation's executive branch officials either during the investigation by US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald or during the lead-up to and during the trial proceedings.....

This case has fascinated me since the day Joesph Wilson wrote is ridiculous op-ed piece in the New York Times accusing George W. Bush of distorting the intelligence report he filed with the Vice President's office upon returning from the fact finding trip to Niger that his wife so kindly volunteered him for while working "clandestinely" in Langley, Virginia, behind a desk at CIA headquarters. Interestingly, Wilson accused the president of falsely asserting in his now famous 18-words during his 2002 State of the Union speech, that Iraq had "purchased" yellow-cake uranium from Niger. He would have been correct, if in fact that was what the president said, but as we have all seen and heard over and over and over again, Bush's exact words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In a simple Google search I discovered a timeline published by the BBC which lists the statements made by British intelligence, the US president and his then National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice, IAEA nuclear inspector Mohammed El-Baradi, Ambassador Wilson, then CIA director George Tenet and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair among others regarding the accuracy and basis of this assertion. They are listed as follows...

• 24 September 2002- "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government)

• 28 January 2003- "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (US President George W Bush's State of the Union address)

• 7 March 2003- "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." (UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the UN Security Council)

• 3 July 2003- "It is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence... We recommend that the Government explain on what evidence it relied for its judgement in September that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out whether it still considers the September dossier to be accurate in what it states about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Africa in the light of subsequent events." (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report)

• 6 July 2003- "It was highly doubtful that any such (Niger-Iraq) transaction had ever taken place."- (Wilson writing in the New York Times in February 2002)
  

• 8 July 2003- "The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement." (White House spokesman Ari Fleischer)

• 8 July 2003- "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called "forged" documents, they came from separate intelligence." (British Prime Minister Tony Blair testimony to the House of Commons Liaison Committee)

• 11 July 2003- "The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety... Some specifics about amount and place were taken out. With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out. If the CIA - the director of central intelligence - had said "Take this out of the speech," it would have been gone. We have a high standard for the president's speeches." (National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on US President George W Bush's State of the Union address)

• 11 July 2003- "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president. The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. I am responsible for the approval process in my agency." (CIA Director George Tenet)

• 12 July 2003- "The CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier... However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US... A judgement was therefore made to retain it." (UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a letter to Donald Anderson MP, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee)
  

To quote one of my favorite Sesame Street skits, "Which one of these is not like the others, which one of these just doesn't belong?" For those of you out there who excelled at this section of the SATs, I assume it was pretty easy to single out the assertion of former-Ambassador Wilson that it was "highly doubtful that any such transaction ever took place." Once again I return to my trusty Google companion to find out what impact Wilson's statements may have had on the inclusion of that controversial assertion made by the president, and sure enough, an article posted on factcheck.org, under the title, Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong, But He Wasn't Lying, it became clear that Wilson had in fact given credibility to intelligence gathered from other sources that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation had traveled to Niger and it was the impression of the Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki that they were obviously intent on purchasing Uranium from his country. Additionally, the Ambassadors oft cited assertion that his trip had been the primary basis of the president's comments is also easily rejected in the web-site's article, which cites both the 2003 Senate Intelligence Report and the UK's Butler Report (equivalent), both of which claim that the president's statement had been entirely consistent with intelligence gathered and confirmed regarding Iraqi contacts with Niger, as well as with Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The reason I have taken the effort to thoroughly discredit the Ambassador again is because if you watch the media reports on Scooter Libby's trial it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that the president had in fact lied and his administration had, upon being outed by Wilson, embarked on a mission to destroy not only Wilson's reputation and credibility, but that of his "covert" wife too.

When I was working in Washington as an intern, I went to watch a lecture and Q & A session with Sam Donaldson, former-host of Dateline. For the most part, his talk was engaging and his demeanor pleasant- but then he started talking about the Judith Miller situation. Miller was facing serious jail time if she refused to come forward with the name of her source in the White House, and Donaldson was noticeably disgruntled. His rant was soaking with self-righteousness, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because I assumed he had once hidden behind such journalistic privilege and had spoken with Miller about the situation and trusted in her journalistic integrity. Then it became aware to everyone in subsequent weeks and months that Donaldson, and pretty much every other big name journalist and editor, could not have cared less about Miller, who in fact went to jail, and were ready to sell her up the river based on (hilariously) her reporting of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.

A simple search of Google News will yield proof that the media is biased beyond humility, and equally as opportunistic as the embarrassingly unprofessional legislators on both sides of the aisle. I have previously cited my feeling that history will look upon this generation of civil servants to be particularly unenlightened and driven by opportunistic impulsiveness, but how will we look back on the media?

Don Imus seriously considered the possibility that the members of the mainstream media may have lied under oath, and his buddies at NBC, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert, are in the center of the storm. I have a feeling that the Imus Show is right on the money, even though they have already risen Russert to the producer's studio this morning to have Imus sound little bit more like he is kidding, as the translation of his sarcasm is sometimes that it was not in fact sarcasm.

What if this whole experience, which has been given little, if any, serious thought and reflection since it began following Ambassador Wilson's editorial in the New York Times, comes full circle? What if in the end Libby gets off? My guess is that it would be a hard pill for Chris Matthews to swallow. I expect that "they" would immediately jump to a defensive posture, with Matthews screaming about injustice. I would not put it past the Gonzalez justice department to file perjury charges against the Meet the Press host, for they have already proven by taking the case this far that they are serious about the problem (or at least making sure that somebody takes the fall for it).

Bush authorizes offensive against Iranian networks; is a larger strategy emerging? Let's hope so...

Bush and Rice dropped a bombshell today, admitting that the offensive against Iranian elements in Iraq is now several months old, a realization that, in my opinion, only gives greater credibility to Bush's assertions of Iranian meddling. This the day after hearing reaction from the president's speech which now puts the democrats in the position of having to defend what now looks like an uninformed posturing. They may actually end up looking childish, as long as the American people are willing to believe Bush is serious when he makes accusations and levels consequences on Amedine-jihad's doorstep. Guess what Senator Nelson, they were keeping you out of the loop because they knew you were reckless enough to manipulate issues for national security for political purposes and they didn't want to create the impression of an Iranian confrontation without understanding the playing field. If Bush had been supported universally by the Republican members of the Senate, I honestly don' t think he would have even exposed the operation at all. Truth is, Bush has always listed Iran at the top of his list of enemies. I really think Bush pulled the ace out of his pocket here, at least politically speaking. Sounds like classic Karl Rove to me.

It is outright embarrassing to hear how the president has made progress recently with in the diplomatic and legal fronts against the Iranians, as Howard Dean sheepishly admitted on Chris Matthews, or to hear young, bumbling freshman Congressmen talk about how Iran is our greatest enemy and should be our number one focus, but on substance there was nothing. Only sophomoric rhetoric stating that the Iranians are still years away from developing a nuke (we think) and it should be left to the next Administration (presumably a Dem) to deal with the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. Oh yeah, but first we need to pull our military completely out of the country that borders Iran (maybe the most ideal strategic position), bring them back home to their families for a few years, and then we can send them back to start from scratch when the Iranians decide to press full steam ahead because they no longer face the threat of military retaliation. Pretty soon this logical blunder and political failure will become obvious, or at least I hope.

As fascinating as the last three days have been, the best is undoubtedly yet to come. If this strategy is implemented properly, I think we are going to the streets with 400,000 American marines, trained to roll Baghdad over, and the rules of engagement have been tossed to the curb. I understand the Secretary Gates indicated that the surge in Iraqi troops will be 'phased' over the next six months, but after three years of training I suspect we should have high hopes for the quality of performance. Civil Wars should not be allowed to fester, they should be won and the country should be restored to the order it was given by the voters of Iraq. I foresee a whole bunch of ass-whooping, and I think the Iranians are unlikely to take it well. On his heels after setbacks in local elections, Amadine-jihad is going to likely be provoked to try to persuade the Ayatollahs that offense is their best defense, and our fate is in the hands of the 9th profit and the Persian Muslim rebirth fantasy which believes (maybe) but more importantly has convinced millions of its young citizens to join the martyr's brigade, akin to the Japanese kamakazi pilots. That is one long sentence, but it is also one helluva scary situation.

What has been the most shocking aspect of the whole week, at least to me, is the efforts of the press to pro-actively rally the cause for the politicians who are hootin' and hollarin'. The "Bill O'Reilly Effect" on the prime time media has inspired all of the finger-pointers on the left, who wanted to brand the top-rated cable news host a right-wing hack, too abandon their translucent veils of impartiality, and now Bill O'Reilly really might be the most "fair and balanced" pundit on television.

What if the capitalist revolution has reached its climax. Why don't we talk about the economy, the shrinking deficit , the record closings three times a week for a month on Wall Street . If this is what is to emerge from the recent midst of Washington posturing and intellectual opportunism amongst the major media distributions and pundits, I find it highly unlikely the noise is going to calm and give Bush an inch anytime soon. This leaves many questions about who is posturing themselves where today, literally, for 2008. These next two weeks will tell you who is going to win. S/he quick out of the gate, Guiliani and McCain put all their chips on Bush, and Dems put theirs on Pelosi. SMACK THAT BITCH UP.

There aren't many true believers in Bush left out there, for one reason or another, and the country is trending toward a dangerous Clintonian ignorance of what a world embroiled in a war against terrorism would look like if we walk away after its only super-power failed to give the effort and make the sacrifices we have made in previous commitments, such as in Japan, Western and Eastern Europe and South Korea. Instead we have been subdued by the same pussy-footing that inspired the incredibly disastrous decision to leave Somalia after two helicopters and a couple dozen Marines were killed, which resulted in a Somalian state frozen in a state of uncertainty and a haven for terrorists. I wish Bush was a bit more articulate, but thankfully, responsibility for carrying the torch is soon to be passed to more able orators as anticipation of 2008 heats up.

A real strategy for victory in Iraq...

I have thought long and hard about the best options available to the coalition forces as they attempt to combat a seemingly unrelenting terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully (though ironically) won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections and daily public opinion polls. My opinion of the US-led effort to date is more favorable than most, but it is hard not to notice the opportunistic undertones in many of the recent converts to the anti-war bandwagon. Unfortunately, because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy, the situation has become impossible to rationalize through the media and the Administration is likely to face growing opposition unless it can take radical and innovative steps toward achieving a viable long-term solution to the violence that has ravaged Iraq. At the same time, it is essential for and change in military strategy to take on the increasingly bold regime in Iran, which has decided to defy international consensus and press forward with its nuclear program, not to mention the constant infiltration of suicide bombers and arms the country has been supplying the Iraq insurgency.

The most important goal of the the coalition should be to figure out how the fledgling Iraqi military could most effectively take over control in major urban areas. I have concluded that the most practical and potentially effective option would be a two phase redeployment of forces. First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check. A story I have recently read in Forbes suggests that this is exactly the type of strategy that the coalition is now considering. The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely, along with all other coalition forces, and set up new bases along the border with Iran and Syria, where most of the terrorists are infiltrating the country.

There are several potential political and military victories that could be achieved by employing such a strategy. First, if the Democrats hold true to their previous political tactics, they will predictably oppose such a radical change in tactics, likely invoking Iraqi civil rights in a pathetic attempt to stand against Bush at all costs. I doubt very much that such an argument would carry much favor with the American people, so by taking this seemingly radical step, Bush could reshape the debate here at home and put his party back in the position of being the most trusted on the issue of combating terrorism.

Another potential benefit is that by realigning the American presence in the war torn country, the president can effectively argue that his policy is focused on reducing the military's presence over the long term. It would be logical to assume that fewer troops would be needed to patrol the Iraq's borders than are currently needed to patrol the streets of Baghdad. Additionally, by increasing the US presence in the northern regions of the country the unspoken message sent to Tehran will be unmistakable. I am not a fan of the so-called McCain Doctrine, or the troop surge which the White House has been floating in the media recently as the centerpiece of their strategy adjustment. Having recently deployed another aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the White House has shown it is serious about putting Iran on notice that it won't put up with its defiant posturing for very much longer.

I don't think that I have all of the answers, but at least I am attempting to come up with an innovative solution to the problems facing our forces in Iraq. I hope the ideas put forth in this article will spur similar thought and critical analysis from those of you who are as interested as I in finding a realistic policy option that will help us win the war against terrorism.

View Comments on this article at BlogCritics.org

Is the sun finally setting on Castro's Cuba...

A little bird has told me that the State Department is aggressively negotiating with the Cuban government of Raul Castro, the younger brother of ailing Communist dictator Fidel Castro. As I hear it, Fidel's days are numbered with his long-anticipated demise weeks/months away, and the Bush Administration hopes to take advantage of the inevitable power vacuum that will emerge. Reports as early as this morning have placed the ailing leader in a hospital across the Atlantic in Spain, which one would assume is not a sign of his good-fortune. So is the Cuban Isle going capitalist? I think it is too early to say, but few think that Raul is as hardened in his rejection of the West he has always been perceived to lack his brother's ruthless nature.

I am currently reading Bobby Kennedy: His Life by Evan Thomas, and the most striking thing about the entire book (besides Thomas' apologist approach to the historical record) is Bobby Kennedy's almost manic obsession with destroying Fidel Castro. Throughout his brother's tenure in the oval office the former-Attorney General is literally knee-deep in various CIA-concocted schemes for offing the communist revolutionary, each of which he carefully studied and all of which he dismissed before anything actionable could materialize. With Castro still alive and kicking (barely) it seems almost improbable that the greatest nemesis of America's "princes" would live to see the 21st century and beyond, and not so much as a hair on his head has been disturbed by anything other than a dozens of filthy Cuban prostitutes. I doubt we will see the end of Castro in the immediate future, but his days are certainly numbered and the future of Cuban is coming into focus on the geopolitical horizon. The Bush Administration seems to be well prepared for whatever the case may be, and I have no doubt that my children will spend their spring breaks getting hammered in Havana. However, any failure to affect serious and irreversible economic and political change on the island by utilizing the many-thousands of very wealthy, well-educated and culturally nostalgic Cuban refugees living here in the United States (the same group that failed to deliver for the Kennedy brothers) would be an even greater political failure than any of our actions thus far in the Middle East will ever be judged. Victory in Cuba (even if by default) is indispensable, but until Fidel is gone, the day is his, he has always had out number.