The United States and Russia signed a new treaty designed to slash nuclear warheads of each country by 30%.  See link.   This leaves  each with about 1,550 warheads, more than enough to create nuclear Armageddon many times over and each will still have more nuclear warheads than those of all the other nuclear powers combined.  This will ratchet up the pressure on other nuclear powers to trim their own stockpiles, which are not cheap to maintain in any case.

The treaty also explicitly gives the countries a free hand with violators of the NPT (Iran and North Korea).  The most controversial part of the treaty is a commitment not to threaten non-nuclear states in compliance with the NPT with with nuclear strikes even in response to chemical and biological attacks.  However, there remains sufficient wiggle room as the treaty does not specify who defines compliance with the NPT and provides the United States the ability to modify its commitment as the chemical and biological threat evolves.  See link.   The biggest importance in the treaty is likely a reduction in the chill in United States and Russian relations over the last couple of years.  See here.

The bellicose John Bolton has not surprisingly already starting barking disapproval on the odd grounds of sovereignty (See here) but one hopes that the party of no (whose support will be needed for ratification) understands the limited scope of the deal.  See here.

It does not help that Fox “News” in its inimitable fashion started characterizing the treaty (and some legitimate concerns) like this:

Former half-term governor Sarah Palin and Mr. 9/11 have started singing praises of Ronald Reagan in marking their opposition to the treaty (ignoring the fact that Reagan signed a similar treaty for a 30% reduction of the nuclear stockpile during the Cold War and (like Obama) set a Utopian goal of a nuclear weapons free world…but why let facts interfere with the random invocation of the GOP’s Reagan mythos).  It brought on the unusually sharp slap down below by the President on the “policy wonk” Palin:

This does raise the question whether the fairly pragmatic Reagan who was not averse to raising taxes if needed or was willing to (gasp) negotiate with the Evil Empire and thru back channels with Iran would have any place in today’s Republican party.  The mythology of the man grew in comparison with George Herbert Walker Bush and when the Republicans lost the White House to Bill Clinton and is now quoted as gospel by empty suits like Giuliani or Palin with little regard for whether their invocation comports to reality.  In today’s radicalized GOP rump, it is not impossible to think that Reagan would run the risk of being labeled a RINO (Republican in Name Only).  It is hard to see how Nixon with his far more moderate social stances and much greater willingness to have the government interfere in the economy would not earn the derisive label.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

I will let the video below speak for itself.  Brings out the absurdity of the media’s hand wringing tendency.  Would like to see more of this Obama around.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

Its been a while since I picked on our old friend Hamid Karzai.  Like the itch you cannot scratch he is impossible to forget.  See link.  Ticked off at the brazen packing of the Afghan election commission (which unearthed his election fraud) with cronies the Obama administration sent him a message by withdrawing his invitation to visit Washington.  Since then the mayor of Kabul has been sulking in his palace, garbing himself in the cloak of Afghan nationalism and irritating Washington by flattering the electoral thief on his western border.  Its hard to see what Karzai’s strategy is.  He has no base and no army loyal exclusively to him.  He remains propped up by the dual support of Washington and his warlord cronies.  Washington’s patience has run out.  The fate of Mohammad Najibullah should warn him of the perils of relying on mercurial warlords.

What he needs more than ever is to midwife a resolution of the Afghan civil war before the Americans leave and then pray that Pakistan’s usual games in Afghanistan do not cause his regime to crumble.  It will require diplomatic tact and statesmanship that has not yet been on display.  But instead Karzai fiddles in the Afghan ruins, watches Pakistan force itself into the Afghan negotiating table and irritates the only people who can keep him in power.  Joe Biden once proposed partitioning Iraq.  That may be in Iraq’s future.  It is a pity he did not propose something similar for the basket case buffer that is the legacy of the Great Game.

Political cartoon depicting the Afghan Emir Sher Ali with his "friends" the Russian Bear & British Lion (1878).

The cartoon from 1878 above seems oddly prescient.  Just the participants have changed.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

The passage of health care reform may have had the unintended side effect of winnowing the 2012 presidential field.  While the 2012 Republican convention is over two years away, an eternity in politics, Mitt Romney may have just seen his hopes of securing the Republican nomination go up in smoke.

Romney’s ambitions and his willingness to adapt his positions to the prevailing winds are no secret.  Even by the low standards of politicians he displayed a chameleon like ability to change his colors for the prevailing audience and the brazen chutzpah to attack people for holding positions he held a short while before.  This made him very unpopular among his fellow Republican candidates notably John McCain and Mike Huckabee who barely concealed their disdain for him.  The 2007-8 Republican presidential debates often degenerated into “whack-a-Mitt” sessions where all the candidates ganged up in the self funded Romney with cheerful glee.  See link.  His Mormon faith also acted as a handicap as the Republican evangelical base looked at him with suspicion.

When John McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination the ever malleable Romney promptly dropped out to stump for McCain in hopes of securing the Vice Presidential nod.  Unfortunately all that sucking up came to naught when McCain went for the wonderfully clueless Sarah Palin.

In the aftermath of the elections Romney has tried to reposition himself as the only remaining adult among the Republican candidates.  His extensive business background lends him a public perception of gravitas on economic issues.  He has stayed away from an embrace of the occasionally unhinged tea party protests.  His attempts to burnish his credentials on foreign policy were less successful since his Palinesque use of jargon and tough words largely drew snickers.  See here and  here.

But for a long time the sword of Damocles hanging over Romney was his signature accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts – health care reform.  In the Republican primaries Romney defended his plan but faced a dilemma when the contours of Obamacare started to look very similar to Romneycare.  While even the latest Wall Street Journal editorial replete with Republican talking points (some discredited) refers to the two plans as “fraternal policy twins” Romney has been busy tying himself in knots in explaining how the plans are different and whining about the alleged abuse of power by the Democrats in not deferring to a minority that lost the last two national elections.

This is a big problem for Romney.  With the Republican base whipped up into a frenzy the next nominee will have to attack Obamacare.  A federalism argument could work, but can also be countered by the fact that the balanced budget obligations on most states make it extremely impractical for any of them to pass health care reform.  In any case federalism will not explain away Romney’s willingness to sign on to government interference at the state level, something that has the base in a lather.

Even with Romney penchant  for short term memory loss on his previous policy positions, it is hard to see how Romney will be the candidate to perform that task.  Democrats will gleefully paraphrase the attack used on the last nominee from Massachusetts that Romney was “for health care before he was against it” to cement Romney’s reputation as an unprincipled flip-flopper.  A base already predisposed to distrust Romney will have a hard time trusting him as the man to take down Obamacare, which practically will be very hard to pull off in any case.

So the man who should have been the Republican nominee and had the best understanding of economic policy will enter primary season severely hobbled.  Again things can change.  A continuing bleak economic outlook could cause Republicans to hold their nose and vote for Romney, like they did for McCain in the last election cycle.   Repealing health care reform could be a fringe issue by 2012 and Romney could position himself as the man best equipped to fix it.  But at present it is hard to see Romney securing the support of a distrustful base.  IMO the man the Obama campaign should worry about comes from next door Indiana – Mitch Daniels, though a lot can change in the next two years.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

Left for dead after the upset victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, health care reform came roaring back tonight. After a week of arm twisting and persuasion, Speaker Nancy Pelosi locked up the votes to pass the original Senate bill.  The bill now goes to the President for his signature after which the fixes to the Senate Bill will go to the Senate for passage thru the reconciliation process.  See link.  In an interesting twist the Republicans no votes to the fixes in the Senate bill will essentially be yes votes towards keeping Ben Nelson’s infamous “cornhusker kickback” in place.  A competent political party would use it to highlight the Republican transformation into the Party of No, but this is the Democrats we are talking about.

One heartening thing in the last week is the emergence of the Democratic spine.  In the aftermath of the Brown victory many Democrats were ready to fold.  To me it made no sense.  The yes votes on the previous bill were already on record in the Senate and the House and the Democrats were going to get pilloried for it.  The Democrats are not likely to get as big a majority in the near future.  Failure to pass health care reform after coming so close guaranteed a dispirited base that would not turn out in November.  Now Barack Obama and the Democrats can go into the elections by pointing to the legislative accomplishment of our generation that even with its many flaws makes the United States the last industrialized country in the world to provide universal health care access.

The Republicans will run on a platform on repeal.  Don’t hold your breath on them ever actually passing a bill repealing a ban on insurance companies canceling policies for sick people,  denying health care coverage for pre-existing conditions or subsidies for the poor to obtain health insurance.  In their honester and off the record moments the Republicans will admit that as well.  As in Massachusetts this bill will grow in popularity.  Maybe if the Republicans break from their thrall of right wing talk radio they will work with the Democrats to get meaningful cost control provisions and tort reform into the bill.

The saddest part of this debate was the Republican encouragement (place of honor goes to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann) of the heated rhetoric from the right that this bill epitomized creeping fascism.  They went all in on the policy articulated by Jim DeMint of South Carolina that stopping health care reform would break the Obama presidency.  All of this on a bill very similar to Romney care in Massachusetts and similar to the bill proposed by Bob Dole in 1994 made any compromise impossible.  There were legitimate and principled reasons to oppose the bill, but they were drowned out in the cacophony right wing talk radio and Fox News (with Republican encouragement) helped create. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

It is in many ways a sad reflection of the nature and structure of American politics, when the televised event that occurred today when the President visited the Republican Party retreat is news in large part because it actually occured (and before the cameras no less).  Others (notably transplanted Briton Andrew Sullivan) have noted the major difference between American democracy and the one in Westminster, where the Prime Minister has to show up for question hour and defend his or her policies to the questions raised by the opposition.  Unfortunately the monarchical trappings of American democracy run deep and many Presidents probably felt it beneath their dignity to subject themselves to a grilling of this sort (which is still light compared to what happens in a parliamentary democracy).

There already has been some chatter that Republican operatives think it was a mistake to give President Obama a chance to call out Republican misstatements in front of the camera. See link.  Hopefully such considerations will not prevent events like this that allow a debate of a rare genuine debate of policy issues (in contrast to the histrionics that are inevitable in the tit for tat cable TV soundbite process) from happening in the future.  After all the Republicans also get their chance to call out the  President for his misstatements, and some did try today.  In other news Fox “News” appears to have cut away more than 20 minutes before the event ended to start playing the Republican party meme that the President was lecturing, leading a good deal of mockery on the liberal blogs.  Cannot wait to see the inevitable Jon Stewart spoof.

A few cherry picked comments I am glad the President managed to get in his response (link to transcript and embedded video is at end of post): Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

For those who have not heard of this before, the scene below from the German-Austrian movie Der Untergang (Downfall) has been gleefully parodied since the movie was released in 2004.  A quick search of You Tube will display many such parodies of Bruno Ganz’s depiction of an unhinged Hitler at the moment he realizes the war is lost and as he lashes out at the Generals stuck with him in his bunker.  Even though the movie attracted some controversy for the somewhat sympathetic portrayal of some Nazi officers and for sanitizing the fate of many German women in Berlin after the Russians took the city, it is definitely worth seeing.

The clip below has a humorous take on the Scott Brown election, whether or not you accept the subtitled text or the riff on Obama.  Enjoy…

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

The revelation of Senator Harry Reid’s use of the “n” word while describing Barack Obama’s strengths as a candidate has set off the typical Washington fire storm.  While President Obama has accepted his apology and the Democratic caucus has rallied around Senator Reid the Republicans are crying foul.  They point to the double standard on race that forced them to jettison Trent Lott of Mississippi a few years back (though a lot of the pushing came from the White House in that one).  As others have pointed out,  the situations are not analogous.  Se here, here and here for a detailed explanation on the subject.

But the Republicans are right in that there is a double standard.  It seems unfair but they can look in the mirror for why Republicans (particularly southern Republicans) get so little leeway on race.

As the heirs to the Whigs, the Republican Party was born in its opposition to slavery.  After the civil war the Party of Lincoln could count on the support of the freed slaves.  However, things started to changed under FDR.  The New Deal created a blue collar coalition that included black voters.  By 1956 the Republican share of the black vote was 40% and has been heading down ever since.  However, the addition of Black voters to the Democratic coalition and the resulting push for civil rights fractured the Democratic Party

Southern Democrats who had reestablished control over the region after reconstruction and disenfranchised large portions of the African American population bristled when Northern liberals started preaching civil rights.  The breaking point came during the 1948 Democratic convention when Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey urged the Democratic Party to “get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”  Outraged Southern Democrats walked out and nominated Strom Thurmond as the presidential nominee of the States’ Rights Party (aka Dixiecrats).  Things got worse for them with the election of John F. Kennedy.  But the unkindest cut of all came when one of their own, former Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson rammed through the Civil Rights Act.  According to legend when Johnson signed the Act into law he remarked, “We have lost the South for a generation.”  He was right because the Republicans were waiting in the wings.

Richard Nixon made some clumsy attempts to court black voters in 1960.  After that Republican presidential tickets actively started courting the Southern white vote.  Barry Goldwater stumped against the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Richard Nixon deployed the Southern Strategy, or Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign kicked off in Philadelphia, Miss., site of the ”Mississippi Burning” murders with the message of “states rights” (though as noted in the link some have disputed whether Reagan’s appeal was targeted at Southern whites).  It worked.  By the 1990s the South had turned Republican.  On the flip side, by then the Republican share of the black vote had dropped to the low teens.  By 1992, the Party of Lincoln was the Party of Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms.

Next the Republican Party turned its attention to destroying its share of the Hispanic vote.  Pete Wilson eagerly embraced Proposition 187 to secure reelection in the 1994 California gubernatorial election.  He won  the battle but the Republican Party lost the war and the Hispanic vote in California.  The home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan with its 54 electoral votes is now solidly Democratic.  Even though George W. Bush tried to win  (and in his own elections won) back the Hispanic vote, the racially tinged rhetoric unleashed by the opponents of immigration reform locked up the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama.  Had John McCain not been on the ticket, the Republicans would have lost Arizona in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

This is the current breakdown of minorities in the Republican Congressional caucus:

• African Americans  - zero
• Hispanics – 3 (three Cuban-Americans from South Florida, and even that once loyal Republican community is trending Democratic)
• Asian Americans – 1 (Joseph Cao elected by fluke last year and who will almost certainly lose next year)

For a party that actively courts the Jewish vote, it has only one Jewish member in Congress (Eric Cantor).   Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

After an unexpected hiatus from blogging activities, kick starting the first post of the week with some thoughts on events that would have merited longer posts at the time.

• I liked the general tenor of Barack Obama’s speech but was amused to see some of the blinders come off on the left and the right as a result.  Liberals unhappy about the decision on Afghanistan saw the president expound a doctrine of just war which in some ways could have been delivered by George W. Bush. Conservatives who had convinced themselves that Obama was a weak anti-war liberal seem to have heard for the first time that the President does not rule out war (they seem to have forgotten his comment in the campaign that he was only against “stupid wars” (though he left may argue that the Afghan escalation IS a stupid war).  Time will tell whether the “Obama Doctrine” fares better than the “Bush Doctrine.”  With its understanding of the limitations of American power, it does have a greater chance of success.
• The Indian government dropped a bombshell with the creation of a new state.  Will discuss the virtues and pitfalls of smaller states in the Indian constitutional context later this week, but words cannot describe how badly the decision making process was bungled.  First the government gave in to emotional blackmail of a hunger strike, then nobody seems to have discussed the decision with the local government and laid the groundwork, and the critical question of who gets Hyderabad still remains unanswered.  The abrupt decision making process has also suddenly brought to the forefront demands for at least 9 new states.  Before the virtues of these demands are assessed, first the Indian government deserves brickbats for sheer incompetence.
• The Iranian regime returns Shirin Ebadi’s Nobel peace prize medal.  Previous blog here.
• One of the two Chicago men arrested for planning a terrorist attack in Denmark seems to be singing about his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.  Not surprisingly, India wants him extradited.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

• Christopher Hitchens complains about how the saga of the party crashers overshadowed the visit of Manmohan Singh to the United States and vents about the state of media coverage.  This is hardly a new phenomenon, though it seems to have got worse in the last 20 years.  From my viewpoint the O. J. Simpson circus, I mean trial, was the start of this nonsense.  It showed when the media cut away from Clinton’s state of the union address to announce the civil verdict against OJ.
• The Economist’s Banyan on how North Korea in the finest traditions of bankrupt regimes “revalued” its currency and robbed its citizens.
• More Afghan perceptions on Obama’s speech.
• A depressing read on how the Taliban is wrecking the rich Buddhist heritage of the region and threatening museums in Pakistan.
• The Economist cites a Stephen Walt column on how German unifier Otto von Bismarck’s realism may be a guide on a realistic foreign policy to ease tensions in the world and tackle Iran.  It is an interesting theory, but historical analogies don’t always fit.  Bismarck’s concert of powers was ultimately doomed because Russia and Austria-Hungary’s ambitions (along with their proxies Serbia and Bulgaria) clashed in the Balkans and an over-powerful Germany clashed with the traditional British agenda since the Spanish Armada of preventing any one power from dominating the European continent.  These tensions were already evident by the time of Bismarck’s unceremonious dismissal.
• How far will Dubai’s woes rein in Sheikh Makhtoum’s ambitious agenda?  It gives conservative Abu Dhabi a lot more leverage.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

Barack Obama’s speech yesterday threw no surprises. (Transcript here).   More troops are headed to Afghanistan (see previous post here) which has caused heartburn on the left.  There are assurances that this is not an indefinite mission and troops are supposed to start coming back by 2011 which has caused conniptions on the right.  There have been the expected harrumphs about fighting corruption and getting the Afghans ready to step up when the Americans leave (original post on Afghanistan from this blog here).

What is unclear whether this is feasible.  If the Afghan army is still a figment of imagination (previous post here) and the Karzai government remains as incompetent (both very likely scenarios) will the United States really start withdrawing to the chorus from Republicans that Obama “lost” Afghanistan?  Hopefully the answer is yes, because the prospect of an American withdrawal may be the only way to jolt the Afghan government to action.

What happens if the Taliban withdraws to its safe havens in Quetta?  Will Pakistan, which only reluctantly turned its guns on its homegrown Taliban, start another fight inside its western border in a province (Baluchistan) already brimming  on the verge of open rebellion?

What about the various NATO allies who have started withdrawing their troops?  Obama’s address noted that Al Qaeda’s attacks had targeted them as well.  Will that be sufficient to overcome the war weariness in those countries? Germany’s top general and deputy defense minister were forced to resign last week over a botched air strike and there are calls for a German withdrawal by 2011.

A successful solution is not entirely in American hands and relies a great deal on lady luck (and on wobbly Pakistan doing its bit).  Obama’s speech was a sober and realistic appraisal of the situation on the ground, but perhaps too optimistic (as such speeches always are) about success in the future (See Juan Cole’s take here).  The “success” of the Iraqi surge may have raised hopes of similar success in Afghanistan, but these are two entirely different societies with very different problems.  The future in Afghanistan remains murky.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

• Formerly conservative blogger Charles Johnson on why he parted ways with the right.
• The latest from a birther unable to accept the results of the 2008 Presidential election trying to get a local jury to indict Barack Obama for treason, even though treason is a federal and not a state offense.
• Praise for George W. Bush.
• This one made me chuckle (picture below).  Using humor to bash gay bashers.

Barack Obama’s recent trip to China has received much criticism for its failure to achieve much of substance, giving a short-shrift to human rights issues and even raising a minor storm in India from an otherwise innocuous press release.  However, the trip may not have been entirely wasted.  Richard Wolfe notes that lost in the press coverage (and he charitably does not mention the American media’s obsession with Sarah Palin’s new ghost-written book) were agreements reached regarding emissions targets.  This along with talks held with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his state visit last week (which also helped defuse the brouhaha over the joint statement with China) could help break the deadlock at the upcoming Copenhagen talks.

The Chinese visit may have also contributed to the China joining the recent censure of Iran by the IAEA.  The deliverables may not be as groundbreaking as previous presidential visits abroad but address two upcoming issues on the President’s foreign policy slate.  Success in Copenhagen could reaffirm the goodwill that exists for the administration on the ground in Europe.  Bringing India and China into any global agreement to cut emissions will blunt one of the major criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol.  Likewise any Chinese help on Iran is to be welcomed.  These are small steps at present, but they could lead to greater rewards down the road.

I have tried to stay away from the Sarah Palin media extravaganza, but the Jon Stewart clip below was too good to pass up.  Conservatives often try excusing Palin for the often excessive cult of personality around Barack Obama.  A few obvious differences should come up right away apart from basic intellectual attainments.  One politician has actually thought about the issues and when challenged on a hostile forum like Bill O’ Reilly can defend them  The other delivers garbled sound bites and complains about mean Katie Couric.  Then there is the weird resignation half way into her term, not for a transition to higher office or because of a prison conviction

Ever since Barack Obama announced his plans to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Republicans have been in a lather about the perceived risks that would happen if these terrorists were transferred to a federal super-max facility.  The fact that these facilities already house people like the original World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef somehow seems to elude them as does the fact that nobody has actually escaped from these facilities. Finally some conservatives (Republican Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform) have called out the GOP for its scaremongering.  Yet somehow I do not hold out hope that any of the prospective 2012 candidates will display any fortitude and stand up to the Republican base.

Andrew Sullivan praises Barack Obama’s deliberative decision making in Afghanistan.  With no end in sight to the war, no Afghan army that can engage the Taliban and an incompetent and corrupt local partner, it is heartening to see that the decision is finally discussing an exit strategy.  In the short run, I think more troops will be sent to Afghanistan (the number 30,000 is being tossed around).  But with American troops already outnumbering the Taliban on the ground, this will not solve a problem that ultimately lacks a pure military solution. The Taliban can always retreat to their Pakistani refuge or melt back into the tribal heartland.The US could try securing the perimeter like the Soviets and does have the decided advantage that the people outside the urbanized zones are not all shooting at its soldiers.  But that leaves a lot of white areas on the map in the previous link from Matt Yglesias that local allies need to fill.  The corrupt thugs and kleptocrats in Kabul will be of no help in this.

Time magazine reviews Hillary’s performance at the State Department.  Tina Brown who previously tut-tutted that Barack Obama had essentially made Hillary don a burkha, changed her tune after the blunt press conference in Pakistan.  See previous post on the subject here.  With the presence of Joe Biden, Robert Gates and Susan Rice in the cabinet and not to mention the President’s own strong views on the importance of diplomacy, Hillary Clinton was never going to have carte blanche on foreign policy (and but for the scandal in New Mexico that kept former ambassador extraordinaire Bill Richardson out of the cabinet she would have had to contend with another foreign policy heavyweight).  However, the tensions within the administration so far have not spilled into the public.  As Tina Brown notes, she appears comfortable with where she is.  Even with an occasional gaffe like the one on Israeli settlements last week, she has largely stayed on message.  With the most challenging foreign policy atmosphere in a generation Barack Obama will need all the help he can get.

An interesting read on the French attempt to improve the teaching of English (somewhere a militant Québécois is howling in impotent fury).  It is an initiative worthy of being emulated in the United States where foreign language instruction is often an afterthought.  In an increasingly global world grasping foreign languages and culture can give companies, individuals and countries a key strategic advantage.  While educators and even Barack Obama have encouraged this, others are still stuck defending their parochial outlook to the world.

With the withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah and the declaration of Hamid Karzai’s victory the United States is now stuck with him.  The usual congratulatory call from the American President appears to have been unusually terse.  In addition to cleaning up his act on all fronts, much also depends on how Karzai reaches out to his opponents.  To the extent any goodwill gestures are made, they will likely be the result of outside pressure.  I am not holding my breath on much improvement on the Afghan domestic front.

Its part of a predictable pattern.  Barack Obama goes to Dover Air Force base to honor returning the war dead.  Shortly there after is the latest Liz Cheney critique on the visit which misleadingly suggests that George W. Bush made similar visits to Dover without cameras (Bush never went to Dover though he visited with the families of the war dead in private).  All of this causes MSNBC’s Lawrence O’ Donnell to sound off on the latest Cheney broadside.

See article here.  Its a cautious rating and hard to argue with.  People scoff at the value of talk over action, but Obama’s calm demeanor has considerably cooled down global temperatures.  Time will tell where the Incomplete grade ends up.

Since World War II the British and American governments have harped on the special relationship between the “mother country” and the first of its children to leave. An interesting read from last week’s Christian Science Monitor on how special public opinion in the United Kingdom finds the relationship.  It is not surprising that the British could resent the country that replaced it as the global behemoth.  The loss of empire after World War II, the economic malaise and then the jarring realization during the Suez Crisis that it could not operate a foreign policy in opposition to the United States are bound to hurt the self esteem of a country that thought the sun would never set on it empire (notwithstanding the prestige of an undeserved permanent spot on the Security Council with fellow second tier power France).

Even though it is still about the 7th largest economy in the world the United Kingdom still tries to punch above its weight with the 4th largest defense expenditures in the world  (just below China almost twice as much as India without anywhere near the same security threats).  The history of colonial rule and the aggressive attempts to remain relevant still keep the United Kingdom as a possible bogeyman for tyrants from Iran to Zimbabwe.  At other times it can cause embarrassments, like the spats with India in the past decade from clumsy attempts to interfere in the Kashmir dispute.  See here and here.

It is difficult for a major power to adjust to a diminished status through slow decline.   The declines of previous major powers whether abrupt like Sweden, Germany and Imperial Japan or over a longer period like Spain, Austria-Hungary. Ottoman Turkey and Manchu China received a major assist from military defeats.  The British case is unusual in that it fought and won two world wars only to find itself exhausted and surpassed by its erstwhile allies and then its former foes.  The absence of that defining defeat probably made it harder to accept a diminished world standing.  Not that defeat can always bring such objectivity.  France is still overcompensating for the triple  debacles of World War II, Algeria and the Indo-China war culminating in the decisive defeat at Dien Bien Phu.  But however annoying the Gallic Rooster can be to Americans, French self esteem has not suffered from a policy of supine abasement that the “special relationship” entails.  When was the last time a French leader was called the poodle of any foreign power (even if the string of French military debacles since 1870 have prompted other phrases)?

So Britain frets that the torture and arrest of Barack Obama’s grandfather and father when Kenya was a British colony may cause him to resent it.  A purported snub of the Prime Minister causes national hyperventilation. Why is the United Kingdom so keen for marks of favor from the occupant of the White House?  Who cares?  Its time British politicians publicly discussed whether the “special relationship” is worth the cost in national self esteem and human life.  With its wealth, the United Kingdom will not be entirely unimportant.  But by cutting loose some of its ties to the memories of past grandeur and operating within its means, it may be a happier one.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the United States intervention in Afghanistan was somewhat a no-brainer. The Taliban regime had provided a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and would not (or could not) surrender Osama Bin Laden and his followers. So strong was the global outrage at the attack on the twin towers that NATO whole heartedly supported the United States toppling the Taliban and provided troops as peacekeepers.

As we all know, the opportunity was squandered. Worried about casualties the United States never committed enough boots on the ground. It first relied on the Northern Alliance to do the fighting on the ground, a motley crew that contained many warlords with horrendous human rights records. The limited American presence on the ground probably helped Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. Having toppled the Taliban with ridiculous ease, the Bush administration then pursued the Iraq invasion squandering global goodwill and failing to secure the peace.

With limited boots on the ground the United States relied instead on hitting the Taliban with air strikes from remote controlled drones. The civilian casualties caused by mistaken strikes sapped the goodwill that ordinary Pashtuns had to the United States for getting rid of the Taliban.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to expand the military presence in Afghanistan and delivered shortly after taking office. A further review was promised after the Afghan presidential election. The leaking of General McChrystal report calling for more troops caused a firestorm in Washington in last month. The left is increasingly tired of spilling blood in Afghanistan without an end point. Some commentators on the right, notably George Will, have joined in. Eager to show themselves as being strong on terror the Republican Party has generally lined up behind the General’s uniform.

As the President and his advisors confer on the next course, it must be asked, what does the United States hope to achieve in Afghanistan? What is the United States fighting for. Commentators such as Fareed Zakaria have noted that the Afghan war is not at present a war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is holed up in its Pakistani hideouts and has not made a major comeback in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is essentially the next round of the civil war that has plagued the country since the toppling of the monarchy in the 1970s. Read the rest of this entry »

The Nobel Peace Price is inherently political in nature. In the last couple of decades the leftward political ideology has appeared more marked.  Nothing prepared the world however for the shock of the 2009 prize.  A week after Republicans crowed about the limits of Barack Obama’s international appeal when Chicago was not awarded the 2016 Olympics, the Nobel committee awarded probably the most unexpected award ever. The most prestigious prize in the world has forever been linked to the audacity of hope (some would say hype). If Barack Obama falters the tarnish will attach to the Nobel Peace Prize.

The award seems ludicrously premature. Given the fact that Barack Obama had been president for about two weeks before the nomination period for the award expired, a huge component of the award seems tied to the fact that he is not George W. Bush (or even the bellicose John McCain who once sang a ditty about bombing Iran and last year was eager to get into a brawl with the Russian bear over Georgia).

This blog has generally supported the contours of Obama’s foreign policy. His calm handling of foreign policy has generally lowered the global political temperature. His speech in Cairo could be the springboard for a renewed American engagement with the Islamic world. He understood the limitations of American power in responding to the Iranian ferment this summer. The adults have taken control of American foreign policy with the removal of a missile shield that did not work from Eastern Europe that unnecessarily irritated the Russians. The feckless Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan no longer has a free pass. Obama has continued the withdrawal from Iraq on schedule.

However, so much more still needs to be done. The Netenyahu government in Israel is displaying intense paranoia about American intentions and seems willing to accept only a neutered Palestinian state. The Iranian nuclear crisis is still not solved and just how helpful Russia and China will be remains to be seen. The administration is engaged in a major debate on Afghanistan that could lead to a policy that stabilizes Afghanistan or (more likely) a withdrawal as Afghanistan relapses into civil war. Even though the drop in oil prices lessened Hugo Chavez’s ability to bite, the Venezuelan strongman is still an irritant in Latin America. Honduras is an embarrassment waiting to explode as the coup plotters have shown a knack for taking an initially justifiable assumption of power and then blowing it with inept overreach. The Hermit Kingdom stepped back from the brink recently, but Kim Jong Il remains as unpredictable as ever. Guantanamo still needs to be closed and the Obama Administration has repeated many of the Bush Administration’s assertions on notational security powers.

Things could go very very bad quickly though factors outside of Obama’s control. For better or worse, Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize will be tied at the hip for at least the next 4 years.

To his credit Barack Obama appears to appreciate how premature this award is. For all the Republican hoots about narcissism (most recently repeated by George Will), his speech linked above acknowledging the award was artful in combining humility and tying it to the American ideals tarnished by the previous administration. Here is a fervent hope that he lives up to the initial promise of his foreign policy.

A friend brought this video to my attention a few days back

Nice of Lindsey Graham to assure us that Barack Obama is not a Muslim. John McCain did the same during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. On his “Fight the Smears” site Barack Obama attacked he “smear” that he was a Muslim.

However, Colin Powell is about the only public figure to ask the basic question “[W]hat if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?”

Powell’s comments were prompted by the picture above in a New Yorker photo-shoot of a grieving mother mourning her dead soldier son who happened to be a Muslim.  Regrettably very few politicians have stepped up and embraced Powell’s message.

In a post-911 world it appears that two kinds of public bigotry are acceptable. Against Arabs and Muslims. Hence the screeds by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram etc. that would have been unacceptable against other ethnic groups are somehow deemed an acceptable part of the public discourse.

There was some push back when right wing commentator Dennis Prager suggested that Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison was somehow being unpatriotic by taking his oath on office on the Quran instead of the Bible.  But most politicians stayed away from the fray in calling out Prager’s bigotry.  Generally politicians, including Barack Obama, have elected to observe the maxim that discretion is the better part of valor.

With its history of absorbing immigrants America has avoided the ghettoization and radicalization of its Muslim immigrants. It would be unfortunate if short sighted jingoism for political gins achieved that end.