IF O.J. SIMPSON WERE REINCARNATED AS A CHICKEN, I guess he’d write this book. Sorry, I saw the title and couldn’t resist. . . .

A RESIGNATION FROM THE CARTER CENTER, over Jimmy Carter’s book? “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.”

It’ll be interesting to see what Jimmy has to say about that.

I’M AT THE HARTFORD AIRPORT NOW, where there’s free wi-fi, but no heat — I’m grateful for the warmth of the laptop on my lap. . . .

AN IMPASSIONED PLEA to product designers, in my TCS Daily column.

ARE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT the real problem in Iraq?

“NO BLOOD FOR CHEESE!”

SIGNS OF PROGRESS IN PAKISTAN?

Plus, read this by Cathy Young.

UPDATE: This seems related, somehow.

THE PANEL AT YALE LAW SCHOOL WENT WELL, followed by a delightful dinner with Jack Balkin, Howard Bashman, and a number of Yale Law students. Now I’m back at the hotel, and further blogging will have to wait. See you later!

MICKEY KAUS:

Virtual Fence = Virtual Corruption? Speaker Pelosi’s fallback choice to head the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, voted against building the 700 mile border fence. He prefers a system of video surveillance cameras, apparently. And gee, it seems that his daughter works for a firm that won a government contract to provide such surveillance services! What’s more, according to WaPo’s John Mintz (who broke the story) the firm did a really bad job.

Here’s more from TPM Muckraker.

Perhaps the Alcee Hastings nomination was really just an effort to make Reyes look cleaner by comparison. Is Pelosi that smart?

Kaus adds: “It would be nice to have some Gates-like oversight hearings at which Reyes could be grilled about this video-surveillance debacle. But of course Reyes is the overseer, not the overseen.”

DEAN BARNETT REREADS FUKUYAMA and finds more there than he remembered:

In truth, I went back to “The End of History” this weekend after a 12 year absence to see how poorly it had aged.

I was shocked to see that “The End of History” not only has aged well, it has matured magnificently. The triumphalism that critics larded upon the book is oddly absent. Fukayama’s writing was far more cautious than his fans’ (including this one’s) reactions. Fukayama wasn’t saying that we had reached the ending of history’s story and that all had turned out well. All he was saying that the search for “the best” system of government had been resolved; that didn’t mean the story was over or that even the most interesting parts had been written.

In two particular areas, Fukayama was almost eerily prescient. The first was his treatment of Islam. Fukayama mentions Islam on the grand total of three pages in his master-work. But each time he mentions it, he does so to acknowledge that in terms of developing political systems, the Islamic world has been largely off the grid for the best millennium. He also acknowledges the threat that Islam poses to the “victor,” liberal democracy . . . .

THE OTHER AREA WHERE FUKAYAMA was extraordinarily prescient was in describing what kind of people might emerge from the comfort that liberal democracies produce. He makes repeated mention of the C.S. Lewis phrase “men without chests” to characterize the kind of loathsome creatures that might emerge from our splendid modern societies. Fukayama was writing 15 years ago; I bet he’s surprised at how rapidly chestless we’ve all become.

Read the whole thing. And I may have to give The End of History a second read myself.

Meanwhile Stanley Kurtz says that Fukuyama hasn’t lived up to his stances in the book, post 9/11.

A PULITZER-PRIZE PHOTO from Iran, taken by an unknown photographer. Who has now been revealed.

MICHAEL BARONE: “The character and qualifications of the nominees are going to be more important than party preference in determining who wins the 2008 presidential election. That’s my conclusion from the initial 2008 polls I’ve seen.”

UPDATE: Larry Kudlow is liking John McCain on this account.

THE LITVINENKO CASE just gets weirder. Muslim burials and Italian politicians.

“SO WHAT DID NEANDERTHAL WOMEN DO ALL DAY?”

IN A DEPARTURE FROM MY LAST EXPERIENCE, U.S. Airways has delivered me to Washington smoothly and ahead of schedule. I’m enroute to New Haven, where I’ll be talking about blogs, law, and the Internet with Jack Balkin and Howard Bashman.

UPDATE: Eric Scheie emails: “US Airways got you there early???? Maybe the flying imams boycott
is helping after all!”

Thanks, kooky imams!

IN THE MAIL, Joel Rosenberg’s post-Arthurian novel Paladins. He lived in New Haven back when I was in law school, and we have vague memories of meeting each other in some bar — Rudy’s or The Gypsy, most likely — back then. I’ve enjoyed his other fantasy novels, and I’ll probably enjoy this one, too.

By the way, the latest Eric Flint novel, which I mentioned earlier, held up quite well. If you like his other work, you’ll enjoy it. If you haven’t read anything by Flint, you should probably start with 1632.

UPDATE: Several readers remind me that you can get 1632 for free in the Baen Free Library, if you don’t mind an electronic version.

MAKING ATLAS SHRUG, in Venezuela.

THE CARNIVAL OF THE RECIPES is up! So is the Blawg Review.

Plus, spreading the holiday cheer at the Carnival of Cordite.

MARK TAPSCOTT: “How to end AP’s ’60 Minutes Moment’ on Iraqi Sources.”

JOSH MANCHESTER WRITES on Newt and his critics.

SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT, economically: “Last year, of the 25 largest initial public offerings in the world, only one took place in America. This year, Hong Kong is likely to end up as the No. 1 market for stock offerings world-wide.” Sarbanes-Oxley is blamed. Or, in the case of folks in Hong Kong, credited.

BILL ROGGIO IS BLOGGING FROM FALLUJAH:

While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq, and that we’d stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I’m not ‘one of them.’ I used descriptions like ‘independent journalist’ or ‘blogger’ in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I’ve always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says ‘PRESS.’ That hasn’t changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

Ouch.

IRAQ SYMPOSIUM, PART ONE: I’ve been flooded with email on this in response to my post the other day, so I’m probably going to have to put it up in pieces. Here’s piece one, anyway.

James Ruhland, having served in Iraq, posts his thoughts in “There and Back Again.” Excerpt:

Too many people are concerned with cosseting the troops: They’re all about body armor, safety, putting as many as possible behind the wire, protected by concrete barriers, and not about what needs to be done. We need to get more of out troops outside the big basecamps, and working directly with Iraqi forces as mentors. We also need to expand greatly the embedment of other departments of our government, and allied nations, with Iraqi counterparts, to build civil-society infrastructure.

We need to reduce the megabases, the situation where Fort Hood is essentially being re-created opposite the terminal of Baghdad International, and get more of us out working with the Iraqi soldiers. We need to “embed” more troops among the Iraqis, mentor them more.

He’s got a lot of thoughts on the home front, too.

At Posse Incitatus, a suggestion that we change our approach:

The key is a regional solution. We cannot wall off Iraq from the nations around it, nor should we wish to. Instead, we should be exporting Iraq to the rest of the region.

This having been said, it has long been clear that the US plays by one set of rules, and its rivals use a far more effective and different set.

This needs to change.

Bottom line: “Regime change. More of it.”

At the Turkeyblog, a less bellicose approach:

On the ground, of course, we’ve been putting in power plants, re-laying streets, securing businesses, etc. But there’s a disconnect when we turn around and try to get this or that imam or mufti on board as though the Iraqi people were mere reflections of the mosques they went to. For some, that may be the case. But that’s one of our big problems, and when we give those who follow this or that imam a bigger voice by doing things this way, we get in the way of what we need to be promoting: secularization.

At Wikistan: “The key to a more stable Iraq is stronger pressure on Tehran via Russia. ”

John Engram proposes something kind of similar:

Declare war on the Iranian economy. . . .

Basically, I’m advocating placing Iran’s oil fields at risk (instead of their nuclear facilities). The Iranian economy is rocky and could not withstand a reduction in oil revenues for any appreciable length of time. An announcement by the US that it might be prepared to disrupt Iranian oil export capacity would be taken seriously by countries thinking about signing long-term contracts with Tehran.

With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . .

At Stromata, another Iran-centered approach:

Now that we have confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Iran is supplying weapons to anti-American militias, and probably training them, too, we should cut transport lines between the two countries.

And there’s more along these lines. On the other hand, at Prof. James Hamilton’s Econbrowser, a proposal for a more conciliatory approach to the Sunnis:

To this end we propose that the United States make a financial commitment to Iraq which takes the form of ensuring that its Sunni provinces get oil revenues proportional to their share of the population over the next decade or possibly more. Initially, it should take the form of simply funneling an amount equal to the Sunni share directly to these provinces. This would at the same time increase the size of the national pie, which would help to appease the Shia and the Kurds, and might also reduce the tension over Kirkuk. In later years the commitment would transition into an insurance policy.

I prefer the “oil trust” idea myself (me and Hillary Clinton), but these approaches aren’t entirely inconsistent.

Terri Goon would focus on training Iraqis in a new and more intense fashion.

Texas Scribbler writes:

I like the idea of hitting the mullahs (and their figurehead president) in their pocketbooks, but supporting the Iranian opposition (particularly their trade unions) with more vigor than we apparently are doing now, would also be ideal. But I think the best idea is what is already underway, according to some of CENTCOM’s recent press releases, i.e. converting the patrolling of the big American units into a relatively small advisory effort. Call it training for the Iraqi army, if you want, but it would mainly be about providing them with American officers on the ground with access to our artillery, air support and medevac. Which is what we were doing in Vietnam by 1972, with more success than previously. True counter-insurgency operations. Only this time we must not cut off the funding. . . .

As for Syria, why not financially undermine Baby Assad the same way we do the mullahs, in fact the whole Syrian Bathhist elite? We certainly have the means, and with Iraq drawn down to a 30,000 or so ground troop advisory effort, we’d again have the forces for outright war with Syria. The terrain there is very inviting.

The Jacksonian Party offers “a plan to stabilize Iraq.” It’s rather involved.

And a whole bunch of people pointed to this article by Chester, which I’ve already linked but am linking again. Apparently it has a lot of fans, both inside and outside the military.

Finally — for this installment, at least — some rather detailed thoughts on strategy and tactics from Jay Manifold — read ’em all. And if you don’t have a blog and want to participate, Greyhawk has set up a comment thread just for that.

BIDEN WARNS BUSH AND BAKER not to link Iraq and Israel. Good for Biden. It would be like Baker to sell out Israel for a short-term concession in Iraq.

Bad news: “The rest of Biden’s speech wasn’t so good. . . . what’s strange is that Biden’s analysis of the threat Iran poses from the view of the Arab states doesn’t match his view of the threat it poses to America. Or at least not to what he tells Americans.”

GWYNETH PALTROW: “I’m proud to be American.”

‘Cause at least she knows she’s free.