March 27, 2005

How About Howard Dean?

Glenn Reynolds nominates Vaclav Havel to replace Kofi Annan. I second that nomination. I can’t think of a single person in the world I’d rather see take Kofi's post.

Austin Bay wants more nominations. Okay, how about Howard Dean? I kid, but only by half. He might be more likely than Havel to take the job if he could get it. And he’d be a lot more likely to get the job in the first place if he were nominated (by somebody other than me.)

Standing up to the Bush Administration earned him plenty of street cred all over the world. UN fetishists and apparatchiks go for that sort of thing. He’s also earning some street cred with me because he at least partly understands what’s wrong with the so-called “international community.”

Dean may have opposed the Iraq war, but he’s not a foreign policy limp noodle like Kerry. He just thought that one war in particular was dumb. Say what you will about him, but he doesn’t shrink from a fight. He’s the kind of man who likes to roll up his sleeves and get scrappy.

I already published this quote from an article he wrote last summer, and I’ll happily run it again.
Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.
Kofi Annan would never, ever, think or say anything like that. And I seriously doubt his replacement will ever think or say anything like that. Howard Dean might not be ideal, as Vaclav Havel would be. But he’d be such an improvement over Kofi Annan I’d pop a champagne cork if somehow, miraculously, he got the job.

He'd be at least slightly more likely to get Europeans to listen and work with us. He’d also be willing to kick some ass when it needs some kicking. As far as domestic politics go, he might help bridge one gap between American liberals and conservatives. He could make conservatives happy because he’d do a much better job than Kofi Annan. And because he’s such a hero to activist liberals, he could help them see that the UN really is broken. They won’t listen to Bush, but they will listen to him.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at March 27, 2005 10:21 PM

“Okay, how about Howard Dean? I kid, but only by half. He might be more likely to take the job if he could get it. And he’d be a lot more likely to get the job in the first place if he were nominated (by somebody other than me.)”

Howard Dean would likely be a splendid choice. The Iraq war is a done deal. He would not oppose its ongoing reconstruction. Dean might just be the guy needed to straighten out the United Nations. Yeah, I would have no problem supporting him.

Posted by: David Thomson at March 27, 2005 11:24 PM

A certifiably brilliant idea, but it won't happen; Dean's not a life-long bureaucrat, so he isn't eligible.

Or at least not until the process-worshipers who decide this crap get booted out of their sinecures. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 28, 2005 01:00 AM

Conservatives will always say that a UN that does not follow every dictate of the US is broken. Before asking Congress to support a resolution against Iraq, Bush repeatedly refused to justify his decision to Senators, simply telling them that he had made up his mind and expected their support. Was Europe treated the same way? Was there a serious diplomatic effort made to win over Europe before the administration had secretly decided to invade Iraq?

This 'disfunctionality' at the UN reached a cresendo, oddly enough, when Bush came to power. France is hard to work with? France has always been a thorn in our side, and past Presidents put France in its place with diplomatic finesse and by pushing the many levers at the disposal of leader of the world's most powerful democracy and economy.

Bush failed to win over the leaders of Europe largely becase he didn't try. In the 2 months leading up to the war, Bush talked to Putin on the phone only twice. This level of communication is not the hallmark of serious diplomacy.

In fact, 'disfunctional' NATO fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan. Germany, France, and other NATO members indicated there intention to support any request for assitance in taking out Afghanistan. It was only American arrogance that prevented the Afghan war from being a NATO war, or even a UN war. If you picked up the paper tomorrow and read that French and Germannforces had been killed patrolling Afghanistan, would you we see the Europeans in the same light? If not for the Bush team's refusal to work with NATO, our European allies would have a little more street cred with the far right.

Posted by: Jon at March 28, 2005 01:01 AM

Hmm. Howard Dean the new Kofi Annan. That's an interesting thought. People like Bolton make me nervous because there's a fine line between being a critic of the UN and an enemy of it, and I'm not sure which side of that line alot of the neocons fall on. You never had to wonder with Pat Moynihan. He believed in the ideal and denounced the failure to meet it.

Howard Dean, while opposing the War in Iraq, has been a pretty consistent advocate of humanitarian interventions in general. I don't think you'd have to worry about another Rwanda going unnoticed, that's for sure. Like I said, it's an interesting thought.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at March 28, 2005 01:38 AM

good idea, michael. i may be a bush supporter, but i see your point re dean to UN.

Posted by: john marzan at March 28, 2005 02:43 AM

Jon, remove the scales from your eyes.

Dean would probably be a good choice, although after reading Austin's comment section, it appears no Security Council permanent member can have a citizen as the UNSG. I think Clinton would not be a bad choice, either.

There are quite a few good options listed at Austin's site, just as a reminder to others here.

Posted by: Mike at March 28, 2005 03:17 AM


What an idea! Howard Dean in the UN? why not, actually, he would bring some life in there. Vaclav Havel would definitely be a good option.

Your Blog is great.

Dancing With Tears In My Eyes


Posted by: Matthias at March 28, 2005 05:22 AM

Maybe Jimmy Carter. Part of me wretches at the thought of Mr. Carter running the UN -- but it has a certain ring to it.

It might also be a more honest role for him. In his current political state, he would make a more forthright world socialist than an American ex-president. I really think he's quite honest, and could do much to alleviate corruption in the UN. And he could finally disown his presidency, and leverage what he would consider to be a higher office.

The dark side of having a Secretary General Jimmy is that it would further expose the political rift within the US, revealing what is already the case: A lot of Americans who call themselves liberals put more credibility in the UN than the US. Having an ex-president take the job would make that view more stark, and enhance division.

Also possibly ex-president Clinton. Though his health is an issue?

And to further the cause of repressed people under totalitarianism, someone like Aung San Suu Kyi would be interesting. Though difficult to extract from her house arrest.

Posted by: Marcus Cicero at March 28, 2005 06:22 AM


JIMMY CARTER!!! Are you having thoughts of suicide??? He seems to be an honest person but his brand of negotiations is to give away the store. Not at all a diplomat.

I do not believe that an American will be chosen to run the UN after Annan, so lets not waste our breath or time.

Posted by: Gene at March 28, 2005 07:29 AM

Oh, great idea, Michael. Let's give yet another Bush-hater a stage, this time an international stage and a "respected position" so he can show the rest of the world how divided Americans are. He could become the defacto president of the 47% who want to be part of the "world community". OY.

Posted by: EssEmm at March 28, 2005 07:36 AM

Hey Jon, been following Claudia Rosset's "Oil-for-Food" coverage? How about the "Food for Sex" stories? Or maybe you've missed the U.N.'s stunning success in bringing peace ro all those war-torn countries in Africa.

The U.N. is a very unfunny joke, whether you're conservative or liberal. Siding with the kleptocratic genocide-enablers just because "conservatives" have taken the lead in pointing out the problems is not, in the long term, good liberal politics.

As to courting Europe, the only question I have is "why?" Personally, I think it more important to have allies who share our goals than to pay lip service to the need to keep the Lilliputians on-board.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 28, 2005 07:50 AM

Let's leave Carter out of this. Let's leave Carter out of everything... His interests and ours do not converge.

Howzabout McCain?

Posted by: Cridland at March 28, 2005 07:54 AM

I could be wrong, but isn't there some sort of rule that the UNSG cannot come from a security council member nation? Maybe a veto-power nation. That would necessarily exclude any Americans, Chinese, French [thank God], etc. from consideration.

Posted by: urthshu at March 28, 2005 08:00 AM

Both Havel and Dean are terrible choices.

Havel is a bad choice for age and health reasons (and all in favor of him enjoying to the fullest what time he has left - hopefully many years still).

Dean is a bad choice because the president needs to come from outside the permanent members of the security council.

I like to think that Aung San Suu Kyi would be an excellent choice, she has more moral credibility to spare and she's not afraid of anyone. But then I don't know if she has much ability/inclination as an administrator.

One problem is that there are (at least) two sides to any post like this, a public smiling face who can say the appropriate things and the realpolitik negotiator and very few people are good at both.

Probably the best real candidate is someone we've never heard of ...

Posted by: Michael Farris at March 28, 2005 08:46 AM

Dean just doesn't have the temperament, I'm afraid. Can you imagine "the scream" on the floor of the UN? Then again, I do seem to recall Khruschev pounding his shoe on the desk.

No, the proper nominee is John Kerry. He would dither along with the best of them.

Posted by: neo-neocon at March 28, 2005 09:21 AM

I'm not familiar with Dean's pre-campaign management style, but I think the UN needs less glitz and histrionics, not more, and someone with the guts to carry out reform.

When he talks about acccountability in his article, how would he enforce it, if not by a Bushistic big stick? When would he send in blue helmets with orders to shoot not "peacekeep"? The opposition always stops at the nitty gritty in the analysis.

Posted by: Patricia at March 28, 2005 09:47 AM

Since it's apparently against the rules for a citizen of a country with a permanent seat on the security council to be SG, I nominate Tim Blair for the job.

Lord knows the job is crying for a hard-edged intellect with a sense of humor. Otherwise, it's just too depressing.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 28, 2005 09:51 AM

Didn't say I was a fan of Carter. Or the UN.

As far as any of the people mentioned here for running the UN, none of them seem to be less of a fantasy than Jimmy. Except for Havel.

Honestly, the UN has so many fundamental flaws that I have doubts that any leadership will steer it in a positive direction.

But if the UN wants to continue its role as the Great Appeaser, the World Socialist, etc., Jimmy dovetails nicely.

Posted by: Marcus Cicero at March 28, 2005 10:13 AM

Havel shouldn't take the job because of his health, but I woiuld love it because it would drive my egomaniacal president, Vaclav Klaus, crazy.
I like the Dean idea, but I think Mikhail Gorbachev would be an interesting choice. I know that he isn't popular with American conservatives, but he does have experience dealing with and dismantling corrupt beauracracies. Allowing the Warsaw Pact regimes to fall required genuine courage and he deserves every bit as much credit as Regean recieves for ending the cold war.

Posted by: Frydek-Mistek at March 28, 2005 10:38 AM

Havel shouldn't take the job because of his health, but I woiuld love it because it would drive my egomaniacal president, Vaclav Klaus, crazy.
I like the Dean idea, but I think Mikhail Gorbachev would be an interesting choice. I know that he isn't popular with American conservatives, but he does have experience dealing with and dismantling corrupt beauracracies. Allowing the Warsaw Pact regimes to fall required genuine courage and he deserves every bit as much credit as Regean recieves for ending the cold war.

Posted by: Frydek-Mistek at March 28, 2005 10:40 AM

Everyone is getting so excited in the blogsphere about the 'outing' of the scandal and Koffi's 'pending retirement'....

Kofi Annan is not the problem or issue.
Whoever they get to replace him will be as bad and likely worse. He's a spineless probably corrupt sanctimonious leftist burueacrat, sure...

But.......... while everyone is in a state of glee about perhaps another the right of center blogs have helped/forced exposure of and contemplate who to 'replace him with'.... as well as pat Claudia Rosett on the back, which she certainly deserves -
Thee issue isn't Koffi Annan.

Norm Podhoretz wrote in his latest article about Pat Moynihan and Kirpatrick going to the UN and stand up to the way leftward recent tilt there, and how both dissappointed in their inability/failure to accomplish much there.... That was 30 years ago long before Kofi Annan.
The takeover was going on already at that point.

The UN is a product of the corrupt majority states that make it up... as well as a dominance of corruption and radical left wing dominance.

It will always be a scary place to be regarded with distrust and weariness. If this scandal has done 1 thing it is to reinforce that.

But in the end it really hasn't.
People aren't ready to write the UN off or at least put it in its proper context.
People even educated ones like Michael, will be eager to reembrance the UN as a natural response.
It will once again gain deference and importance in the eyes of the majority and likely hasn't lost any meaning in the eyes of many even at this point anyway.

That's scarier to me.


Posted by: Mike at March 28, 2005 11:22 AM

People who think that the Bush administration could have done more to bring more European leaders along are ignoring the fact that the Clinton administration didn't do too well in regards to their limited goals in dealing with Iraq despite the supposed Dem superiority at diplomacy. Hell, they couldn't even keep France involved in the maintenance of the no fly zones protecting the Kurds. In retrospect, we should have realized that France was working against us soon after the Gulf War with regards to Iraq and that nothing would be accomplished working through the UN when three of the five permanent members are working against the US and UK. Of course what you do once you realize that is an open question. Perhaps we should have just pulled out and let Saddam run amok. It might have saved us from becoming OBL's obsession.

Posted by: ATM at March 28, 2005 12:17 PM

Pope John Paul. He is unable to speak or leave the Vatican, so the UN would have to be moved to Rome. He cannot tolerate long meetings so the UN sessions would necessarily be short and rare.

Posted by: Conrad at March 28, 2005 02:42 PM

1) As others have pointed out, the Secretary General comes from outside the permanent Security Council countries -- not sure if that's a formal rule or simply tradition.

2) Everyone has missed what I think is the real knock on Howard Dean: that he loves to cause controversy for the sheer fun of it. It may be workable as a governor of a small state (especially one that takes pride in quirkiness) but would be compltely inappropriate in either a US president or the UN head.

Posted by: Otter at March 28, 2005 03:06 PM

"the Secretary General comes from outside the permanent Security Council countries -- not sure if that's a formal rule or simply tradition."

I think it's more tradition and common sense (yes the UN is capable of that). Would the US welcome a SG from France? from China? Why would the rest tolerate a SG from the US?

Any secretary general from the security council countries will be perceived as either having conflicts of interest that ensure they can't do the job (or will be perceived as a fool who can't do the job - or both).

Posted by: Michael Farris at March 28, 2005 03:18 PM

Jon -

You've got a gift for history, and that's a fact.

You ought to write textbooks. Or Texas ANG memos.
Or at least NY Times stories; much of a muchness.

Michael -

Is the news really this slow? Dean?

Street cred? Media buzz, maybe. But credibility?

A credible candidate might have won a primary that counted.

The problems of the U.N. are institutional, long- standing, and not merely the fallout of a stand- alone bureaucracy of corrupt opportunists. Whatever mission statement was laid out in the original charter has been overshadowed for decades by the machinations of member states intent on using the organization to further their own foreign policy and commercial interests.

Mike made most of the important points.

Kofi Annan is just a particularly greedy and unpolished practicioner of the trade. His discomfiture is not so much a product of his actions but rather of the inability of media and the true believers of multiculturalism/progressives to keep the curtain down on what has been business as usual for generations.

I see on Bloomberg he's ready to toss Kojo off the sled if it means he can keep ahead of the wolves for a little bit longer. Fitting.

NATO in Afghanistan? That would be something to see - Euro armed forces participating in the Eater of Empire's battlefield in some sort of meaningful way after they were incapable of mustering a force capable of influencing affairs in Bosnia.

There's an interstice with the U.N.; just when are public elections scheduled in Bosnia/Kosovo again? The plan for them to be self- governing sets what timeline?

Iraq wasn't threatening enough for us to invade after 9/11... but rated tying down about thirty percent of our deployable combat airpower for the ten years previous and was the reason we executed a prepatory buildup to Kuwait in the midnineties.

You can buy a lot of midnight basketball and foodstamps for what that cost, you know?

Europe did not actively resist our removal of the Taliban because they didn't economic interests in play, and because in the simple eye- for- an- eye arena, Afghanistan was a no-brainer because of their support and sanctuary of bin Laden - in that order. Iraq was another animal entirely. Saddam survived GW1 because he was a cash cow for the euroes, especially france and Germany. Resisting the removal of Hussein also represented a way to weaken the United States, which is always attractive to faded powers who have no other way to increase their stature beyond sticking a knife in the back of the person in front of them.

Bush made a pretty good case for transforming the political landscape of the mideast and beyond as a part of the solution to the problem of transnational terrorism.

The U.N. doesn't like it. The euroes balked. All the reality based media and walking puppet makers simply frothed at the mouth.

The congress authorized the action, and the people reelected Bush. Elections have been held in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria is packing its trash and preparing to leave Lebanon. The Green Zone press crew has to work harder than ever to ignore good news out of the region.

Bush wasn't elected to earn the admiration or praise of old europe or the New York Times. He was elected to protect and defend the Constitution and the country. In SPITE of the two above mentioned luminairies, and a sizable minority of our own political demographic he continues to fulfill the duties of the office, if not to score PR points.

Dean can't go the U.N.. He's got to ride the wild gelding that is what is left of the national Democrat party off the cliff in time for Hillary to resurrect it for 2008. Everyone has their mission in life; sadly, some people don't recognise their's until its too late.

I've about decided that the Clintons are willing to trade a 2006 senate massacre in order to marginalize the Soros/Kos/Dean wing of the party.

Winning the presidency isn't about getting things done, for them; it's just about winning.

Posted by: TmjUtah at March 28, 2005 03:23 PM

If the UNSG has to come from outside the permanent SC members, and if you think a US governor (Dean) who has never held high office (ala Carter) is appropriate, and having read through the Austin Bay comments thread with the assorted wild nominees, and given the particular sorts of scandals that have afflicted the UN in the past few years, and given the need to maybe nominate someone with a solid liberal, human rights perspective, and given that many of the international problems we face do largely concern the gentler sex, I hereby nominate, in the Year of the Woman -

Dutch MP - Hirsi Ali!

Besides - the woman could use some bodyguards. Does the UNSG get any?

Posted by: Caroline at March 28, 2005 03:29 PM

Well - I have to say that if Bono was seriously being considered as head of the World Bank - then it suggests that celebrity alone has some merit in this media-saturated world. Why not a Somalian woman who has personally undergone circumcision and who might bring a certain liberal, multicultural, European perspective to the kinds of problems that the enlightened European masses (and by extension - American blue-staters) might relate to - including sex trafficing, honor killings, artistic integrity, etc etc. She's black, she's a woman, she's from the arguably most liberal European country. She has grit. As far as I'm concerned she gives Howard Dean a run for his money. And apparently Dean can't even be in the running anyway. Whoops - she might piss off a few fundamentalist Muslims. C'est la vie.

Posted by: Caroline at March 28, 2005 04:17 PM

The really important issue Dean made, which Michael highlights, is the failure of the UN in Sudan. Usually unspoken, The New Republic a week or two ago noted that the Liberal alternative to the US as world policeman was ... the UN.

That's the choice; US or UN, for world cop. And for the last 30 years, at least since the unopposed Killing Fields genocide in Cambodia, the UN has sucked. Big time.

It should be possible for Liberal Hawks, Leftist UN lovers, and most UN hating Reps to agree on a policy of UN reform. Like, no money until the UN starts taking action on the Sudanese genocide. (They're pulling aid workers out; the Janjiweed just murdered another aid worker in an ambush.)

I hate the Leftist non-functioning (redundant?) UN. And I'd prefer an expanded NATO to replace it as world cop; but also a Democracy Caucus inside the UN to have more power.

The Reps should be more upfront on comparing Iraq and Sudan -- the Bush "action" method, vs. the Leftist UN "talk, while threatening even more talk" method. (Of course, I wanted Bush to try to export democracy to Sudan back when Powell said it was genocide; still want it.)

After Terri dies, people's marches for democracy in Mongolia and Kirgystan (?) will be high on media list -- but Sudan will come back.

And the UN failure in Sudan. and failure in Congo. and failure on child rapists nearly everywhere. and failure on oil-for-food.
(Kofi is dead meat)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at March 28, 2005 04:44 PM

This one's easy: Paul Rusesabagina.
He's an experienced manager who has dealt successfully with a government thugs and with international diplomats and businesspeople. He will have no trouble passing the French language test.
Best of all, his presence should focus the minds of everyone at the UN on avoiding another shame like Rwanda.

Posted by: John Tillinghast at March 28, 2005 05:15 PM

I would support Howard Dean for two reasons. Roger L. Simon is right to emphasize the need for economic transparency. The outside world should know more about how the UN spends its money. Nothing else can be accomplished until this matter is resolved. Dean would make it a top priority. He is also likely to be effective in fighting genocide.

Howard Dean was very wrong regarding Iraq. The evidence is abundantly clear that President Bush’s heroic decision to liberate that country is responsible for the spread of democracy in that part of the world. But that’s in the past. Dean might do a great job in helping to rebuild Iraq.

Posted by: David Thomson at March 28, 2005 05:21 PM

Romeo Dallaire? He is a Canadian general who was AFAIR heading the UN military contingency in Rwanda before the genocide. He begged for more troops and permission to disarm the aggressors. He knew very well what's coming. His higher ups, including one named Kofi Who?, ignored him. We know the rest. Mr. Dallaire did everything he humanly could yet failed. He proved his good character. Also, he would be a perfect slap on Kofi Who's face since Kofi Who ignored him.

I don't know if he has the bureaucratic knowhow (which I suspect after all he is a Western general), but he definitely has the moral standing.


Posted by: Vilmos Soti at March 28, 2005 06:57 PM

John: This one's easy: Paul Rusesabagina.

Ooh, he would be good.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 28, 2005 07:28 PM

I did not read the previous comments, but, I don't see any reslove from the UN, no matter who is in charge. Previous posters were probably correct, I assume, that the United States needs to be the worlds friend and not their daddy.

However, we have to accept the fact that any intervention will involve the US. Not in the same way that it involves the Pakers, but our Military personal,sp?, will be front and center for every operation the UN, US, NATO embarks upon. We should ignore the pacifists and weak states who sit idle as Saddam, <-any dictator, slaughters, while poking at American "Imperialism", and refuse to even recognize genocide when they see it. The best of the military is going corporate, accept it and find a way to help the Africans.

Posted by: Mike at March 28, 2005 10:02 PM

And after the UN, I'm going to go to the World Bank! And then to the European Union! And the World Trade Organization! Yearrrrrgh!

Posted by: Howard Dean at March 29, 2005 09:00 AM

You've got to be kidding me. Anyone who believes Republicans are evil isn't fit to run a 7-11, much less the UN.

If Dean is in charge of the UN it will be worse than Annan in charge. In this case it will be an American misusing UN resources to obstruct American interests rather than pursue the UN's stated goals. American involvement makes it easier to deny anti-Americanism. Since we're the only country in the world who takes seriously the idea that we're all better off working together rather than trying to steal a bigger slice of the pie, world presumption is that everyone works for the betterment of their own countries at the expense of the whole. Dean's obstructionism will thus be easier to hire than Annan's.

Yes, I obviously believe he'll use the office to fight what he perceives as the greater threat. A man who believes intentionally killing civilians doesn't make one a terrorist but Republicans are evil has pretty much laid out his analysis of threats.

While I respect your ability to analyze independently of your former alliances, I find your willingness to forgive them virtually any defamatory excess bizarre to say the least. I can only suppose you think such statements are acceptable as political inevitabilities. This strikes me as odd given your own reasonable approach to discourse.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I swear I've seen you comment on the need for greater respect in politics. Do you still believe as so many leftists obviously do that rightists need to show more respect to leftists, but since rightists are in fact evil there's nothing wrong in saying so?

Posted by: mj at March 29, 2005 10:38 AM

I'd recommend somene with a lifetime of experience working with the sort of people run the UN:John Gotti, Jr.

Posted by: ralph phelan at March 29, 2005 10:45 AM

That's the choice; US or UN, for world cop.

That's just silly; the UN is rather explicitly designed not to be capable of acting as the world police.

Posted by: Kimmitt at March 29, 2005 11:02 AM

Kimmitt, tell it to TNR.
Who else do YOU think is the alternative?
Oh, that's right, none of the above.
You're a Leftist, and that means, no responsibility for any outcome.

Some Leftists don't think the world should have, or need to have, a world cop.
But those who do think a world cop is good -- think it's the UN over the US.

Posted by: Tom Grey at March 29, 2005 01:38 PM

Some Leftists don't think the world should have, or need to have, a world cop.

I'm really unfond of the idea of the world having a "cop;" on the other hand, clearly something has to be done in the truly egregious situations. I guess what I'm favor of is the US acting as a world National Guard, getting called out only when the really bad stuff happens.

Posted by: Kimmitt at March 29, 2005 03:41 PM

There's something everyone should realize about the UN Sec'y Gen. He/She cannot be a citizen of a country with a seat on the Security Council. A good provision if you ask me.


Posted by: rob collins at March 29, 2005 04:17 PM

I think this is the most pathetic thing Michael has written.

For one thing Dean isn't braver than Annan, he just has a different job, so he can critisize the Sudanese government or the European cowards all he likes without it affecting his job one whit...

On the other hand, saying his judgement is better than Annan's is such weak praise... we're so proud. What's next, are you going to tell me that Dean's less nutty than Jerry Falwell or Michael Jackson.

And we thought only Bush was benefitting from low expectations.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at March 30, 2005 11:45 PM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn