Marc Ambinder

The American Political Science Association's annual meeting has come to Washington, D.C., and I've been asked to participate on a panel about the interaction -- and lack of interaction -- between academia and the media. Usually, the interactions are short. Journalists will call a political scientist for a quote, attempting to add substance (or a patina of substance) to a story that is largely based on anecdotal evidence collection -- reporting. But do journalists, when writing about politics, use well-settled theories about the electorate as points of departure? Can political journalists tick down the leading theories about, say, presidential persuasion (Neustadt ... Barber, Cronin, uh ...)? And do academics (with a few exceptions) spend time inside the political bubbles? How does current history merge with the increasingly quantitative field of political science?

The moderator of the panel, GWU's John Sides, has asked each of us to come up with one example of something we've learned from political science, a specific question we wish political science would be able to answer, and a limitation, or a blind spot, that we want political scientists to notice about their own methods and thinking.

Live by Google, die by Google. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) did not equate homosexuality with bestiality, it turns out. Earlier, I linked to a story quoting Cornyn to the effect of: "It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right."

Page Six rumports (rumor-reports) today that White House officials are sounding out New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to succeed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, assuming that Geithner, ah, steps down, or is ousted somehow after the projected Democratic midterm bloodbath.

Suddenly, it's becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party. Not only has former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman's 9/22 fundraiser for gay marriage rights attracted numerous high-octane Republican donors and activists, but Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee will help the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, raise money for its political action committee. (Part of this story was first reported last month.)

Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

Three major topics in fifteen minutes, and the challenge will be to see if the President can knit them together. Oval Office addresses are throat-clearing opportunities. People listen. The President has an attentive, expectant audience.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We have now been through nearly a decade of war. We have endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we are trying to build for our nation - a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity may seem beyond our reach.

Here is the beginning of the thread: Iraq as part of the cascade of interconnected events that have led to the malaise today. 

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.  It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

And he gets right to the punchline: we've succeeded (or so the President says) in  Iraq. American can still do something. This administration can stick to its promises. We are still a great nation.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

Obama acknowledges the enormous fissure that the war in the Iraq created in American society, and that Obama was decidedly on one side of that fissure.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America's longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst those shifting tides. At every turn, America's men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The White House was horrified that some interpreted Peter Baker's reporting on Sunday to suggest that Obama was indifferent to the wars before him, particularly the human cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. But Obama does not like to show emotion for the sake of showing emotion.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people - Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

This is the beginning of an implied comparison to what we should expect in Afghanistan. It is also his account of the "surge," a policy decision he opposed and does not mention.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

50,000 U.S. troops will assist for at least a year, and tens of thousands of contractors will stay in Iraq for a long, long time.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq.  We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

Obama said "That's what we've done" very succinctly, as if he wanted to emphasize the fact that the U.S. followed through on its commitment. The military asked for a few extra months, and President Obama gave it to them. 

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not.

The political system has been frozen since March.  BTW: the Iraqi people will also have a stronger partner in Iran, which is another reason why ...

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq's Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq-one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect.

These two phrases: "mutual interests" and "mutual respect" are mainstays of Obama's foreign policy principals.

Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest -- it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

Note the link between sending resources abroad at a "time of right budgets of home."  Guns versus butter. Time to shift from guns to butter. 

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq's future.

This doesn't quite take the Republican bait about the surge, but it is a mature and compassionate thing to say about the former President. Obama will simply not drag the fights of the past forward. He has refused to do so since the beginning of his administration, and he refuses to do so now.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

What is Al Qaeda today? Where is Al Qaeda today? Not in Afghanistan and highly degraded in Pakistan ... but:

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what's at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But most of its training and planning is being done elsewhere. And the CIA and special forces keep killing Al Qaeda leaders with little effect on the group's operational capacity.

We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -and hundreds of Al Qaeda's extremist allies-have been killed or captured around the world.

Notice, again, the use of the word "resources." 

Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who-under the command of General David Petraeus -are fighting to break the Taliban's momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That's why we are training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's.

This is a message for those who are preparing to send their data points to the National Security Staff about Afghanistan: "the transition will begin" because Obama needs to prove his dictum that "open-ended war neither serves our interests nor the Afghan's people."

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example -to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

This a long transition into the discussion of the economy, which is the real subject of the speech tonight, along with Afghanistan:

That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation's strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

This is not a new subject for Obama. He has routinely spoken about security in these broad terms.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation's long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

Narrative is a Beltway term. Story is not. Obama is telling a story here: one of the reasons why we are in this predicament is because we've spent nearly a trillion dollars fighting a war he did not need to. He wants to use this moment to try and anchor people's perceptions about the economy in a history that stretches beyond the near-collapse of the stock market and the bailouts and the stimulus package.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Nothing says "I am not a foreigner, you gits," like this (and subsequent passages), framed by the drapes and flags of the Oval Office.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

He needs to find a way here to convince people that he is not making an economic speech under the guise of an Iraq speech. This is a political speech, but not a partisan one.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That is why we have already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We are treating the signature wounds of today's wars post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we are funding a post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II- including my grandfather- become the backbone of our middle class, so today's servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America's final combat brigade in Iraq -- the Army's Fourth Stryker Brigade -- journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from their families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband's embrace or a mother's kiss. Most painfully, since the war began fifty-five members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, "I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot."

This last paragraph (above) is quite beautiful. As a matter of argument, the President is linking his economic program to the sacrifices made by the troops. They deserve a better country, he is saying.

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations -war -and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar - Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

President Obama has asked the television networks for 15 minutes tonight, and he's going to pack quite a bit of messaging into that short period of time. Why do we need a speech marking the end of the combat mission in Iraq? It's because we're going to need, according to Obama, to understand the future of the war in Afghanistan and the interconnectedness of foreign and domestic policy in a way that reflects what Obama was able to do in Iraq.  

What did he do? He set a time-frame and stuck to it. Iraq will now begin to fend for itself. He promised during his presidential campaign that he would end the Iraq war "responsibly." He will note tonight that his administration managed to withdraw 100,000 troops from Iraq "responsibly." He will portray this as a major milestone in his presidency.

We forget how integral Sen. Barack Obama's decision to oppose the Iraq war was to his own political awakening, and how many contortions Hillary Clinton had to untwist in order to justify her own support for the war authority, and how, by the day of the general election, given the success of the surge (or the success of JSOC's counterterrorism efforts), Iraq was no longer a central voting issue. Voters seemed to exorcise that demon in 2006, when they voted Democrats into Congress.

A large chunk of the speech will be taken up by the president's careful description of the sacrifices that a million U.S. soldiers and diplomats have made by their service in Iraq, and how 4,400 Americans did not come home.

Then, a pivot point: the Iraq drawdown has allowed the president to refocus attention on the threat from Al Qaeda worldwide, and he will mention that the terrorist network is degraded, albeit still capable of waging terrorist attacks and intending to do so.

He will note that the government will be able to reap a bit of a post-Iraq transition dividend, allowing the administration to invest more in job creation, health care, and education here at home. (Subtly, the point: Obama wouldn't have gone into Iraq, so we wouldn't have had to spend as much as we did.) It's time, he will say, to build our own nation.

There will not be a granular comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan, but Oval Office speeches are rare opportunities for presidents to compel attention, and he will not waste the occasion to lay a marker about expectations in Afghanistan, a war with which Americans have grown increasingly weary. The glide path in Afghanistan will clearly be different, but the president hopes the analogy sticks: he can manage wars, and what he did in Iraq he can do in Afghanistan.

Now then: will he take the bait dangling from Republican hooks and give President Bush credit for the surge? He will telephone President Bush earlier in the day, presumably to thank the president for his judgment in a way that does not acknowledge that his own opposition to the surge was (in retrospect) incorrect. Officials make the argument that people read a lot into the surge, and that a number of different factors, some of them independent of the surge, contributed to the taming of the insurgency. Obama won't get into those arguments there, but it will be interesting to see how he deals with the historical narrative that has President Bush mistakenly choosing to go to war in Iraq and then supporting a strategy that brought about its close more quickly.

The Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, is the official executive agent for counterterrorism, reporting directly to the president and secretary of defense through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JSOC kills people, mostly in war zones. Since 9/11, JSOC's assets, called "special missions units," have been unleashed into the world, and, on the basis of a series of still-secret executive orders, given the authority to pursue members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network wherever they go, and kill or capture them as determined by a specific set of criteria. 

Further evidence that Texas Gov. Rick Perry, running for his third full term, is not running for president:

"There is still a land of opportunity, friends -- it's called Texas," Perry said. "We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. ... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?"

We've gotten used to thinking about the Afghanistan policy review as a December agenda item, but in point of fact, the review has already begun. Granted, it's at the level of staff to deputy assistant secretaries at various departments, but an American government policy review is not something that simply flashes into existence. It takes months and months of interagency preparation. 

In 1996, Ovide Lamontagne surged during the final three weeks of a competitive GOP gubernatorial primary and closed a huge gap, knocking off the establishment choice, Bill Zeliff. 

In a blunt memo, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admonishes intelligence community personnel to stop "blabbing secrets" and said he is concerned about "recent leaks" of classified information.

Normally, reporters would use the word "surprisingly" before "blunt" when describing an official communique that is written in clear, concise English, but Clapper's memo reflects the man: plainspoken, not given to nonsense or ornamental language.

Officials would not say which leaks troubled Clapper, but there is a menu; just yesterday, a State Department analyst was indicted for allegedly telling Fox News what U.S. intelligence agencies concluded about how North Korea would respond to diplomatic and military pressure. Wikileaks is currently processing a new round of Afghan war cables and traffic and last week released a classified CIA red cell assessment.

My guess is that the New York Times and Washington Post's recent reporting about high-ranking Afghanistan government officials on the CIA payroll produced significant consternation at the White House, the State Department, and the Department of Defense. Former CIA officials believe that these leaks originate from elements of the military who think that the CIA's parochial interests undermine, and even work against, the president's strategy.  In turn, Pentagon officials have not been happy with recent reporting about the expanding intelligence-gathering role of special operations task forces, believing that these leaks originate with the CIA. Clapper, in other words, might be trying to tamp down on the use of leaks to influence policy.

"We have established procedures for authorized officers to interact with the media. For everyone else, unauthorized disclosure of our work is both a serious matter and a diversion from the critical tasks we face. In other words, blabbing secrets to the media is not 'in' as far as I'm concerned," Clapper says in the memo.  "Let's get on with our mission by keeping our secrets and serving our country."

The nation's top counter-intelligence officer, Bear Bryant, continues to work on a policy that would discourage leaks by tightening internal penalties and providing new channels for would-be whistle-blowers to talk to senior officials with less fear of retribution.
 

To Members of the Intelligence Community

 

 

As members of the Intelligence Community, we are entrusted with confidential information.  It is our lifelong duty to protect that information.

 

I am concerned that recent leaks regarding our work have received prominent attention in the media.  I remind all members of the Intelligence Community that being in the intelligence business demands serious commitment to our work and an obligation not to share secrets with others, including the media.

 

When President Obama announced my appointment I said that people in the intelligence business should be like my grandchildren - seen but not heard.

 

We have established procedures for authorized officers to interact with the media.  For everyone else, unauthorized disclosure of our work is both a serious matter and a diversion from the critical tasks we face.  In other words, blabbing secrets to the media is not "in" as far as I'm concerned.  Let's get on with our mission by keeping our secrets and serving our country.

 

James R. Clapper

Remember back in March, when the White House made the fairly audacious move of hiring one of the world's leading visual communicators, Edward Tufte, to come up with creative ways to show how the economic stimulus package improved the economy? There is probably no one on earth who can figure out how to convince people to change their behavior and perspective based on the visual manipulation of raw data. And Tufte has a reputation for honesty and integrity: he wasn't going to gussie up anything ... he calls it "ornamentalizing." 

The vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year's confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment.  After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in  Nevada.

Putting aside Ken Mehlman's decision to come out to The Atlantic, a choice that surprised Jon Stewart because, quite frankly, who chooses to come out to The Atlantic? Moving on to the rest of the news.

Alaska was a surprise for everyone. How much influence did Sarah Palin really have?

A significant amount in a primary with relatively low turnout ... she endorsed Joe Miller, did radio ads for him, identified with him ... brought together all the strands of Tea Party elements that were supporting him. Merely by bringing attention to him, she significantly increased his visibility.

So is she a force to be reckoned with? She doesn't win every race she plays in, but absolutely. Her endorsement doesn't always sway voters in every race, but it draws significant attention and extends her brand. And she still has a loyal following in Alaska.

Is Joe Miller's win a bad sign for the Republicans?

It's another sign that this is an anti-PARTY year, rather than an anti-incumbent year. But I don't think Democrats have a chance to win the seat unless Lisa Murkowski runs on the ticket of the American Independence Party. But even then, Republicans will still retain the seat. Curiously, as vicious as some of the anti-Republican Republicans have been this cycle, they seem to welcome the embrace of the national party machine when they win primaries. Something about money and all that. 

In Florida, the state GOP was heavily tainted by a corruption scandal. And Rick Scott, through his outsize personalty and ambition, trampled over the party's guy in an "id" year.

Why did Sarah Palin weigh in on the Dr. Laura controversy?

The key to understanding Sarah Palin is realizing that at the core of her political identity is the sense that she's been rejected by the establishment, treated unfairly by what she calls the
"Lamestream Media." When she sees someone who goes through the same thing, she makes a connection.

Is she going to run for president?

I don't know. If she does run, her campaign will be very unconventional. It won't follow the tracks that we normally watch, but it will be something that has a head of steam when it launches

Ask away.

More »

Speaking of the CIA, the piece today in the Washington Post about the agency ramping up its operations in Yemen is curious for a few reasons. The lead seems to be sort of buried:

Indeed, officials said it was largely because al-Qaeda has been decimated by Predator strikes in Pakistan that the franchise in Yemen has emerged as a more potent threat.

This is an interesting statement. If this is true, it's a major development. The CIA has, by administration estimates, killed 200 or so Pakistan Taliban and Al Qaeda members in the past few years. But there is not a consensus in the intelligence community about whether these strikes have been at all effective in contributing to Pakistan's stability or in deradicalizing Taliban cells. Indeed, there is a core conflict between the Predator program, which military intelligence officials believe continues to radicalize young Muslim men in the tribal regions of the country even as it kills potential terrorists, and the administration's regional strategy, which seeks to engage Afghans and legitimize Pakistan's civilian government.

Further, there's a difference between killing Al Qaeda leaders and degrading their networks; the latter involves targeting safe houses, facilitators of communications, low-level operatives...as well as strategic communication...something that special forces tend to do better than the CIA. Weirdly, the predator strikes might have curtailed the ability of Al Qaeda in Pakistan to plan attacks against the West while providing sustenance to the Taliban's efforts to retrench an insurgency in parts of Afghanistan and elsewhere. If you're sympathetic to Al Qaeda, you won't go to Pakistan anymore.

Indeed, one effect of the CIA's lawn-mowing of the Al Qaeda leadership has been a shift of training and communication and propaganda personnel to the Horn of Africa.  For two years, the Joint Special Operations Command has operated a joint task force to combat precisely the threat that the CIA seems to be now identifying.  More than 100 U.S. soldiers are working with Yemeni officials (and occasionally, without them) to identify and neutralize threats.  (The U.S's first drone strike in Pakistan killed a U.S. citizen in 2002.)

For the CIA, the article seems to imply that Yemen rise as a concern is largely because of the relative, though caveated, marginal decline of Pakistan as a concern.  Is Yemen considered an even greater threat than it was on December 26, 2009, the day after a Yemeni-trained terrorist tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit?

So here's a question: who is more responsible for the changing nature of the threat? The CIA's drone kills, or the revolution in military intelligence practices that the Joint Special Operations Command put into practice beginning in about 2005?

Wikileaks has posted a SECRET/NOFORN document from the Central Intelligence Agency's Red Cell analytic division explaining what might happen if it becomes widely known that America has produced its fair share of terrorists and exports them (not intentionally) to places like Somalia and Yemen. It's kind of... boring, to be sure, and it's not clear why it would need to be classified in the first place.

"These sorts of analytic products--clearly identified as coming from the Agency's 'Red Cell'--are designed simply to provoke thought and present different points of view.  That's the kind of thing our government ought to be doing," said George Little, a CIA spokesman. 

"This is not exactly a blockbuster paper," a U.S. official says. Translation: this is one of those analytic products that only a few people will read and others will throw into a drawer somewhere. It's probably not something that ought to be classified to begin with.

Says John Dickerson: "The national lesson from the primaries today is clear: a;sdlfk jp9r;tyh##"

Hewing to my "good analysis is victory agnostic" nostrum, here's what I'm taking away from a night of surprises and triumphs.

One: J.D. Hayworth was a wannabe insurgent who was toppled by his own arrogance. He was too smooth for a year where anyone who sounds like a politician...really, anyone who sounds fairly coherent and talks in crisp, reasonable-sounding, consultant-approved sound bites...is suspect, particularly for Republicans.

Two:  Show me a low turnout primary election, and I will raise you polling that just does not capture likely voter enthusiasm swings. But turnout in Alaska was high --- higher, in fact, than expected. I've always wondered how you poll Alaska anyway, and the tightness of the race suggests that models up there aren't working very well. BTW: it's likely that a parental notification ballot initiative drove conservatives to the polls in Alaska, boosting Joe Miller, a Gulf War vet and ally of Sarah Palin's, to striking distance and possible victory over incumbent Lisa Murkowski.

Three: It is fairly clear that the anti-establishment / anti-Washington / pro-radical revolution plankton are feeding more off Republicans than off Democrats. As the year has unfolded, it has become easier and easier for formerly fringe candidates to find funding sources, get key "outsider" endorsements and shock complacent frontrunners.  When it comes to the Tea Party factor, remember: about issues it ain't. Bill McCollum was one of the attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against Obama's health care reform bill. He is as conservative as a Blackberry at an Apple convention.  But he has ties to the state's now-discredited Republican establishment (think of the indictment of the former party chairman) and his avuncular, amiable, comfortable-as-a-leather shoe style just doesn't fit with the times.  Rick Scott didn't need the money, but the Tea Party Express helped him build a volunteer base. In Alaska, the same group ponied up $500,000 to help Miller (probably) defeat an incumbent U.S. senator.

Four: For the four statewide races in Florida, 5 Republicans turned out for every four Democrats.  500,000 Florida Republicans chose as their gubernatorial nominee someone who the Democratic Party can easily label a "corrupt health care CEO" and not get sued for libel. Note: Sink outpolled Scott by 75,000. Obviously, a large chunk of the 500,000 Republicans who voted for Bill McCollum (last seen on Fox News, 24 hours a day) will enthusiastically support their new nominee, but Sink begins the general election, even in a Republican year, with a lead. Health care will be a major part of her race because Scott claims credit for running ads that substantially slowed down the progress of the Congressional debate and because of his own record.  Scott begins the general election with a pot of gold. Democrats will need to spend money to pick up a seat that could well determine how Florida is redistricted next year, which means that the White House and Congressional Democrats have a stake in what happens.

More Republicans voted for Marco Rubio than Democrats did for all four Senate candidates combined, an ominous and unsurprising sign that enough Democrats are probably going to align themselves with Charlie Crist so that Crist wins or Rubio walks away with the seat.

Five:  in Alaska, Sarah Palin's endorsement does seem to matter. It's not like no one predicted that Joe Miller could be the next senator; former Gov. Tony Knowles told me a month ago that Murkowski was not taking Miller seriously and that he could easily organize a campaign to beat her in the primary.  Absentees won't be fully counted for a while, but Miller's victory can be reasonably inferred from the outstanding ballots.