test message to see if comments are disabled on this thread like they are on the one below it

Because of their strengths both men seemed anything but vulnerable. Yet it took just one slip for...Summers to lose a faculty vote of no confidence.

If you think that vote was about his comments, and not his managerial style, you're delusional. Summers runs Harvard like a business, not a university. This pissed off the faculty, and they needed an excuse to get rid of him.

Summers offered just such an excuse with his comments, and the professors seized the opportunity with the no-confidence vote.

Your analogy would still hold true, to some extent. The rest of the world is looking for an excuse to bash the US.. while a flushed Koran won't do it, something eventually will, all else equal.

Fine, Suzanne. Does that mean, then, that you feel it's important not to exaggerate what was done at abu Ghraib by comparison, say, to other powers who have held that prison? Since it's desirable not to have the US get "sucked down" by exaggerated sensitivities of other groups?

Who was the flagrantly dishonest reporter - Raines? I wonder if I can last until Drezner returns?

Suzanne,

My term for this is "ritual denunciation", and it is evoked by pressing the subject's "hot buttons".

You can elicit a remarkable response from a gun nut merely by saying the word, "Horuchi" (note - try a Google search using the words, "Horuchi" and "Weaver"). At various points in the ensuing monologue (sometimes flecked with spittle) you will learn how many grains of powder were in the bullet Horuchi fired, the name of the court reporter at the trial and what color dress Vicki Weaver was wearing.

Similar responses can be elicted from lefties with the phrase "Abu Ghraib", but you knew that.

In terms of the Koran riots in Kabul, I refer you to Winston Spencer Churchill's Malakand Field Force, particularly his comments on Muslim clergy. Not much has changed.

There are considerable differences between ethnic groups here. Ask any acquaintences who have been in Egypt what the Egyptians probably think of this. Derision towards barbarians would be putting it mildly.

Raines' leadership problem, from what little I've heard, was that he did not have an open door, played favorites, was anything but even-handed, and so had no friends or supporters when trouble came. I.e., his situation is, for purposes of this discussion, sui generis. My limited understanding is that he was basically a poor manager. A better one would have survived, and possibly not have put so much trust & confidence into the wrong person in the first place.

OTOH, Summers clearly experienced classic "ritual denunciations" by my definition. IMO he erred by by engaging in "ritual self-criticism" but here I quite lack experience, as I'll never be in any danger of being president of anything. Well, I was president of the local parents of twins club, but that was my wife's fault.

Re: the comment that the protestors "rushed to judgement"

There was nothing particularly striking about the article to suggest that the bit about the Koran was inaccurate. It struck me as consistent with other information about Gitmo. In fact, Patrick Tyson points out that a very similar allegation was made in paragraphs 78 and 205 of a lawsuit filed last year.

Given past history, Muslims had no reason to doubt the story. And that's a problem.

Would the U.S.'s detractors all pounce, with the result of an outsized blow to America's image and influence?

An important factor to consider is the consequences of pouncing. In Raines' case, pouncing was low-risk- the worst thing that could happen was that he'd stay on and keep doing what he was doing. Ditto Summers.

Pouncing on the US has different consequences depending on who's doing it.

For the guys in the streets, there's a low risk of getting shot if they don't disperse, but the US isn't going to take any direct action against them- that risk is the same as any other riot.

For governments, it is a completely different calculation. For them, the consequences of 'pouncing' are significant- if they fail, the US remains the sole superpower, and will have both the ability and inclination to make life harder for them via many, many means. If they suceed, the US will still be extremely powerful economic and militarily, even if it is less popular diplomatically... and have almost as much ability, and even more inclination, to do them harm. On top of that, the international order would be upset, security arrangements once thought ironclad would be in doubt, and economic matters would become quite voliatile.

Exactly what benefit do the 'pouncers' hope to achieve that is worth all of these risks?

All you have to do is say that it was performance art and it was NEA approved and if someone has a problem with then they are the bigots. Piss Christ ring a bell??

I'd think the Lefties would be more upset about a toilet that uses so much water that a Koran can be flushed down it!

One: the real issue behind the small becoming big is not how it reflects on the love/hate of America but rather how it reflects on Bush 'freedom' rhetoric : is naivety really a foreign policy?

Two: Bush has already made the big mistake: not the misguided strategy that governed Operation Iraqi Freedom which allowed the present chaos but rather the failure to move to correct this mistake when they had the chance in order to 'look good' in the run up to the election. Insurgents will win this war and America will come out of it looking like shit: I'd call that a big mistake.

If you are really concerned about the image of America in the eyes of Muslims around the world you may wish to take into consideration the fact that we are shelling mosques with tank and artillery fire in the heart of the Muslim world in a country we invaded and occupied under false pretenses. As can be seen by the ongoing jihad in Iraq, this issue, in comparison to the recent reports of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at GITMO, has been source of negative publicity and violence for some time now. Iraq really makes the debate about whether or not the toilet-flushing incident actually ocurred debate irrelevant. Even if this incident did not happen, the larger Muslim world does not remain ignorant of similar acts abuse as described in Eric Saar's book "Inside the Wire." If you don't consider our actions in Iraq to be as inflammatory as the smaller issue of prisoner abuse I think you are suffering from some analytical shortcomings.

Everybody hates us until they need our money or our blood.

Out here in the red states we used to refer to American diploma as "Uncle Chump," as in give them our money and they will continue to hate us.

Bush should pull out of Iraq and get back to the task at hand, hunting down and killing terrorists who want to fly airplanes in to buildings full of civilians, wherever they are, whatever religion they proclaim.

"Pounce" in what way?

Suzanne, maybe you're living in another world than the rest of us, but given the pattern of deceit and lack-of-anyone being held accountable for anything ; I'm not sure on what basis you believe this administration should be given the benefit of the doubt. The analogy with Summers is terrifically strained. It would only be appropriate if Summers had repeatedly made remarks slighting women, consorted with prostitutes openly, then allowed subordinates who permitted professors to sexually abuse female students to retain their positions, and finally decided that an administrator who thought punishing female students by making them read Schopenhaur's "On Women", was acceptable.

I think what's scary and/or sad, is that you don't realize the complete lack of credibility this administration has with half the american population and the entire rest of the world.

Suzanne, Newsweek has effectively retracted the story and apologised to the dead people. Now what do you think?

Newsweek has effectively retracted the story and apologised to the dead people. Now what do you think?

I'm still waiting for Bush & Cheney to retract their story about WMD and apologise to the dead people. At least Newsweek did the right thing...

"Given past history, Muslims had no reason to doubt the story. And that's a problem."

The problem is people are killing others over a book!

As a first time visitor to this site, I am very uncomfortable with the way you repeatedly use the term "anti-Americanism". I understand that it is a kind of shorthand to describe a highly diverse group of people and ideas (which I believe will include a lot of patriotic Americans and their views), but it is so loaded with negative connotations of irrationality and vindictiveness, that it disparages more than it describes. You will never be able to understand the legitimate opposition to the US and some of its policies and actions, if you insist on using a loaded, unenlightening word like this.

This nonsense has made a huge blow to my hope that the violence can ever be taken out of that culture. Even among the muslims that have recently been given more freedom than they've ever had, news that someone did not treat a BOOK the way they think it should be treated caused violent outrage.

I guess there never has been any hope for the current generations of such people though... violent intolerance is so deeply ingrained into their core beliefs, it is almost impossible to change.

As a first time visitor to this site, I am very uncomfortable with the way you repeatedly use the term "anti-Americanism".

Ah, Terry, Dan, the usual host, was in Hawaii for the week, a couple of self-described Progressives were guest-blogging (variety and all that)...

You will never be able to understand the legitimate opposition to the US and some of its policies and actions, if you insist on using a loaded, unenlightening word like this.

...which makes this comment a candidate for the 'Unintentional Irony' award.

"...but it is so loaded with negative connotations..."

Um, yeah, Terry - Hence the word "anti" in "anti-Americanism".

Sheesh.