This is how the Republican primaries will end, in terms of delegates pledged for the National Convention: Romney, Gingrich, Paul and finally Santorum. Despite the rhetoric from Gingrich and Santorum about the "long haul", their haul will end when the money ends and that will happen first for Santorum and then for Gingrich. Ron Paul will finish third and will stay the distance as he never had and never depended upon the Super PACS for his financing. In truth, Paul is the only real alternative to Romney in this race with his more radical economic notions (which are not so good for the nation) and his more reasoned and sane approach to military spending and war.
There will be woman named by Romney for Vice-President (as he is trailing Obama with women all over the world). Then, President Obama will win the general election.
Why will Obama win? In the first place because he has done a reasonably good job: passed health care, ended two wars and put the economy back on a pattern of growth. And, because not enough people will really believe that Romney is in the race for the sake of building up the middle class. He is so far removed from the middle class that he has no idea of it means to be middle class or struggling to stay there. He doesn't care about the poor, doesn't know what it means to be middle class and his best friends are corporations (they are "people" too, you know...at least according to Mitt). I would add that one other deficit for Romney is that he doesn't really have a sense of humor as Obama does.
Mark my words. I put it down in writing on this 3rd day of February so that, later, it cannot be claimed that it is easy to say that this is what I predicted but how does anyone really know it was what I predicted.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Obama, Right and Wrong
This blog is dedicated to the proposition that it makes a significant difference for human kind to get it right. What "right" means is something of a moving target, but it finds it home where a morality inspired by the values of freedom, equality, justice and peace meet the human reality created by governments, corporations and civil societies here and around the world.
President Obama's address to the nation this evening struck many "right" chords for the future of American foreign policy and was presented in a way that will make sense to many Americans. The decision he is obligated to make as President about a strategy to end the war in Afghanistan is one that was mandated by the mistakes of the past under the control of a foreign policy which did not get American or global interests "right".
President Obama is right that the war in Iraq was wrong and diverted valuable resources and caused a huge loss of life that was both unnecessary and not serving of U.S. nor global interests for security and peace. In fact, it created a world less secure and less peaceful, empowered other forces that could destabilize the whole nuclear weapon reality of our world and unleashed a series of consequences both here and around the world that still are causing problems for humankind.
President Obama is right to stake out the beginnings of a foreign policy that stresses the use of all the resources of this nation and its partners in the world to combat that which threatens not only our security, but the security of health network of common efforts by the global community to improve life on the planet. He is right to switch our approach to foreign policy to "right makes might", not "might makes right" as was the case in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield days. He is right that the focus in Afghanistan/Pakistan should be on disarticulating Al Quaeda and not on nation building in Afghanistan and he is right to set a plan and timetable for exiting Afghanistan.
Obama is also right that Al Quaeda and their associates are not a threat to Pakistan. And the reason for this is that we were wrong to make war in Afghanistan as consequence of this to all who gave war a second threat, would be to push the terrorists into neighborhing states, the consequence of which is that they would eventually see that they had to extend the reach of their terror into that neighborhing state in order to build a buffer that would protect themselves, i.e. the one sure way to keep the Pakistani army out of Al Quaeda safe haven area is to make the other parts of the country unsafe and in need of Pakistani army protection.
Unfortunately, he is wrong on some important interpretation of history and analysis that may put his current efforts to resolve the war in Afghanistan in a way favorable to the fight to restrict the reach of terrorism in our world.
Let us begin with history and its interpretation. The war in Afghanistan was wrong. It was wrong despite the facts of the overwhelming support (not really for war but for all and every action needed to combat Al Quaeda) given both by the Congress as well as by NATO and UN. It was wrong because it misinterpreted the enemy. The enemy is not, as Bush tried to persuade us, the nations that give space to groups like Al Quaeda. The enemy that attacked us was Al Quaeda and, behind them, a huge well of discontent among a certain portion of the Muslim community around the world. We did not wait long enough or try hard enough or use every other weapon at our disposal to disarticulate Al Quaeda before supporting a war effort in Afghanistan. We gave the Taliban just a short time to response to our request for help and we did not put any prolonged pressure on them. We had the possibility of many military actions short of war to convince Taliban Afghanistan to help us root our and up the Al Quaeda network. For instance, as the Taliban had no Air Force and no Navy, we could have used these two resources from the Gulf and through flyovers to monitor and even attack key sites of Al Quaeda while we worked diplomatically to build a larger coalition of peaceful partners to convince Taliban/Afghanistan to help us with our goal of disarticulating Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda would have ened as a prisoner in Afghanistan, under constant air and navy attack without any ability to fight back. As it was, we tried to kill a fly with a sledge hammer and the fly got away to fight another day. The war was wrong as a strategy and as policy. You cannot defeat terrorism with war because war is a form of terror and spreads terror in reaction.
The arguement that some object to increasing troops because Afghanistan is like Vietnam is a paper tiger which can easily be destroyed, as President Obama did in his speech. But, the reason not to increase troops or use a "surge" in Afghanistan is not that it is Vietnam, but because it is Afghanistan: a nation that is not a nation, in the middle of a region that has no desire for it to be a nation of any strength with a geography that defies containment or destruction of any and all forces who have access to financing. The Taliban can close one enclave on Monday and open another on Tuesday as they recently have in the north and Al Quaeda has a million friens and more than a 1000 miles of sparsely populated, absolutely desolate and difficult terrain just on the Pakistan border with Afghanistan.
So, the overarching ideas of the Obama approach to foreign policy are good, helpful, to be applauded, but the strategy may not work in Afghanistan, because it is Afghanistan. It is our attack on the Taliban which has led to the tactical alliance between the Taliban and Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda being another weapon in the arsenal to fight the "allies". We should leave the Taliban to the Afghanis and just go after Al Quaeda which would force the Taliban to rethink their tactical alliance as one that might take away weapons instead of adding them to their aresenal. As clearly as President Obama has outlines his limited project in Afghanistan, the project is flawed because it is not narrow enough.
The President is right to say that whatever we do of efforts around the world, these efforts should not go beyond our responsibility, our means and our interests. Unforteunately it could be the case that the current strategy, to the extent that it depends upon the Afghans and Pakistanis taking their responsibility puts the end result of a "win" outside our means.
Seven years ago, President Bush declared the war in Afghanistan to be "mission accomplished". President Obabam, tonight, should have declared the war in Afghanistan "mission impossible" and announced a plan to withdraw, as soon as possible from the war in Afghanistan to concentrate our current level of forces or a smaller on a far less ambition and more central mission of disarticulating Al Quaeda. This goal can be accomplished no matter what future the Afghans decide for themselves.
President Obama's address to the nation this evening struck many "right" chords for the future of American foreign policy and was presented in a way that will make sense to many Americans. The decision he is obligated to make as President about a strategy to end the war in Afghanistan is one that was mandated by the mistakes of the past under the control of a foreign policy which did not get American or global interests "right".
President Obama is right that the war in Iraq was wrong and diverted valuable resources and caused a huge loss of life that was both unnecessary and not serving of U.S. nor global interests for security and peace. In fact, it created a world less secure and less peaceful, empowered other forces that could destabilize the whole nuclear weapon reality of our world and unleashed a series of consequences both here and around the world that still are causing problems for humankind.
President Obama is right to stake out the beginnings of a foreign policy that stresses the use of all the resources of this nation and its partners in the world to combat that which threatens not only our security, but the security of health network of common efforts by the global community to improve life on the planet. He is right to switch our approach to foreign policy to "right makes might", not "might makes right" as was the case in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield days. He is right that the focus in Afghanistan/Pakistan should be on disarticulating Al Quaeda and not on nation building in Afghanistan and he is right to set a plan and timetable for exiting Afghanistan.
Obama is also right that Al Quaeda and their associates are not a threat to Pakistan. And the reason for this is that we were wrong to make war in Afghanistan as consequence of this to all who gave war a second threat, would be to push the terrorists into neighborhing states, the consequence of which is that they would eventually see that they had to extend the reach of their terror into that neighborhing state in order to build a buffer that would protect themselves, i.e. the one sure way to keep the Pakistani army out of Al Quaeda safe haven area is to make the other parts of the country unsafe and in need of Pakistani army protection.
Unfortunately, he is wrong on some important interpretation of history and analysis that may put his current efforts to resolve the war in Afghanistan in a way favorable to the fight to restrict the reach of terrorism in our world.
Let us begin with history and its interpretation. The war in Afghanistan was wrong. It was wrong despite the facts of the overwhelming support (not really for war but for all and every action needed to combat Al Quaeda) given both by the Congress as well as by NATO and UN. It was wrong because it misinterpreted the enemy. The enemy is not, as Bush tried to persuade us, the nations that give space to groups like Al Quaeda. The enemy that attacked us was Al Quaeda and, behind them, a huge well of discontent among a certain portion of the Muslim community around the world. We did not wait long enough or try hard enough or use every other weapon at our disposal to disarticulate Al Quaeda before supporting a war effort in Afghanistan. We gave the Taliban just a short time to response to our request for help and we did not put any prolonged pressure on them. We had the possibility of many military actions short of war to convince Taliban Afghanistan to help us root our and up the Al Quaeda network. For instance, as the Taliban had no Air Force and no Navy, we could have used these two resources from the Gulf and through flyovers to monitor and even attack key sites of Al Quaeda while we worked diplomatically to build a larger coalition of peaceful partners to convince Taliban/Afghanistan to help us with our goal of disarticulating Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda would have ened as a prisoner in Afghanistan, under constant air and navy attack without any ability to fight back. As it was, we tried to kill a fly with a sledge hammer and the fly got away to fight another day. The war was wrong as a strategy and as policy. You cannot defeat terrorism with war because war is a form of terror and spreads terror in reaction.
The arguement that some object to increasing troops because Afghanistan is like Vietnam is a paper tiger which can easily be destroyed, as President Obama did in his speech. But, the reason not to increase troops or use a "surge" in Afghanistan is not that it is Vietnam, but because it is Afghanistan: a nation that is not a nation, in the middle of a region that has no desire for it to be a nation of any strength with a geography that defies containment or destruction of any and all forces who have access to financing. The Taliban can close one enclave on Monday and open another on Tuesday as they recently have in the north and Al Quaeda has a million friens and more than a 1000 miles of sparsely populated, absolutely desolate and difficult terrain just on the Pakistan border with Afghanistan.
So, the overarching ideas of the Obama approach to foreign policy are good, helpful, to be applauded, but the strategy may not work in Afghanistan, because it is Afghanistan. It is our attack on the Taliban which has led to the tactical alliance between the Taliban and Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda being another weapon in the arsenal to fight the "allies". We should leave the Taliban to the Afghanis and just go after Al Quaeda which would force the Taliban to rethink their tactical alliance as one that might take away weapons instead of adding them to their aresenal. As clearly as President Obama has outlines his limited project in Afghanistan, the project is flawed because it is not narrow enough.
The President is right to say that whatever we do of efforts around the world, these efforts should not go beyond our responsibility, our means and our interests. Unforteunately it could be the case that the current strategy, to the extent that it depends upon the Afghans and Pakistanis taking their responsibility puts the end result of a "win" outside our means.
Seven years ago, President Bush declared the war in Afghanistan to be "mission accomplished". President Obabam, tonight, should have declared the war in Afghanistan "mission impossible" and announced a plan to withdraw, as soon as possible from the war in Afghanistan to concentrate our current level of forces or a smaller on a far less ambition and more central mission of disarticulating Al Quaeda. This goal can be accomplished no matter what future the Afghans decide for themselves.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Tsunami Recovery
I think it is a sure bet that the way history will record these recent times in our nation and in the world is to say that the eight years of Bush/Cheney was something like an economic, social, political and military tsunami that put our nation, and the rest of the world in a big whole. Now we are digging out. In Iraq, despite the critics who said that a strategy for pulling out would not work, it seems we hare abouthalf dug out of a war tht did not need to be fought, accomplished nothing in the war on terror and empowered Iran for regional hegemony. In the economy it looks like we are about half dug out with unemployment close to peaking, economic indicators on the rise and the banking industry about half healthy. In addressing the pressing social questions within the United States, we have seen some progress on questions related to inclusion of gays and lesbians and we will likely have a health care legislation that will go about half way in solving our health care problem. On immigration we are far away from a solution, not because there is no solution but because all the reasonable ones are opposed by large interests on the right. In terms of restoring the integrity of both our relations with other nations and our integrity on questions of human rights and international treaties we are about half the way bqck from the disastrous last eight years and, the Nobel committee conisdered this such a significant digging out accomplishement that it gave is Peace Prize to President Obama.
As is the case of the war in Iraq, none of this progress is irreversible and, if left to the right wing of the country, it would all be reversed and we could go back into the hole. And there is still much to be done to get back to where we were some years ago in the economy, in the social health of the nation, in relations with other countries, in respecting human rights treaties and agreements, in addressing global warming, etc.
The one place where the hole has gotten deeper is Afghanistan. This should not be a surprise. Despite widespread support even among some who normally oppose military action, the war against Afghanista was the biggest mistake of the Bush/Cheney era which is saying something since Iraq wasa huge mistake. Afghanistan was a mistake because it was the wrong strategy for addressing 9/11, because it failed in both its objectives: disarticulate Al Quaeda and establish a non-Taliban state in Afghanistan. A smart strategy would have been to concentrate on disarticulating Al Quaeda and provide both carrot and stick reasons for the Taliban to help us; surround the country with intelligence and surgically accurate ability to attack Al Quaeda sites; work with Pakistan to remove (ahead of time) the western part of Pakistan as the hideout and safe ground for Al Quaeda and work slowly and surely to destroy the Al Quaeda infrastructure and disarticulate by police action, the organization. As it is, both the Taliban and Al Quaeda have not only survived, but, in the area, enjoy greater strength now than at the close of the offical war. And, cooridnated intelligence with European partners and others has resulted in a greater capacity in the Western world to interupt and avoid terrorist activities on the home ground.
Digging out of Afghanistan is the most difficult task left by Bush/Cheney for the Obama administration. Afghanistan is even less of a nation than Iraq, cobbled together from disparate geographies and tribes and warlord areas that met the criteria of falling, geographically between Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has been systematically destroyed in all aspects of life by decades of war with Russia and between its own factions. It has not existing health or educational or public utilities system as did and does Iraq. It has not national culture at all, or national pride and it has no oil, its one economic generator being a product that lucrative but declared unwanted by the rest of the world.
There is only one thing to do in Afghanistan - leave, while maintaining a regional capacity/partnership in addressing the threat of Al Quaeda not only to our security but to the security of the region. how many years does it take to do this? How many troops for how long does it take to do this? What agreements and partnerships with NATO, UN, Pakistan, Russia and Iran do we need to do this? None of the answers seem apparant.
The clearest aspect of answering these questions is that sending 40,000 more troops with the hopes that it will work like the surge in Iraq is not a good idea. What is needed is an exit strategy for the war against the Taliban, a realistic plan for rebuilding the country's infrastructure and health and education systems, and a plan for working with others to continue to monitor and slowly disarticulate the Al Quaeda terror network.
It would appear that the Obama Administration is working exactly in this direction, but, President Obama and the American people should not be surprised that even the best laid plans of mice and men will go awry in Afghanistan. This may be the hole out of which one cannot dig.
As is the case of the war in Iraq, none of this progress is irreversible and, if left to the right wing of the country, it would all be reversed and we could go back into the hole. And there is still much to be done to get back to where we were some years ago in the economy, in the social health of the nation, in relations with other countries, in respecting human rights treaties and agreements, in addressing global warming, etc.
The one place where the hole has gotten deeper is Afghanistan. This should not be a surprise. Despite widespread support even among some who normally oppose military action, the war against Afghanista was the biggest mistake of the Bush/Cheney era which is saying something since Iraq wasa huge mistake. Afghanistan was a mistake because it was the wrong strategy for addressing 9/11, because it failed in both its objectives: disarticulate Al Quaeda and establish a non-Taliban state in Afghanistan. A smart strategy would have been to concentrate on disarticulating Al Quaeda and provide both carrot and stick reasons for the Taliban to help us; surround the country with intelligence and surgically accurate ability to attack Al Quaeda sites; work with Pakistan to remove (ahead of time) the western part of Pakistan as the hideout and safe ground for Al Quaeda and work slowly and surely to destroy the Al Quaeda infrastructure and disarticulate by police action, the organization. As it is, both the Taliban and Al Quaeda have not only survived, but, in the area, enjoy greater strength now than at the close of the offical war. And, cooridnated intelligence with European partners and others has resulted in a greater capacity in the Western world to interupt and avoid terrorist activities on the home ground.
Digging out of Afghanistan is the most difficult task left by Bush/Cheney for the Obama administration. Afghanistan is even less of a nation than Iraq, cobbled together from disparate geographies and tribes and warlord areas that met the criteria of falling, geographically between Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has been systematically destroyed in all aspects of life by decades of war with Russia and between its own factions. It has not existing health or educational or public utilities system as did and does Iraq. It has not national culture at all, or national pride and it has no oil, its one economic generator being a product that lucrative but declared unwanted by the rest of the world.
There is only one thing to do in Afghanistan - leave, while maintaining a regional capacity/partnership in addressing the threat of Al Quaeda not only to our security but to the security of the region. how many years does it take to do this? How many troops for how long does it take to do this? What agreements and partnerships with NATO, UN, Pakistan, Russia and Iran do we need to do this? None of the answers seem apparant.
The clearest aspect of answering these questions is that sending 40,000 more troops with the hopes that it will work like the surge in Iraq is not a good idea. What is needed is an exit strategy for the war against the Taliban, a realistic plan for rebuilding the country's infrastructure and health and education systems, and a plan for working with others to continue to monitor and slowly disarticulate the Al Quaeda terror network.
It would appear that the Obama Administration is working exactly in this direction, but, President Obama and the American people should not be surprised that even the best laid plans of mice and men will go awry in Afghanistan. This may be the hole out of which one cannot dig.
NOBEL OBAMA
Those who have expressed doubt about the naming of President Obama as the Nobel Peace Proze for this year have forgotten how dangerously close we came in the previous American administration to undoing the international network of agreements, networks, alliances and understandings that limit war and sometimes can make peace. Those who sit on the Nobel committees to make these decisions surely considered the basic question of who, or what organization made the largest, most important contribution to peacemaking in the past year. President Obama may have not been the only name of the list, but I think it can be argued that he deserved to be at the top of the list. Americans probably do not appreciate how much damage the Bush/Cheney years did to international cooperation and the climate for peace in the rest of the world. It is a symptom of the deep malaise in the right wing of our country that they complain the loudest about the decision to give President Obama the Nobel prize when it is exactly this right wing takeover of the foreign policy of the country that created the conditions in which an Obama could and should have emerged. They just do not get it. There is a huge, important and absolutely critical difference between an America bent on Empire and an America dedicated to leading an international community that pursues, to the extent that such a complicated network of nations, cultures and political interests can be expected to, a coordinated effort to reduce the use of violence to resolve conflicts in the world.
This does not mean that President Obama has done all that he could or will do to reduce the threat of war and the reality of war or to turn around the whole of the foriegn policy apparatus of the United States to a more reasonable and more effective commitment to real statesmanship and diplomacy. And, the Nobel has little ability to really influence the process of resolving the extremely difficult problems on the ground left by the last administration: Afghanistan, Middle East and Iran/North Korea. Nevertheless, the Nobel can give support to a President who seems committed to turning around our approach to the world in a way that benefits both our national interests and peace in the world and, for that, all Americans should be thankful.
This does not mean that President Obama has done all that he could or will do to reduce the threat of war and the reality of war or to turn around the whole of the foriegn policy apparatus of the United States to a more reasonable and more effective commitment to real statesmanship and diplomacy. And, the Nobel has little ability to really influence the process of resolving the extremely difficult problems on the ground left by the last administration: Afghanistan, Middle East and Iran/North Korea. Nevertheless, the Nobel can give support to a President who seems committed to turning around our approach to the world in a way that benefits both our national interests and peace in the world and, for that, all Americans should be thankful.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Learning the No Comment Rule
We can all applaud the commitments of the Obama Administration for greater transparancy and improved openness in communication with the public. However, this week, it was apparant that these commitments and practices have limits and that this administration needs to learn the "no comment rules." Of course, rule #1 is when lawyers tell you, for real, that you cannot make any comment because of possible legal jeopardy or interference with a legal process. But there are also other times when "no comment" or it's equivalent is the best response for the administratin and for the country.
One rule would be that "no comment" or its equivalent is the best response when any other response runs the risk of gratutiously damaging the national interest, creating a problem that did not exist before, exacerbating a problem that already does exist or that serves to take the nation's eyes off the agenda that the administration wishes to emphasize.
There are ample examples of violations of this rule from the Obama administration just in this last week, beginning with the President's initial remarks in regard to the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. Then we have Vice President Joe Biden making remarks in Georgia that did not pleast Russia and then remarks in an interview with the Wall Street Journal upon his return from Georgia which strained botht the relation with Georgia and Russia. To add to the mix, Hilary Clinton characterized the attempt of Honduran President Zelaya to return to his country after being deposed by the army as "reckless."
None of the remarks mentioned above were necessary, helpful or enlighening. All of them served to exacerbate exiting problems, create new ones and take the nation's eyes off the agenda that the administration wishes to emphasize.
The "equivalent" of a "no comment" was demonstrated to perfection, on the other hand, by the administration's nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonya Sotomayor. There are numerous variations of themes which allow a person to give essentially a "no commnet" without saying those words. In Sotomayor's case it varied from saying the question raised a "hypothetical", to the fact that she might have to rule on a similar case involved in the question, or that she didn't have enough information about the state law that would apply...and on and on and on.
The "equivalents" of "no comment" need to be practiced and held always just a tip of the tongue away so that they can be quickly spit out even though one's mind is formulating what one really would want to say if they were not a member of the President's cabinet or staff.
It is still early in the Obama Adminstration and I am confident that the President himself, the Secretary of State and the Vice President will learn that in a week where the President was trying to keep himself and the nationa and the Congress focused on the dire need of the nation for a national health care plan it is not good to blow up incidents beyond proportion, needlesssly antagonize friends, increase the number of phone calls the President needs to make to repair damages or, in pursuit of building up democracy, to change the paradigm of "reckless" to apply to a harmless political stunt instead of a military coup.
Personally, I would be pleased to become the White House Consultant on when to invoke the "no comment" rule including training for all staff on the various acceptable forms of the "no comment equivalent." If the position is not contemplated, perhaps stimulus money could be found to crate just one more job.
One rule would be that "no comment" or its equivalent is the best response when any other response runs the risk of gratutiously damaging the national interest, creating a problem that did not exist before, exacerbating a problem that already does exist or that serves to take the nation's eyes off the agenda that the administration wishes to emphasize.
There are ample examples of violations of this rule from the Obama administration just in this last week, beginning with the President's initial remarks in regard to the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. Then we have Vice President Joe Biden making remarks in Georgia that did not pleast Russia and then remarks in an interview with the Wall Street Journal upon his return from Georgia which strained botht the relation with Georgia and Russia. To add to the mix, Hilary Clinton characterized the attempt of Honduran President Zelaya to return to his country after being deposed by the army as "reckless."
None of the remarks mentioned above were necessary, helpful or enlighening. All of them served to exacerbate exiting problems, create new ones and take the nation's eyes off the agenda that the administration wishes to emphasize.
The "equivalent" of a "no comment" was demonstrated to perfection, on the other hand, by the administration's nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonya Sotomayor. There are numerous variations of themes which allow a person to give essentially a "no commnet" without saying those words. In Sotomayor's case it varied from saying the question raised a "hypothetical", to the fact that she might have to rule on a similar case involved in the question, or that she didn't have enough information about the state law that would apply...and on and on and on.
The "equivalents" of "no comment" need to be practiced and held always just a tip of the tongue away so that they can be quickly spit out even though one's mind is formulating what one really would want to say if they were not a member of the President's cabinet or staff.
It is still early in the Obama Adminstration and I am confident that the President himself, the Secretary of State and the Vice President will learn that in a week where the President was trying to keep himself and the nationa and the Congress focused on the dire need of the nation for a national health care plan it is not good to blow up incidents beyond proportion, needlesssly antagonize friends, increase the number of phone calls the President needs to make to repair damages or, in pursuit of building up democracy, to change the paradigm of "reckless" to apply to a harmless political stunt instead of a military coup.
Personally, I would be pleased to become the White House Consultant on when to invoke the "no comment" rule including training for all staff on the various acceptable forms of the "no comment equivalent." If the position is not contemplated, perhaps stimulus money could be found to crate just one more job.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Afghanistan: Obama’s Achilles Heel
President Bush and eight years of Republican rule left a huge list of problems for the nation to solve. Cleaning up the mess is a huge job considering that in addition to the mess of the economy, the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan there is also a long list of unresolved national questions and other foreign policy issues that have been badly managed and need a new start. So, how is President Obama doing on cleaning up the mess, addressing the unresolved issues and starting over on a host of foreign policy questions?
I think he is doing very well. The economy is starting to and will come around, the question is how long it will take, but I predict the Dow Jones will end the year over 9000 and, actually be closer to 9500. Iraq is going as well as could be expected although no one should hope that the pull out of troops will be without problems. The primary political challenges of putting together a nation still remain to be settled in Iraq and there could be a very big increase in national violence and, eventually something like a civil war, especially considering that the Kurdish question has not even been touched.
The starting over on foreign policy in the Middle East, China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and even Europre is also in pretty good shape. Although major question remain unresolved, the Obama/Clinton approach to developing a foreign policy and international relations has put the United States in good position to play a positive role in resolving these questions short of starting another inadvisable military action.
And, on the domestic issues it looks like both health care and immigration policy have a chance at renewal or repair within the next year if the Democrats can keep their house together for the fight against the special interests and the Republicans.
The Achilles heal of the Obama efforts to clean up, address unresolved national questions and start over is Afghanistan. Somebody should spend a good deal of time letting this administration know three things: Afghanistan is not our country, Afghanistan is not really a country, and Afghanistan has a 1600 mile border with Pakistan.
Let me repear what I have stated from the beginning and several times in this blog: The war in Afghanist was a mistake. It was a mistake because war was the wrong response to 9/11. Limited military and police action along with increase effectiveness in intelligence was the correct response. There is some hope that the Obama administration does really understand that we cannot win the war in Afghanistan. The question is whether the American people expect to win and if so, what they think winning means. For the moment we can achieve a limited victory in Helmand province to the west of Kahndahar where we have our tradtion stronghold in the south, but we cannot hold Helmand province for long, or inflict a major defeat on the Taliban. To think that Pakistan will do anything more than provide occassional efforts that look like they are making headway against Taliban and Al Quaeda strongholds in the border region is unrealistic. Pakistan will do well to achieve that the Taliban and Al Quaeda do not make military and political gains within their own country. Just remember that Paklistan has no interest in a stong and united Afghanistan. They already have a strong enemy to the east and do not want anything more than a buffer zone with Iran on the West. Then there is the 1600 mile border, most of which is sparsely populated mountain regions that provide no possibiliti4es for constant monitoring by Pakistan troops and, thus, provide ample opportunities for the rear guards of both the Taliban and Al Quaeda to rest, recuperate, train and replenish their numbers and their power.
In other words, we will be in Afghanistan for decades if the idea is to build an Afghanistan able to resist the efforts of the Taliban to destabalize the central government and to control key areas outside of Kabul. We need allies which is the reason that the Russian agreement to allow us to use their air space was a very important gain for the Obama adminsitration. The Russians, if they so desired, could dreate havoc in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they cose to, by just refusing to do certain things and provide clandestine aid to the Taliban and Al Quaeda as we did to the same folks when the Russians were occupying Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, even having allies will not win the day for us, as none of these alies will agree to send more troops since they all believe they should not have to pay dearly for our mistakes.
The Taliban are not our enemy nor should they be our target of operations in Afghanistan. This is why the operation in Helmand province is ill advised and has no possibility for long term gain. Our enemy is Al Quaeda as long as they remian a radical, fundamental group with the goal of destroying our society. Our goal is, therefore, to defuse this threat to our security or at leats to so interupt their normal operations that they remain a limited and controlled factor in the workd of terrorists.
The military/police/intelligence strategy that we need to initiate would not include sending our troops out to take large tracts of land and destroy poppy fields. The end result of this strategy is to increase our military vulnerability and raise the price of heroin without affecting the income provided to our enemies by these crops or inflicting significant damage on their military capability.
Therefore, talking with the Taliban and Al Quaeda is a good strategy, although making a deal with one, the other or both is a dangerious proposition. Neverheless, if there can be an accomosation which serves to stabilize the region and increase our national security concern related to terrorism directed at us, then it will pay good dividends. The degree to which we can assist Afghanistan gain a more effective central governent either by military action or foreign aid should be determined solely on the basis fo what serves the strategy to contrain Al Quaeda. Sorry about that, Afghanistan. I can only say that when you made the deal with Bush to help you overthrow the Taliban, you made a bad deal with a bad dealer. In fact the US never had the ability or the commitment to follow through on its promises. It is a mess, but a mess that needs to be cleaned up not by following through on misguided policies and promises, but on rewriting the policy and limiting the promises to what we actually are capable of doing and limiting the promises to those areas where fulfilling the promise also advances our primary goal of restricting the ability of Al Quaeda to traing and implement terrorism in that region and around the world.
Achilles heel injuries can take an otherwise healthy athlete out for a season even thoug h the rest of the body is fully capable of functioning at a high level. Afghanistan could be just this Achilles heel for the Obama administration. Special attention should be paid to making sure we do not suffer this injury.
I think he is doing very well. The economy is starting to and will come around, the question is how long it will take, but I predict the Dow Jones will end the year over 9000 and, actually be closer to 9500. Iraq is going as well as could be expected although no one should hope that the pull out of troops will be without problems. The primary political challenges of putting together a nation still remain to be settled in Iraq and there could be a very big increase in national violence and, eventually something like a civil war, especially considering that the Kurdish question has not even been touched.
The starting over on foreign policy in the Middle East, China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and even Europre is also in pretty good shape. Although major question remain unresolved, the Obama/Clinton approach to developing a foreign policy and international relations has put the United States in good position to play a positive role in resolving these questions short of starting another inadvisable military action.
And, on the domestic issues it looks like both health care and immigration policy have a chance at renewal or repair within the next year if the Democrats can keep their house together for the fight against the special interests and the Republicans.
The Achilles heal of the Obama efforts to clean up, address unresolved national questions and start over is Afghanistan. Somebody should spend a good deal of time letting this administration know three things: Afghanistan is not our country, Afghanistan is not really a country, and Afghanistan has a 1600 mile border with Pakistan.
Let me repear what I have stated from the beginning and several times in this blog: The war in Afghanist was a mistake. It was a mistake because war was the wrong response to 9/11. Limited military and police action along with increase effectiveness in intelligence was the correct response. There is some hope that the Obama administration does really understand that we cannot win the war in Afghanistan. The question is whether the American people expect to win and if so, what they think winning means. For the moment we can achieve a limited victory in Helmand province to the west of Kahndahar where we have our tradtion stronghold in the south, but we cannot hold Helmand province for long, or inflict a major defeat on the Taliban. To think that Pakistan will do anything more than provide occassional efforts that look like they are making headway against Taliban and Al Quaeda strongholds in the border region is unrealistic. Pakistan will do well to achieve that the Taliban and Al Quaeda do not make military and political gains within their own country. Just remember that Paklistan has no interest in a stong and united Afghanistan. They already have a strong enemy to the east and do not want anything more than a buffer zone with Iran on the West. Then there is the 1600 mile border, most of which is sparsely populated mountain regions that provide no possibiliti4es for constant monitoring by Pakistan troops and, thus, provide ample opportunities for the rear guards of both the Taliban and Al Quaeda to rest, recuperate, train and replenish their numbers and their power.
In other words, we will be in Afghanistan for decades if the idea is to build an Afghanistan able to resist the efforts of the Taliban to destabalize the central government and to control key areas outside of Kabul. We need allies which is the reason that the Russian agreement to allow us to use their air space was a very important gain for the Obama adminsitration. The Russians, if they so desired, could dreate havoc in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they cose to, by just refusing to do certain things and provide clandestine aid to the Taliban and Al Quaeda as we did to the same folks when the Russians were occupying Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, even having allies will not win the day for us, as none of these alies will agree to send more troops since they all believe they should not have to pay dearly for our mistakes.
The Taliban are not our enemy nor should they be our target of operations in Afghanistan. This is why the operation in Helmand province is ill advised and has no possibility for long term gain. Our enemy is Al Quaeda as long as they remian a radical, fundamental group with the goal of destroying our society. Our goal is, therefore, to defuse this threat to our security or at leats to so interupt their normal operations that they remain a limited and controlled factor in the workd of terrorists.
The military/police/intelligence strategy that we need to initiate would not include sending our troops out to take large tracts of land and destroy poppy fields. The end result of this strategy is to increase our military vulnerability and raise the price of heroin without affecting the income provided to our enemies by these crops or inflicting significant damage on their military capability.
Therefore, talking with the Taliban and Al Quaeda is a good strategy, although making a deal with one, the other or both is a dangerious proposition. Neverheless, if there can be an accomosation which serves to stabilize the region and increase our national security concern related to terrorism directed at us, then it will pay good dividends. The degree to which we can assist Afghanistan gain a more effective central governent either by military action or foreign aid should be determined solely on the basis fo what serves the strategy to contrain Al Quaeda. Sorry about that, Afghanistan. I can only say that when you made the deal with Bush to help you overthrow the Taliban, you made a bad deal with a bad dealer. In fact the US never had the ability or the commitment to follow through on its promises. It is a mess, but a mess that needs to be cleaned up not by following through on misguided policies and promises, but on rewriting the policy and limiting the promises to what we actually are capable of doing and limiting the promises to those areas where fulfilling the promise also advances our primary goal of restricting the ability of Al Quaeda to traing and implement terrorism in that region and around the world.
Achilles heel injuries can take an otherwise healthy athlete out for a season even thoug h the rest of the body is fully capable of functioning at a high level. Afghanistan could be just this Achilles heel for the Obama administration. Special attention should be paid to making sure we do not suffer this injury.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Honduras: Conundrum for the Obama Administration
On the face of it, the current crisis in Honduras is a simple problem of restoring democratic rule. The simple solution is for the OAS and the United Nations to find a way to return Manuel Zelaya to the presidency for the remaining months of his term.
But underneath this simple problem lies a difficult and perilous reality for the Obama Administration as it tries to figure out what it's policies will be in Central America, indeed, in Latin America.
In Honduras there are two major political parties: Liberal and Conservative. Over history they have traded the presidency back and forth with neither having too much room to manuever given the overwhelming poverty of the country, the lack of real natural resources and the presence of a powerful military establishment which has been aligned with the business and social elite. All the presidents, from either party, have ties to the ruling elite.
Manuel Zelaya is from the Liberal party which just held its internal elections to name a Presidential candidate for the next elections to be held later this year. The candidate they chose was Elvin Ernesto Santos, the CEO of a large construction firm and, until his being named as the Presidential candidate, the Vice-President of Honduras. Upon being named the Liberal Presidential candidate, Santos resigned the Vice-Presidency. His biggest competitor in the race for the nomination was Roberto Micheletti, the head of the Congress and, now, the newly installed president of the Country. In other words, Zelaya is either a little bit too stupid or a true megalmaniac to think that he can defy the army, his own party and the elite who control all the parties by trying to establish himself as a President who rules above and beyond the influence of the traditional centers of power.
Still, you can be president and be stupid. For this reason, the majority of the Central American countries have one term limits on the presidency. And, even if you are stupid and subject to bouts of meglamania, the regional stability of democracies will be the basis by which the UN and the OAS take their positions with a vested interest in keeping the rule of law and the overt and covert power of the military establishments in check. So, for the army, even if mandated by the Supreme Court to do so, to pull off a coup is also a self-defeating and disempowering action. Other military establishments in the region manage to continue to have power and control without resorting to coups. It is doubtful that any other miliatry establishment in Central America would support the Honduran Military in this action. To the contrary, this action serves to ruin the tacit agreements within the neighboring countries as to how the military can exercise its power without resorting to coups which, for their destabilizing nature, no one likes.
The problem for the US is that these stupidities could have been avoided if Central American and US Military policy for the region were clear. The two Honduran Generals who had the most to do with the coup - Army General Romeo Vasquez and Air Force General Luis Suazo are both graduates of the US Army School of the Americas and the US has a rather significant military contingent in Honduras as part of the Southern Command on the grounds of a Honduran Air Base called Soto Cano about sixty miles from the capital. The combination of the military presence, the size of US Aid to Honduras and the fact the US is the leading trading partner of Honduras gives the US more power than to just "work to see that the coup would not have happened" as the reports are saying. The US had the power to stop the coup.
One question to be raised for the US public is to know why we did no use this power to its fullest and/or if there are major conflicts within the US administration between the military and state department on policy in Central/Latin America. That the US did not stop the coup is a sign that it does not yet have a firm grip on the policy or the pulse of Latin America because stopping the coup could hae avoided what now presents a series of difficulties that threaten to diminish the bright star that the Obama administration brought with it when assuming the US presidency.
Newly installed Micheletti has proven why his own party would not name his to be the presidential candidate with a series of statements the content of which is nothing more than bravado. Micheletti claims the military is ready to repulse any military intervention. The Honduran military is powerful within the politics of Honduras, but it is not an effective fighting force. It would crumble before any effective military action and the US controls the Honduran Air Force.
Of all the Central American presidents, only Daniel Ortega, his own star significantly diminished by a long history of disappointing personal and political decisions, has been vocal, above the crowd, in denouncing the coup. Hopefully this is the result of these presidents, mostly from the left of the political spectrum, recognizing that the rhetoric of Venezuelan's Chavez and Nicaragua's Ortega does nothing to further their strength for governing nor their party's ability to continue to win elections. In fact, Zelaya, by going the strongman route, only diminished the left's political power in the region by stirring up suspicions that all the leftist presidents are really strongmen looking to become hegemonic leaders instead of party leaders and social leaders of their countries for a better economic life for the people.
so the Honduran military has alienated not only the political elite of the region, but also the military elite. Micheletti has further divided his own party and alienated all of the other Latin American countries and Zelaya has destroyed his party's chances for the next election and has only Chavez and Ortega as true friends.
It is a conundrum because returning Zelaya to power does not resolve the underlying problems. Returning Zelaya is necessary if the OAS and UN are to continue as important players in the region. And, returning Zelaya is necessary for the Obama Administration to demonstrate that it has turned the corner on previous interventionist foreign policy. But, when Zelaya is returned to power, Honduras is still in turmoil and Chavez and Ortega are srengthened which is not good for serious leaders of politically leftist parties in Latin America.
The refusal to withdraw the US Ambassador to Honduras and the decision not to immediately suspend aid may be a continuation of President Obama's tendency toward dialogue and including everybody in and thinking long and hard before taking dramatic action, but it only serves to create doubt in Latin America's mind as to whether the US has really turned the corner on its interventionist past and allows a situation that could be resolved quickly to be drawn out with each continuing day of crisis allowing the conundrums to deepen.
President Obama missed an opportunity to strengthen the multi-national approach to foreign policy by lagging behind others in taking dramatic action and, at the same time, allowed a bad situation to fester and destabilize the area, allowing Chavez and Ortega the space to raise their rhetoric and, eventually, claim a victory for the same.
At best, the Obama Administration will need to learn, from this incident, that prevention is a hundred times better than reaction. And, we have not yet heard from the Republicans as to how they will use this incident to detain whatever initiatives President Obama could have in mind to further the opening up of space for normalizing relations with Cuba.
Everything in Latin America is a conundrum to begin with. Clear, decisive and preventative action in favor the values shared by the OAS should be defining criteria for the current US Administration in all its relationships with the countries who share the continent with us. And, it might be good to rethink whether we really need a military base in Honduras.
But underneath this simple problem lies a difficult and perilous reality for the Obama Administration as it tries to figure out what it's policies will be in Central America, indeed, in Latin America.
In Honduras there are two major political parties: Liberal and Conservative. Over history they have traded the presidency back and forth with neither having too much room to manuever given the overwhelming poverty of the country, the lack of real natural resources and the presence of a powerful military establishment which has been aligned with the business and social elite. All the presidents, from either party, have ties to the ruling elite.
Manuel Zelaya is from the Liberal party which just held its internal elections to name a Presidential candidate for the next elections to be held later this year. The candidate they chose was Elvin Ernesto Santos, the CEO of a large construction firm and, until his being named as the Presidential candidate, the Vice-President of Honduras. Upon being named the Liberal Presidential candidate, Santos resigned the Vice-Presidency. His biggest competitor in the race for the nomination was Roberto Micheletti, the head of the Congress and, now, the newly installed president of the Country. In other words, Zelaya is either a little bit too stupid or a true megalmaniac to think that he can defy the army, his own party and the elite who control all the parties by trying to establish himself as a President who rules above and beyond the influence of the traditional centers of power.
Still, you can be president and be stupid. For this reason, the majority of the Central American countries have one term limits on the presidency. And, even if you are stupid and subject to bouts of meglamania, the regional stability of democracies will be the basis by which the UN and the OAS take their positions with a vested interest in keeping the rule of law and the overt and covert power of the military establishments in check. So, for the army, even if mandated by the Supreme Court to do so, to pull off a coup is also a self-defeating and disempowering action. Other military establishments in the region manage to continue to have power and control without resorting to coups. It is doubtful that any other miliatry establishment in Central America would support the Honduran Military in this action. To the contrary, this action serves to ruin the tacit agreements within the neighboring countries as to how the military can exercise its power without resorting to coups which, for their destabilizing nature, no one likes.
The problem for the US is that these stupidities could have been avoided if Central American and US Military policy for the region were clear. The two Honduran Generals who had the most to do with the coup - Army General Romeo Vasquez and Air Force General Luis Suazo are both graduates of the US Army School of the Americas and the US has a rather significant military contingent in Honduras as part of the Southern Command on the grounds of a Honduran Air Base called Soto Cano about sixty miles from the capital. The combination of the military presence, the size of US Aid to Honduras and the fact the US is the leading trading partner of Honduras gives the US more power than to just "work to see that the coup would not have happened" as the reports are saying. The US had the power to stop the coup.
One question to be raised for the US public is to know why we did no use this power to its fullest and/or if there are major conflicts within the US administration between the military and state department on policy in Central/Latin America. That the US did not stop the coup is a sign that it does not yet have a firm grip on the policy or the pulse of Latin America because stopping the coup could hae avoided what now presents a series of difficulties that threaten to diminish the bright star that the Obama administration brought with it when assuming the US presidency.
Newly installed Micheletti has proven why his own party would not name his to be the presidential candidate with a series of statements the content of which is nothing more than bravado. Micheletti claims the military is ready to repulse any military intervention. The Honduran military is powerful within the politics of Honduras, but it is not an effective fighting force. It would crumble before any effective military action and the US controls the Honduran Air Force.
Of all the Central American presidents, only Daniel Ortega, his own star significantly diminished by a long history of disappointing personal and political decisions, has been vocal, above the crowd, in denouncing the coup. Hopefully this is the result of these presidents, mostly from the left of the political spectrum, recognizing that the rhetoric of Venezuelan's Chavez and Nicaragua's Ortega does nothing to further their strength for governing nor their party's ability to continue to win elections. In fact, Zelaya, by going the strongman route, only diminished the left's political power in the region by stirring up suspicions that all the leftist presidents are really strongmen looking to become hegemonic leaders instead of party leaders and social leaders of their countries for a better economic life for the people.
so the Honduran military has alienated not only the political elite of the region, but also the military elite. Micheletti has further divided his own party and alienated all of the other Latin American countries and Zelaya has destroyed his party's chances for the next election and has only Chavez and Ortega as true friends.
It is a conundrum because returning Zelaya to power does not resolve the underlying problems. Returning Zelaya is necessary if the OAS and UN are to continue as important players in the region. And, returning Zelaya is necessary for the Obama Administration to demonstrate that it has turned the corner on previous interventionist foreign policy. But, when Zelaya is returned to power, Honduras is still in turmoil and Chavez and Ortega are srengthened which is not good for serious leaders of politically leftist parties in Latin America.
The refusal to withdraw the US Ambassador to Honduras and the decision not to immediately suspend aid may be a continuation of President Obama's tendency toward dialogue and including everybody in and thinking long and hard before taking dramatic action, but it only serves to create doubt in Latin America's mind as to whether the US has really turned the corner on its interventionist past and allows a situation that could be resolved quickly to be drawn out with each continuing day of crisis allowing the conundrums to deepen.
President Obama missed an opportunity to strengthen the multi-national approach to foreign policy by lagging behind others in taking dramatic action and, at the same time, allowed a bad situation to fester and destabilize the area, allowing Chavez and Ortega the space to raise their rhetoric and, eventually, claim a victory for the same.
At best, the Obama Administration will need to learn, from this incident, that prevention is a hundred times better than reaction. And, we have not yet heard from the Republicans as to how they will use this incident to detain whatever initiatives President Obama could have in mind to further the opening up of space for normalizing relations with Cuba.
Everything in Latin America is a conundrum to begin with. Clear, decisive and preventative action in favor the values shared by the OAS should be defining criteria for the current US Administration in all its relationships with the countries who share the continent with us. And, it might be good to rethink whether we really need a military base in Honduras.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Truth Shall Set You Free
Recent decisions by President Barrack Obama and continuing revelations about former President Dick Cheney strengthen the argument that we need a US Truth Commission to cleanse the national soul and pave the way for freedom to be restored.
"The truth shall set you free" is not an injunction that is tied to any "religious" insight into life, but a maxim whose legitimacy is established by simple logic, the most basic moral values for the good life and the need for periodic or continual cleansing of sins/mistakes that inhibit future possibilities for right actions that promote human freedom and the protection of human rights.
President Obama's backtracking on the decision to release photos of detainees requested by the ACLU under the Freedom Of Information Act, the similar backtracking on the terrorism tribunals at Guantanamo and the revelation of Dick Cheney's direct involvement in ordering torture not for national security concerns but to support his own policy decisions provides the latest evidence that a comprehensive Truth Commission to determine possible US involvement in human rights violations is necessary because the official and unofficial centers of power will not allow it to happen according to law or by means of their own policital will.
This is not a matter of whether or not the truth will come out. Frank Rich, in a recent New York Times editorial, notes that Obama's decision, supposedly to protect US troops from increasing anti-American sentiment across the globe, is a "fools errand" becuase the photos will eventually come out. So, Rich argues, it is better for the President and the nation to get on the side of truth and transparency from the beginning. The same is true about a Truth Commission. It is not that the Truth Commission will have to uncover the truth; the truth will be uncovered. The Truth Commission would serve to put our people, our nation, our country on the side of truth and human rights instead of on the side of the Cheney crowd who denies the importance of human rights and covers up all the dirtly tricks to violate them. President Obama is not one who, as far as we know, could be subject to the investigations of the Truth Commission, but he makes himself complicit in the cover up with these recent decisions. Cheney, on the other hand, plays both sides to his advantage, asking for release of memos when he thinks they will support him, but having a perfect record as Vice-President in denying all request for information that could unveil the truth.
The trouble with the Cheney record and the Obama decisions is that while politicians are protected and the troops are seemingly supported, the country is damaged and we, the people, are denied knowledge of what is being done in our name around the world. And, since National Security is always cited as the reason for violations of human rights, the Truth Commission could help us redefine this term in a way that actually protects our security instead of protecting those who violate it. The agreement of the world on the international treaties for Human Rights is based upon a sound assumption: there is nothing more important for national or human security than respect for human rights. Every known national leader who violated human rights from Idi Aman to Pol Pot argued that national security trumped human rights. In the end it was never National Security that motivated these leaders, but personal power and hiding the truth.
If the United States stands for freedom, the place to begin to earn that reputation is to honor the age-old wisdom that "the truth shall set you free." The fear that a Truth Commmision would damage our reputation is exactly the kind of logic that leads to slavery. If we fear the truth, then slavery is our destiny.
"The truth shall set you free" is not an injunction that is tied to any "religious" insight into life, but a maxim whose legitimacy is established by simple logic, the most basic moral values for the good life and the need for periodic or continual cleansing of sins/mistakes that inhibit future possibilities for right actions that promote human freedom and the protection of human rights.
President Obama's backtracking on the decision to release photos of detainees requested by the ACLU under the Freedom Of Information Act, the similar backtracking on the terrorism tribunals at Guantanamo and the revelation of Dick Cheney's direct involvement in ordering torture not for national security concerns but to support his own policy decisions provides the latest evidence that a comprehensive Truth Commission to determine possible US involvement in human rights violations is necessary because the official and unofficial centers of power will not allow it to happen according to law or by means of their own policital will.
This is not a matter of whether or not the truth will come out. Frank Rich, in a recent New York Times editorial, notes that Obama's decision, supposedly to protect US troops from increasing anti-American sentiment across the globe, is a "fools errand" becuase the photos will eventually come out. So, Rich argues, it is better for the President and the nation to get on the side of truth and transparency from the beginning. The same is true about a Truth Commission. It is not that the Truth Commission will have to uncover the truth; the truth will be uncovered. The Truth Commission would serve to put our people, our nation, our country on the side of truth and human rights instead of on the side of the Cheney crowd who denies the importance of human rights and covers up all the dirtly tricks to violate them. President Obama is not one who, as far as we know, could be subject to the investigations of the Truth Commission, but he makes himself complicit in the cover up with these recent decisions. Cheney, on the other hand, plays both sides to his advantage, asking for release of memos when he thinks they will support him, but having a perfect record as Vice-President in denying all request for information that could unveil the truth.
The trouble with the Cheney record and the Obama decisions is that while politicians are protected and the troops are seemingly supported, the country is damaged and we, the people, are denied knowledge of what is being done in our name around the world. And, since National Security is always cited as the reason for violations of human rights, the Truth Commission could help us redefine this term in a way that actually protects our security instead of protecting those who violate it. The agreement of the world on the international treaties for Human Rights is based upon a sound assumption: there is nothing more important for national or human security than respect for human rights. Every known national leader who violated human rights from Idi Aman to Pol Pot argued that national security trumped human rights. In the end it was never National Security that motivated these leaders, but personal power and hiding the truth.
If the United States stands for freedom, the place to begin to earn that reputation is to honor the age-old wisdom that "the truth shall set you free." The fear that a Truth Commmision would damage our reputation is exactly the kind of logic that leads to slavery. If we fear the truth, then slavery is our destiny.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
WHAT?
The decision of the US not to attend the Durban Conference on Racism seems strangely at odds with the Obama Administration's new openness to the world and, at the same time, will only increase the impression of the world that Israel drives our foreign policy, not ourselves. The African Amercian community will certainly have a hard time understanding this decision.
Of course, we have not seen the language of the document to be submitted to the conference for approval. The Obama Administration says that the one to be submitted is improved from the original. The explanation given by the administration does not seem to justify such a stark departure from the rather persistent and, up until now, consistent stance of openness to all conversation, meetings, encounters, dialogues. We can talk with Iran, but we cannot go to a UN sponsored conference on Racism.
In fact, it does beg the question. Is our foreign policy driven by Israel and not by ourselves?
Of course, we have not seen the language of the document to be submitted to the conference for approval. The Obama Administration says that the one to be submitted is improved from the original. The explanation given by the administration does not seem to justify such a stark departure from the rather persistent and, up until now, consistent stance of openness to all conversation, meetings, encounters, dialogues. We can talk with Iran, but we cannot go to a UN sponsored conference on Racism.
In fact, it does beg the question. Is our foreign policy driven by Israel and not by ourselves?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Hard CAll, Wrong Call
To prosecute or not to prosecute, that is the question when it comes to now well documented violations of the law primarily by those at the highest levels who signed off on various forms of torture to be used by the CIA. It is a hard call because there is hardly any precedent and it might seem to some that it is just plain political revenge by a Democratic administration against a previous Republican one. President Obama decided to release the incriminating records, but decided not to prosecute any of the possible offenders. Hard call, true, but the wrong call. A soldier just got life in prison for killing Iraquis because it is against the law. What makes the CIA different? Wouldn't the CIA's reputation go up with all of us if it even collaborated in strategic legal actions against the intellectual authors of policy that violate nationa and international law. Wouldn't that be a "new day" that current CIA director Panetta talks about even as he promises that the CIA will defend any agent against which legal actions are brought for involvement in torture.
"Impunity" is a very bad word for a society that claims to be a society committed to the rule of law. Panetta says the lesson is learned, but I don't think you could find a legitimate psychologist or social analyst anywhere who thinks that releasing papers documenting crimes while promising not to bring any of the criminals to justice is any kind of lesson other than that "impunity" continues for the intelligence community. The "torture" in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places during this last fit of rage we call the "War on Terror" is not the worst of violations of law, national and international, or of basic morality that the CIA has committed during its years of existence. President Obama just missed a historic opportunity for cleansing what is one of the dirtiest agencies of government whose gross violations of human rights in Latin America, for instance, justified on national security grounds, have done nothing for improving national security but have managed to give our nation a bad reputation around the globe.
Navy Adm. Dennis Blair gets it even more wrong when he intimates that any lebal action against Bush administration officials or CIA operatives would be a disrespect for the military primarily because the war in Iraq was unpopular. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the "we are defending the freedom of America" schtick. Is that freedom not predicated on respect for law? What should be more unpopular than the war is letting criminals go free.
Sorry, President Obama, for whom I voted, but you are making the mistake of so many presidents, Democrats and Republicans, in protecting the military and intelligence community from the most basic of all elements that could produce responsible behaviour - the law. It might have been a hard call, but it was a wrong call...and worse, it was a bad call.
"Impunity" is a very bad word for a society that claims to be a society committed to the rule of law. Panetta says the lesson is learned, but I don't think you could find a legitimate psychologist or social analyst anywhere who thinks that releasing papers documenting crimes while promising not to bring any of the criminals to justice is any kind of lesson other than that "impunity" continues for the intelligence community. The "torture" in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places during this last fit of rage we call the "War on Terror" is not the worst of violations of law, national and international, or of basic morality that the CIA has committed during its years of existence. President Obama just missed a historic opportunity for cleansing what is one of the dirtiest agencies of government whose gross violations of human rights in Latin America, for instance, justified on national security grounds, have done nothing for improving national security but have managed to give our nation a bad reputation around the globe.
Navy Adm. Dennis Blair gets it even more wrong when he intimates that any lebal action against Bush administration officials or CIA operatives would be a disrespect for the military primarily because the war in Iraq was unpopular. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the "we are defending the freedom of America" schtick. Is that freedom not predicated on respect for law? What should be more unpopular than the war is letting criminals go free.
Sorry, President Obama, for whom I voted, but you are making the mistake of so many presidents, Democrats and Republicans, in protecting the military and intelligence community from the most basic of all elements that could produce responsible behaviour - the law. It might have been a hard call, but it was a wrong call...and worse, it was a bad call.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
HURRAH! AND SHAME ON US!
The victory of the FMLN candidate for president, Mauricio Funes, in Sunday's election marks a huge step forward in the democratic processes that have been developing since the end of the civil war in 1993. It is also part of a continent-wide phenomena of the public abandoning their faith in the conservative, free-market, trickle down ideologies which have guided the Americas for the last decades and reaching out to the social democratic ideas of a state that has at least as much concern for providing education and health care to the public as it does for protecting the interests of capital.
At the same time, it should not be forgotten that this victory for the people and for democracy came at heavy expense, not only in El Salvador but throughout the continent. But, El Salvador will serve just fine as an example. More than 30 years ago, the labor unions, students and emerging middle class of El Salvador asked for democratic reform in their country. The response of the ruling elite was repression and when the protests against the ruling elite's intransigence did not let up, repression became full out war against its own people. This would not have been possible except for the support of the United States in dollars, military aid and military advisors placed in the country to train up a brutal military and police force responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the displacement of thousands of refugees to neighborhing countries. In the end, the government of El Salvador and the United States, under pressure from the international community had to sign a peace agreement which essentially guaranteed the reform that was originally demanded two decades prior.
The end result, in El Salvador, is a liberal alternative to the heavy handed, one-sided rule of the conservative elites which will have to prove its ability to govern the same way that governments around the world in democratic countries do - by producing good results for the public. The cost was tremendous because of the shameful support given by our country to those who resisted the inevitable.
The FMLN victory does not ensure the left with a free hand in El Salvador, it only guarantees them some possibility to demonstrate their ability to govern. What the victory should teach the United States and all others who are watching is that using violence to repress laudable human aspirations does not serve to detain these aspirations from being realized, it only destroys lives. El Salvador should be a reminder that war is not an answer to the legitimate aspirations and demands of a people who want only to exercise their rights and have their dignity respected.
It can be hoped that the Obama administration will do all that it can to encourage these govenments of El Salvador to remain true to their political platforms instead of continuing the Bush administration's policies of opposing those governments that do not bow down to US desires. It will make a huge difference for Latin America, for us and for the world if we get it right this time.
At the same time, it should not be forgotten that this victory for the people and for democracy came at heavy expense, not only in El Salvador but throughout the continent. But, El Salvador will serve just fine as an example. More than 30 years ago, the labor unions, students and emerging middle class of El Salvador asked for democratic reform in their country. The response of the ruling elite was repression and when the protests against the ruling elite's intransigence did not let up, repression became full out war against its own people. This would not have been possible except for the support of the United States in dollars, military aid and military advisors placed in the country to train up a brutal military and police force responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the displacement of thousands of refugees to neighborhing countries. In the end, the government of El Salvador and the United States, under pressure from the international community had to sign a peace agreement which essentially guaranteed the reform that was originally demanded two decades prior.
The end result, in El Salvador, is a liberal alternative to the heavy handed, one-sided rule of the conservative elites which will have to prove its ability to govern the same way that governments around the world in democratic countries do - by producing good results for the public. The cost was tremendous because of the shameful support given by our country to those who resisted the inevitable.
The FMLN victory does not ensure the left with a free hand in El Salvador, it only guarantees them some possibility to demonstrate their ability to govern. What the victory should teach the United States and all others who are watching is that using violence to repress laudable human aspirations does not serve to detain these aspirations from being realized, it only destroys lives. El Salvador should be a reminder that war is not an answer to the legitimate aspirations and demands of a people who want only to exercise their rights and have their dignity respected.
It can be hoped that the Obama administration will do all that it can to encourage these govenments of El Salvador to remain true to their political platforms instead of continuing the Bush administration's policies of opposing those governments that do not bow down to US desires. It will make a huge difference for Latin America, for us and for the world if we get it right this time.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Afghanistan: More Difficult Than the Economy
The Economic problems may be difficult because they are so profound and were, for so long, untreated, but they are more susceptible to being addressed in a positive way than other problems in the world that our new President will have to address.
Afghanistan, for instance, is a more difficult problem to solve than the economic recession. First, for all the reasons I listed in a previous blog (Afghanistan: Another Word for Failure). Second, because we do not know the basic rules of the game and/or there are no basic rules of the game and/or the rules of the game, unknown to us, ensure that no one wins, at least for long.
It can be hoped that the President's envoys who have visited recently will return with the sobering news that there is no agreement on what the mission is in Afghanistan and among the various options, none seem to be within reach of actually being achievable.
But, there might be some wisdom in beginning with correcting the srategic mistakes in the original mission which was also confusing as it had several parts - find Osama Bin Laden, disarticulate Al Quaeda, overthrow the Taliban, do something to stabilize the nation.
There is only one reason to be in or around Afghanistan: to disarticulate Al Quaeda, or more realistically, to severely disrupt Al Quaeda's ability to strike against Western targets in the West. Everything else is peripheral and not within our real capacity to address or not really our problem (the "our" here means the "Nato Group").
the original strategy was to find Osama and disarticulate Al Quaeda by winning a proxy war with the Taliban. It was mistake, like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
to the degree possible, we ought to forget about the Taliban as our enemy. They don't have nuclear bombs or missles and they are not a terrorist group in the classical sense. They just terrorize the population with their fundamentalist laws and inhumane punishments.
There is no strategic victory possible by continuing to put our troops or NATO troops in the middle of the Taliban struggle with the Afghan government and others, for control of territory. This is the job of the Afghan army. That the Afghan army needs training, etc, might be true and that might be a special mission of one of the "allies" But the "surge" in Afghanistan is absolutely impossible because there is no Sunni population to arm and pay - the poppy crop is able to arm and pay all the various forces now.
What we need is to surround the area with intelligence about where Al Quaeda is present and what they are doing, and develop military or police actions in partnership with Afghans and Pakistans who actually do oppose terror to continue to make it difficult for them to operate and extremely restrictive in what they can do.
It is time for a Gideon strategy - less troops who know what they are doing with a very specific mission related of intelligent application of international law enforcement actions against terrorist groups which threaten all of the NATO countries and many in the Middle East. A protected base of operations or two and offshore naval presence ought to do the trick while the United Nations works with the Afghan government to see if they can stabilize the country and give that government some room to work.
Then, we need very good diplomacy to begin to resolve all of the untreated questions related to Pakistan, a country which does have nuclear weapons.
It should be mentioned to President Obama the historic difficulty to undo an escalation - one leads to another. There ought to be a huge space for reconsideration of any plans to send more troops. A decision to increase troops has no other end than a further request for more troops somewhere down the line.
President Obama does not need to prove he can be the Alpha Male on this one. He needs to prove that he can be Omega Man (last one standing) by using real intelligence. Make Peace, not War is still good advice.
Afghanistan, for instance, is a more difficult problem to solve than the economic recession. First, for all the reasons I listed in a previous blog (Afghanistan: Another Word for Failure). Second, because we do not know the basic rules of the game and/or there are no basic rules of the game and/or the rules of the game, unknown to us, ensure that no one wins, at least for long.
It can be hoped that the President's envoys who have visited recently will return with the sobering news that there is no agreement on what the mission is in Afghanistan and among the various options, none seem to be within reach of actually being achievable.
But, there might be some wisdom in beginning with correcting the srategic mistakes in the original mission which was also confusing as it had several parts - find Osama Bin Laden, disarticulate Al Quaeda, overthrow the Taliban, do something to stabilize the nation.
There is only one reason to be in or around Afghanistan: to disarticulate Al Quaeda, or more realistically, to severely disrupt Al Quaeda's ability to strike against Western targets in the West. Everything else is peripheral and not within our real capacity to address or not really our problem (the "our" here means the "Nato Group").
the original strategy was to find Osama and disarticulate Al Quaeda by winning a proxy war with the Taliban. It was mistake, like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.
to the degree possible, we ought to forget about the Taliban as our enemy. They don't have nuclear bombs or missles and they are not a terrorist group in the classical sense. They just terrorize the population with their fundamentalist laws and inhumane punishments.
There is no strategic victory possible by continuing to put our troops or NATO troops in the middle of the Taliban struggle with the Afghan government and others, for control of territory. This is the job of the Afghan army. That the Afghan army needs training, etc, might be true and that might be a special mission of one of the "allies" But the "surge" in Afghanistan is absolutely impossible because there is no Sunni population to arm and pay - the poppy crop is able to arm and pay all the various forces now.
What we need is to surround the area with intelligence about where Al Quaeda is present and what they are doing, and develop military or police actions in partnership with Afghans and Pakistans who actually do oppose terror to continue to make it difficult for them to operate and extremely restrictive in what they can do.
It is time for a Gideon strategy - less troops who know what they are doing with a very specific mission related of intelligent application of international law enforcement actions against terrorist groups which threaten all of the NATO countries and many in the Middle East. A protected base of operations or two and offshore naval presence ought to do the trick while the United Nations works with the Afghan government to see if they can stabilize the country and give that government some room to work.
Then, we need very good diplomacy to begin to resolve all of the untreated questions related to Pakistan, a country which does have nuclear weapons.
It should be mentioned to President Obama the historic difficulty to undo an escalation - one leads to another. There ought to be a huge space for reconsideration of any plans to send more troops. A decision to increase troops has no other end than a further request for more troops somewhere down the line.
President Obama does not need to prove he can be the Alpha Male on this one. He needs to prove that he can be Omega Man (last one standing) by using real intelligence. Make Peace, not War is still good advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)