emptywheel

I just got an email about Kerry's energy policy (for the long version, go here). And it drives me crazy. Here's a guy with real environmental credentials (I often take solace in that). But his energy policy stinks. So let's brainstorm how we can improve it.

A quick overview of the policy, with my comments/critiques:

Reverse Bush broken promise and urge OPEC to increase oil supply.

Kerry's first bullet point promises something he cannot deliver (oh, where is HoHo calling for honesty?). You're not going to get Saudi Arabia (which has a better relationship with Bush, so would be more likely to listen to him) or Venezuela (which has an understandably crummy relationship with the US, and Kerry's hardline calls against Chavez aren't going to improve that) to increase oil supplies unless you can find some way to get them more money for their oil. But since the dollar is tanking, you're going to have to get them 20% or more than what they were getting.

Kerry needs to address some of the underlying issues here--the weakness of the dollar, our inability to really affect oil supplies, and a real need to begin to cut back overall. Or better yet, Kerry could be honest and say that we need to find a way to deal with increased oil prices because we might as well get used to them--what's that, you can't get elected on that? Okay, we'll wait until after the election.

Temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until oil prices return to more normal levels.

Insisting on filling the SPR is actually one of Bush's few honest acts--stocking up some oil for when we will need it, because we will need it (okay, I realize it also helps his buddies make bottom line profit). I'd actually prefer Dem congresscritters to call for this, because I think if Bush does stop filling the SPR, then it might be perceived as a victory for the D's. And I'd like him to NOT make it a campaign issue, because one way or another, it needs to be refilled, and there is a pretty good chance prices are only going to get higher. But I do like Kerry's call for a long-term management plan for the SPR.

Enact a simpler, cleaner national fuels strategy

Kerry rightfully calls for more coordination among fuel regulations--if there was more standardization, it would prevent oil companies from reaming consumers by not producing enough fuel for a given area.

But even the Senate has agreed that one of the problems with fuel distribution in this country is concentration. There are too few refineries in many markets (particularly CA), and there are too many bottlenecks in production.

You're not going to get a more functional market in fuels in this country unless you have more competition. So you need to accompany a standardization with a call to break up Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco.

An energy policy to decrease dependence on foreign oil and protect Americans.

Why is this the fourth bullet???? This should the the first thing Kerry talks about when he talks about energy--and it should be foregrounded as a program to create jobs, make America more competitive with other countries, and otherwise stimulate the economy. Hell, it should be the first thing Kerry talks about, period.

I also think Kerry needs more details here. He promises incentives for clean and efficient fuel use. Is he proposing tax breaks? Credits? Is he going to tailor business taxes to foster efficiency and alternatives as well?

Ditto his Renewable Energy Trust Fund. He provides some details ("will also create 500,000 new jobs"), but he needs to give more meat here. This is where, given John Kerry's history and environmental background, he can really begin to form his own vision.

Oh. And he needs to name it something more inspiring than "Renewable Energy Trust Fund." Particularly coming from someone whose wife has, well, a fairly sizable trust fund, this sounds like the pastime of a really rich person, not a visionary program to unite this country. This name needs to inspire people, get them dreaming, unite the country. Something like, "21st Century Energy Discovery Fund."

I just finished reading Gary Sick's book, October Surprise. Gary Sick was the head of the Iran desk in Carter's National Security Council. He tells the story of the plot on the part of the Reagan-Bush campaign to make a deal with the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages until after the 1980 election.

I decided to read the book (Kevin Phillips used it in his American Dynasty) as a way to gain some perspective on our own potential October Suprise as well as for background on our current relationship with Iran (we know there have been some backroom dealings going on, and I'd love to guess out what they might be--some of the players, like Ghorbanifar and Laurence Silberman are still in the game, too). Anyway, here are my thoughts on what is a very worthy and (at this moment) timely read.

I should say, straight out, that Sick's book was discredited when it first appeared. He relies on a number of anonymous witnesses, and it took him until after Iran-Contra broke to form the conclusion that the Reagan-Bush campaign had pulled off an October Surprise. Later, corroborating evidence appeared, not least in Soviet spy files. I, however, found Sick's book surprisingly balanced, much more so than Phillips' book (better written, too). For example, Sick seems much more skeptical of one of the most incendiary allegations about the event, that Poppy Bush was involved in the negotiations with the Iranians. Further, he provides a balanced consideration of the validity of all the information he presents; I imagine this reflects his background working with intelligence.

Anyway, one of the things I tried to figure out was what made it possible to pull off the negotiations. One thing was that Carter had alienated the intelligence community. He had cut the number of covert agents from 1200 to 400, which meant there were a lot of people with really good contacts who had reason to work against Carter's re-election. One example of how this hurt Carter is that top-secret information (such as the plan for a second rescue attempt) found its way to the Reagan-Bush campaign within days. In addition, disgruntled intelligence personnel managed to keep the R-B camapign informed of the Carter negotiations with the Iranians. They even managed to turn one of the chief interlocutors with the Iranians into double agents, working both with the Carter administration and, more faithfully, with R-B.

Another thing that made the scheme possible was that Carter had alienated some key international players. Obviously, he had alienated Khomeini. Sick describes Khomeini's actions, at times, as motivated out of a visceral dislike of Carter. But Carter also alienated the Israelis, partly because of his tough stances at Camp David, partly because they felt he wasn't considering their interests. By the end, the Israelis gambled wholeheartedly on a Republican Administration, going so far as to send shipments of arms, against Carter's explicit request, before the election (they fudged it, so they could get the first shipment off before actually responding to Carter's inquiry about it).

The Israelis proved to be a real liability here. When Iran's military supply needs became dire after Iraq invaded, there were three possible sources (besides shady individual arms dealers): Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. The comment made me realize that in many ways Israel is as much of a rogue arms dealer as Pakistan and North Korea. But of course, they're our rogue arms dealer. The only problem is, Carter got stuck in a spot where they were dealing for the other side--and they managed to undermine US interests in the process.

Another key factor was Carter's principled nature. Up until the week before the election, he refused to consider dealing weapons to the Iranians in exchange for the hostages. Of course, since there was someone else who was willing to deal weapons (R-B), that meant that Carter was necessarily offering a less attractive deal. Not surprisingly, the Iranians went with the more lucrative offer. Sick explains, "By refusing to compromise for his own political advantage, Carter inadvertently helped to ensure that the hostages would not be released until the next administration took office."

I couldn't help but thinking, btw, that our principle and our unwillingness to put the interests of other parties (Israel) ahead of our own national interest is what gets Democrats looked on as so ineffectual from a security standpoint. It's ironic, I know, but if you're willing to basically bribe another party, you're more likely to get them to act reliably, rather than if you just try to deal with them honestly.

Finally, not surprisingly, R-B engaged in some of the same kind of directly contradictory disinformation they're spewing now. Reagan once said that "he would not be surprised if Iran released the hostages before the election since Iran probably preferred Carter to himself as President." Bush wondered whether Carter was going to pull an October Surprise, saying, "there's not a darned thing we can do about it." All the while, they're negotiating with Iran, asking them to hold 52 American citizens for an additional three months. Once Reagan was inaugurated, he kept spouting off about how he would never negotiate with terrorists, but of course, he got elected precisely by negotiating with terrorists. Reading about this didn't surprise me in the least, but boy did it seem familiar.

So what does this teach us with respect to the possibility of an October Surprise this year?? It's a remarkably parallel situation. Like Carter, Bush has pissed off some key international players. Also like Carter, Bush has profoundly angered a significant portion of the intelligence community; I suspect Poppy's influence will help to keep some of the intelligence community on their side, but many have already publicly sided with Kerry or at least against Bush. (I also have really big questions about how the intelligence community feels about the prospect of a Kerry presidency, given his history of leading investigations into CIA involvement with drugrunning; will they be thrilled because he (like Bush) has whitewashed stuff for them, or will they feel like they have a debt to settle??) But of course, we're not expecting an October surprise from Kerry; we're expecting it from Bush.

Reading this book made me feel like an October Surprise may be what is going on in Pakistan. Of course it'd be about bin Laden (and as with R-B, the timing of his capture). But what is in it for Pakistan? What interests would it serve Musharraf? It seems like it doesn't incease his political or life security at all. And the US is in a position to deal openly with Musharraf.

Anyway, I think Bush's similar positioning to Carter make it possible that, if they are trying to pull off an October Surprise, it might fail. I think it's hard enough because they're presumably dealing with Pakistan (since ISI agents are almost all playing it both ways all the time). But they also likely can't expect the support of the intelligence community. I suspect Israel is again voting for the Repeublicans (although I kept thinking of Kerry's backpedalling with Israeli policy issues when I was reading about Israeli behavior then). But clearly Bush can't count on the support of other allies (imagine if he needed help from the Turks, for example).

Anyway, I said above that "we're not expecting an October Surprise" from Kerry. But what if he could deliver one (I suspect he could, given some of the people he has working for him)?? Would I want my own side to pull an October Surprise if I knew it was the best (only) way of winning an election? Tough to say. I'm with Jimmy Carter here, I'd rather take the principled route. And after reading this book, I couldn't help but conclude that the Republican/Democratic divide in this country has less to do with policy and more to do with a split between putting a pursuit of power ahead of the interests of American versus putting the interests of America first. And I wonder, at times, whether allowing this regime to have another term won't mean the end of many things I hold dear in this country. So could you argue that it is in the best interest of the country to sponsor an October Surprise for our side?

I guess I'd rather reapply myself to finding an honest way of getting Kerry elected.

Here's a sad thought about Ireland's greatest contribution to civilization.

I've long had a joke with my (Irish) husband that the Irish are colonizing the world with Guinness. There are Irish bars in every major city of the world, it seems. And even in a city like Prague (where, if you speak Czech, a half liter of the best beer in the world can be had for $.13), people are willing to pony up a lot of money (in local beer currency terms) for a Guinness. We've actually started making a point of visiting the Irish bars around the world . . . and let me warn you, Guinness is really not good in Rio de Janiero. Guinness was not built for warm-weather climes.

But most of the Irish bars around the world are nothing like the real thing. They've got cheezy pictures of Joyce painted on the wall, discarded rugby and hurling equipment hanging from the rafters. They're way too clean. And they break the space of the room down too much, discouraging real drunken mingling.

Well, that's bothersome enough. But now, in Ireland, the traditional pub is being renovated into a fancy yuppie bar, with brushed steel fixtures and neon-colored vodka-based beverages. I suppose that has the salutory effect of making it more acceptable for a woman to be in the pub outside of the snug. But I'm really worried that the real McCoy is disappearing.

There are even people in Ireland who are worried that civil society is suffering as a result. People are staying home or hanging out with the people the came to the pub with. It's only a matter of time before a witty Irish intellectual writes a book on "pubbing alone" (maybe I'll do it once my citizenship comes through later this year).

At any rate, while you're enjoying your Patty's day festivities, give some thought to the (sadly declining) democratizing instincts of the Irish pub.