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.