Apologies for the site being a bit slow of late, War & Piece has been busy doing underpaid work as a journalist, while nursing a cold. [New pieces slated to go up this week and next at TomPaine and the Nation]. But we'll let nothing get in the way of the first annual "War and Piece: Best of 2003" list -- you know, best book of 2003, best news event, magazine, blog, movie, best quote, etc. We're accepting nominations, at bestof2003atwarandpiece.com. Send before W&P heads to Mexico for some R&R, the day after Christmas.

Meanwhile, go check these out:

Joshua Micah Marshall debating Richard Perle on neoconservatism, earlier this week at the Hudson Institute, here. A fascinating debate, including how the neocons view their relationship with George W. Bush (the Project for the New American Century's Gary Schmitt, on the panel, saying something to the effect that after 9/11, President Bush was able to choose from the buffet of policy ideas offered by various schools, and simply chose to eat from the neocons offerings.)

And from the archives: Nick Lemann predicting way back in January 2001 -- months before September 11th -- that a Bush/Cheney presidency would lead us into an Iraq war, here:

--"It would be too much to say that Bush's agenda includes the goal of going after Saddam," Lemann writes. "What seems quite likely, though, is that the new President will hear different opinions from his foreign-policy advisers. In that sense, the question of Saddam makes for an especially interesting test case of the new Administration's foreign policy, for the differences of opinion represent well-established splits in the Republican foreign-policy world, and are likely to reappear in other areas. Because Bush...is [an] unknown a quantity on foreign affairs...He will inevitably wind up gravitating toward one or another of the Republican camps. We can't know yet which it will be—Bush probably doesn't know himself. But the camps themselves, and their leaders and their views, are in plain sight."

Fascinating stuff. Hard to remember back three years ago when Bush was taking office, how much his campaign's foreign policy pronouncements suggested a very different course. In recent articles, foreign policy watchers have suggested that the influence of the neocons has been waning in recent months in the Bush White House, in part because of the difficulties the US post-war mission in Iraq is experiencing. Will be interesting to watch if this proves to be case after the capture of Saddam. And indeed, whose influence would replace theirs?

Follow Up: Journalist Bob Dreyfuss writes that Saddam's capture puts the neocons "back in the saddle," in this Tom Paine piece.

Posted by Laura at December 17, 2003 04:00 PM