TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | Pakistan RSS feed for this section

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up *updated*

By on 14 August 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. And right now, he is turning over in his grave.






Some links for you to peruse:

~UPDATE: Tim Pawlenty just quit the Presidential race.

~Ok, Bachmann wins the Iowa popularity contest.

~Labor unions are growing increasingly angry at President Obama and with good reason. In what some are saying is a slap in the face to the labor unions, the Democratic convention will be held in a right to work state, North Carolina. Twelve labor unions will sit out the convention and while Obama may assume that at the end of the day he will get their support, he may be underestimating the electoral impact of having some of the Democrats’ most ardent supporters refusing to take to the streets, go door to door and generate enthusiasm for a democratic victory in 2012. In addition, the unions are none too happy with the three free trade bills (South Korea, Panama, Colombia) that Obama will sign, as they are net job-killers and provide more tax havens for wealthy corporations.

~Mitt Romney’s recent “gaffe” about corporations being “people” actually wasn’t a gaffe. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, corporations are people, with some (not all) constitutional rights. Of course, the decisions that anointed corporations with”personhood” was the result of years of out-of-control conservative judicial activism by the SCOTUS and which culminated in the Citizen’s United case. All that said, it does say a lot about Romney’s view of the role of corporations in public life, the economy and politics.

~The administration has claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan have not resulted in civilian casualties, but this report says otherwise. Many civilians have been killed, including 168 children.

~A new political era in Israel? The tent protests are truly incredible to behold. I only wish here in the U.S. we would wake up and feel inspired to do the same thing rather than simply feeling resigned.

~Run Elizabeth, Run.

~David Meyer asks (and answers) “why aren’t Americans protesting?” like their compatriots in other parts of the world.

~Sarah Palin just can’t stand to not be the center of attention.

~Gay rights in Nepal.

~A gay man at the Iowa State Fair asked Tim Pawlenty if he considered him a second class citizen b/c he was gay. Good for him. These candidates with hateful policies and rhetoric need to be confronted.

~The Pentagon is playing with fire. But luckily for them, the MSM isn’t interested.

~President Obama isn’t even pretending to be interested in the grass roots donation drive that helped him achieve victory in 2008. He’s going for the big bucks. We all understand how this works- he had big donors last time around too- but he’s “I’m for the little guy” message has largely been jettisoned due to total lack of credibility.

~I’m sorry, but Rick Perry is a joke. I’m sure he’ll excite a lot of the far right Evangelical base but when you proclaim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and then can’t have an articulate discussion about it other than to throw out bumper sticker sound bites, then you aren’t serious. Also with Rick Perry, he is even more opposed to gay rights than his fellow right wing GOP candidates.

~Speaking of right wing GOP candidates, next up…Rick Santorum. Have you noticed that when it comes to foreign policy (ie. anything other than talk about the economy/taxes and social wedge issues like gay rights and abortion), the Tea Party types get a glazed look and start speaking total nonsense? Rick Santorum has an interesting view of the history of Iran vis-a-vis the U.S.

~Speaking of Iran and Santorum, while he unabashedly is opposed to any type of rights for LGBT folks in the U.S., he supports gay rights for….Iranians!

~DC lobbying firms represent the human-rights abusing Bahraini government for a rather large fee. Is there anyone they won’t represent?

~Who is and isn’t deemed a “terrorist organization” and who does and doesn’t provide material support for said terrorist groups is largely political. Take the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK or Warriors of God) for example, now that Iran is in our cross-hairs, a group with American blood on its hands is the darling of Washington DC officials because the group opposes Ahmadinejad. It’s sort of like the pre-Iraq War all over again when the Iraqi diaspora community (think Ahmed Chalabi) won the hearts and minds of neoconservatives (and others) because they were virulently opposed to Saddam Hussein. The problem was, much of the information they passed on to the government was false and they had absolutely no base of support in Iraq. Similarly, the MEK has no support amongst the Iranian Green Movement and it operates in a cult-like, undemocratic manner that should make Washington nervous. The NYT published an excellent opinion piece yesterday that is worth a read if you aren’t familiar with the controversy surrounding MEK.

~So, do you agree with this WaPo commentator that Obama should cancel his Martha’s Vineyard vacation?

~In case you missed it, Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Israeli opposition leader (Kadima) Tzipi Livni, who said that Obama needs to continue to put some pressure on Israel.

~Tom Friedman is overpaid if he keeps writing stuff like this.

~At least one U.S. official seems to understand Afghanistan’s tribal culture.

~A school in Missouri has recently banned one of my favorite books, Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut. Just for fun, here is a list of the top 100 banned books (2000-2009) from the American Library Association. Here are the top ten:

1. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
2. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
3. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
5. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
7. Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
8. His Dark Materials (series), by Philip Pullman
9. ttyl; ttfn; l8r g8r (series), by Myracle, Lauren
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky

~The latest blow to the health care reform bill is a reminder of what happens when President Obama (and Congress) settle for sketchy compromises like the individual mandate over a public option, which likely wouldn’t be struck down. The next Appellate court to rule on health reform is the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit. You can be sure of one thing, this is going to the Supreme Court.

~A stage collapse prior to a concert in Indiana ends in tragedy.

~Lets just keep ignoring our crumbling infrastructure because I’m sure it will all just fix itself.

~Are they kidding? Michele Bachmann’s people had insisted in advance of the debate that she be able to leave at each commercial break to “touch up” her makeup?

~Former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke gave an interview for a local PBS station where he accused the top echelon of the CIA of a cover up with respect to two of the 9/11 hijackers. The response from the mainstream media (other than PBS)? Something between a collective yawn and an attempt to downplay the charges leveled by Clarke.

You made it to the end. I’ll leave you with some Free-running/building-jumping that you definitely shouldn’t try at home:

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Pres. Obama’s Deficit Debacle, National Security, and Warmaking

By on 03 August 2011

I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.

William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:

“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”

Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:

“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”

Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:

…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.

“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.

“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”

From McClatchy:

Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.

“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”

[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.

Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.

Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:

There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:

  • The entire debate reflected a total disregard of the need for the State Department and other civil departments to play a major role in consolidating our victory in Iraq, supporting a transition to Afghan control in 2014, and preparing for the United States to play a major role in supporting democracy and political change in the Middle East.
  • This pressure comes at a time when the Defense Department has had years of growth in real spending, does little or no realistic long-term force planning, cannot control its manpower and procurement costs, and was already seeking cuts in programs between $78 billion and $400 billion. Even before the president added the goal of cutting the budget by $400 million over the next 12 years (long before the present debate), the Defense Department had planned to eliminate all real growth in defense spending after FY2013—which would reduce the total defense budget from $708 billion in FY2011 to $661 billion in FY2016—even if one assumes that the United States will still be spending $50 billion a year on its wars.
  • Not one word of the debate addressed the rise in the total interagency homeland defense budget to over $70 billion a year, a massive new effort that has grown with minimal efficiency and without adult supervision.
  • The new legislation layers a whole new set of cuts over the existing cuts forced on the defense secretary in preparing the FY2012 budget submission, which means massive new short-term pressure to find cuts—any cuts—in defense spending.
  • The debate that led up to the legislation produced a totally dishonest proposal for cuts in wartime spending amounting to $1 trillion dollars. This was matched by an equally dishonest Future Year Defense Program submission for FY2012 from the Defense Department, which claimed that the total cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism would suddenly drop from $159 billion in FY2011 and $118 billion in FY2012 to a constant level of $50 billion in FY2013–2016. The real cost of our wars has to be over $75 billion in FY2013, and no one knows the out-year costs. As for the $1 trillion in savings, it would take 20 years to achieve a $1-trillion savings at a rate of $50 billion a year, and that would mean two decades in which the United States could not spend a dime on any overseas contingency.

But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.

First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.

Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.

Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.

Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.

Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.

Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:

 ”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”

Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:

“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”

ABC News:

On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.

…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules (n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).

The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.

“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”

Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.

*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Biden on Point, while Republicans Balk at ‘Professor Obama’s lectures’

By on 02 August 2011

(Official White House Photo by Sharon Farmer)

It always comes down to relationships and Pres. Obama just doesn’t have them. Joe does.

An interesting back story put together by Politico’s Glenn Thrush, Carrie Budoff Brown, Manu Raju and John Breshnahan.

[...] With the talks going nowhere Saturday morning, the White House made “our last play,” according to a senior administration official, calling on Biden’s long-time connection to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). [...]

McConnell wanted to negotiate primarily with Biden, concerned that other Democrats, especially Obama, would prove to be less trustworthy bargaining partners.

“Biden’s the only guy with real negotiating authority, and [McConnell] knows that his word is good,” said a senior GOP staffer close to the talks. “He was a key to the deal.”

… GOP House staffers were burnt out after months of fruitless meetings at the White House that they had taken to calling “joke meetings” or worse still, “Professor Obama’s lectures.”

[...] “There was nothing these far-right guys would say yes to,” said a leadership aide close to the talks. “It became clear that they were going to be intransigent no matter what.” …

Whether it’s been Afghanistan and Pakistan or the latest debt ceiling talks, nobody has turned out to be more valuable to Pres. Obama than Vice President Joe Biden.

…notwithstanding the… um… uncomfortable moments that arise.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

‘In the News’, Politics and Beyond

By on 17 July 2011

“In the News” is now its own blog, since our upgrade. You can tweet or FB any post there, too.

Anyone can post or cross-post from his or her blog. It’s getting quite a lot of reader traffic. Give it a try! Post a news blurb about anything, including items non-political.

I was pretty surprised when nothing about Casey Anthony showed up. Paul’s editorial cartoon above was so fantastic, I just had to post it today and remind everyone that whatever you’re reading and find interesting or outrageous, important or silly, to talk about even beyond politics is always welcome.

Stacy has one up on Israel’s Anti-Boycott law that’s a must for anyone interested in the Middle East.

Spincitysd has quite a few, including a head’s up on Pakistan, as the U.S. withholds funding. Though his penchant for pointing out missed news continues to provide hilarity.

Thanks for those posting “In the News.” I just love reading (and tweeting) what’s posted.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

TPaw Flatlines, While Everyone Waits for Perry

By on 13 July 2011

**UPDATED**

Frankly, I wouldn’t even be writing this piece if it wasn’t for Tim Pawlenty falling off the grid, because early polls aren’t very illustrative. It’s just that even after “Meet the Press,” debates and pimping the press, he still can’t get any respect.

I don’t know how it gets any worse for TPaw, someone I said from the start wouldn’t pass muster and didn’t have a prayer to beat Obama, who’s in a different political league. But elite politicos and many cable talking heads proclaimed him golden.

For Pawlenty to come back, Bachmann’s surge would have to prove to be fleeting, which certainly can happen, though the latest debt ceiling collision between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party faction doesn’t foreshadow that happening anytime soon.

That is, unless and until Rick Perry enters the race. Because let’s face it, the Republican Party is a big old boys’ club at heart. From Jonathan Martin.

The Texas governor and his top advisers are feeling out early-state Republican activists on the phone. He met for lunch in Austin Tuesday with former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Next week, he’ll join a group of top national Republican donors for dinner in the state capital, POLITICO has learned. [...] Dave Carney, Perry’s chief strategist, said they had no “hard deadline,” but called Labor Day the outer end of when Perry will have to make up his mind. “I have always expected him to make a decision by the end of the summer,” the strategist said.

I guess Perry is going the Palin route to foreign policy credibility. As an update, I missed the piece in Salon about Perry’s reported ties to the neo-Confederate movement. What’s with Republicans and groups like this?

From Quinnipiac, the bad news for TPaw, who once was seen as the conservative contender:

Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a relative newcomer in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is surging and now trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 25 – 14 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has 12 percent, followed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry with 10 percent. No other contender is over 6 percent.

You notice that Tim Pawlenty isn’t even in the opening paragraph?

That’s because he’s slid to 3%. That’s right, 3.

Rounding out the possible Republican presidential field are entrepreneur Herman Cain at 6 percent, Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul at 5 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 5 percent, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 3 percent, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan each at 1 percent or less.

Huntsman down with Thaddeus McCotter is as close to underachieving as it can get.

Pres. Obama whoops them all, though against Romney, at this point, the President can’t get above 50 percent, which you can bet will get David Plouffe’s attention.

President Barack Obama tops all leading GOP White House hopefuls, hitting the all- important 50-percent mark against every candidate but Romney:

47 – 41 percent over Romney, unchanged from June 8;
50 – 38 percent over Bachmann, who was not matched against Obama June 8;
53 – 34 percent over Sarah Palin, compared to 53 – 36 percent June 8;
50 – 37 percent over Perry, who was not matched against Obama June 8.

Republicans aren’t thrilled about Romney, but now that Pres. Obama has shown his hand that he’s hell bent on cutting entitlements, the Left isn’t exactly enthused either. How badly Republicans want to beat Obama could be the difference.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Obama’s ‘Deal of the Century’ for Republicans

By on 05 July 2011

If you want one reason why Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection this is it.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. – The Mother of All No-Brainers

The bookend to David Brooks is Frank Rich, who evidently has finally awakened to the actual Barack Obama, 3 years too late. This was after appalling political analysis that should not only have gotten him laughed out of the opinion racket, but rendered his views worthless. Rich preferred to play games in the primaries rather than learn, then help readers understand Barack Obama’s political philosophy:

But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.

One of the people who underestimated Barack Obama was Frank Rich, but not in the manner he originally meant. It’s because he was too besotted to identify candidate Obama’s squishy Republicanism.

Mr. Rich also predicted a Democratic “civil war” if Hillary didn’t cool it, though even Rachel Maddow did this, but Rich went several ugly steps further, to make his points:

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

The “suicide for the party” is indeed happening, just a lot later and through the very politician Mr. Rich exalted.

Rich could have looked at Obama’s Illinois record, his statements about being non-ideological, about being more of a mediator between two opposing views, but he chose fan politics instead, ignorantly blinded by what the outcome could eventually be.

Paul Krugman laid out the economics for Rich and his ilk, but there were many clues, the most important coming from candidate Obama himself:

“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama, 5.14.07 (on ABC’s “This Week”)

Pres. Obama adopting the Republican economic model has set the Democratic Party back, how far and for how long it’s hard to tell.

Obama’s position is now where Republicans have placed the new center, which will dog any Democratic candidate and president who believes progressive philosophy is not only more sound, but imperative to save the middle class.

Any Democrat not starting by offering tax cuts and even targeting the safety net will now be considered “extreme” or “far left” by the new center, you know, because Barack Obama did it. Progressive politics then becomes a harder sell. Where that leaves the “professional Left” is anyone’s guess, but it’s nowhere good.

That is unless Obama’s economic Republicanism is abandoned wholesale, which is unlikely when you look at the behavior of elite Democrats today, politicians who don’t understand that by “winning” the Democratic Party is actually losing their identity. Though there are some signs of life in small quarters of Congress, with a few Democrats recognizing that the small differences that used to exist between the parties, Pres. Obama has obliterated, not only on economics, but including on matters of war and peace.

There’s something even more chilling about Pres. Obama’s economic Republicanism. If he’s doing this now, what will he do if he’s reelected, facing no other elections in his future, able to carve the path as he sees it?

It’s not Republicans who should start worrying about Obama’s reelection, it’s Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Senators Merkeley & Udall: ‘Let’s Not Linger in Afghanistan’

By on 05 July 2011

As a liberal who supported Pres. Obama’s Afghanistan plan when he first began it, I simply do not understand how anyone can support it today, at least not when judging what’s in U.S. interests.

From their New York Times op-ed today:

Nineteen months ago the president announced the surge strategy in hopes of stabilizing Afghanistan and strengthening its military and police forces. Today, despite vast investment in training and equipping Afghan forces, the country’s deep-seated instability, rampant corruption and, in some cases, compromised loyalties endure. Extending our commitment of combat troops will not remedy that situation.

Sometimes our national security warrants extreme sacrifices, and our troops are prepared to make them when asked. In this case, however, there is little reason to believe that the continuing commitment of tens of thousands of troops on a sprawling nation-building mission in Afghanistan will make America safer.

National security experts, including the former C.I.A. director Leon E. Panetta, have noted that Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished. Today there are probably fewer than 100 low-level Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has a much larger presence in a number of other nations.

Our focus shouldn’t be establishing new institutions in Afghanistan, but concentrating on terrorist organizations with global reach. And our military and intelligence organizations have proved repeatedly that they can take the fight to the terrorists without a huge military footprint.

It’s easy to understand why our troops being in Afghanistan is good for the Afghans, because Pres. Karzai simply isn’t doing his job and there’s no evidence he will. Women continue to suffer in Afghanistan, an issue to which Karzai is indifferent, even as real progress has been made, because the women and girls had only one way to go and that’s up.

In the past, I’ve argued with people over staying in Afghanistan, but after herculean efforts on the part of our troops, it’s simply not worth one more life, not one. I feel the same way about Iraq, too, but I felt that way from the beginning the Bush-Cheney misadventure that distracted the U.S. from getting bin Laden.

It’s also not as if we won’t continue to be involved in Afghanistan, because they’re sitting next to Pakistan in an important region. This begs the question of when regional powers, including India, China and Russia, will start doing their part? The U.S. is leaving Afghanistan, so they’d better step up.

Senators Merkeley and Udall are correct, Pres. Obama should change course, but he won’t because he’s prosecuting this war like a Republican, which is one reason why Afghanistan is starting to look like a bigger disaster than ever, because the same stubbornness that kept Bush in Iraq is keeping Obama from drawing down faster in Afghanistan.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Joe Biden Won the Afghanistan Debate

By on 23 June 2011

official photo by Pete Souza

It’s all about Pakistan now.

Pres. Obama felt compelled to tell the whole history of why we’re in Afghanistan in a bloated, if shorter than usual address to the nation, but this is where he should have started:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

First, as much as I disliked Pres. Obama’s speech last night, it doesn’t come close to the despicable spectacle on Fox News channel when Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain. McCain’s performance was foreshadowed by Bill O’Reilly, when he said Petraeus should basically get whatever he wants, proving it was the Roger Ailes talking point edict of the night. Using General Petraeus to attempt to undermine Pres. Obama showed political cowardice, with Sen. McCain’s opportunism made worse by the anti-constitutional notion that the military is the conductor of U.S. foreign policy and military actions, instead of the President.

Gates even felt compelled to say he supported Pres. Obama’s decision, which clearly was a reaction to the political posturing promoted by Ailes and his minions on Fox.

Steve Clemons hit this note before the speech:

Second, Barack Obama cannot appear to be a tool of the US military or General Petraeus, who has emerged as the stamp of approval or disapproval for some — like John McCain — of what the President decides. This is not healthy for the country. The military executes the President’s strategy, but some in the Pentagon have crossed lines they shouldn’t. Obama needs to show he is in control.

But Pres. Obama should have saved us all the time and simply said, I’m the guy who got bin Laden, so I don’t intend to take crap from anyone.

[...] But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. [...]

The content of Pres. Obama’s speech last night couldn’t have been much worse when he cravenly invoked isolationism, daring to suggest this notion even with there absolutely no evidence that anyone is seriously considering such a position, particularly in his own party, which is where this is directed.

This is Barack Obama at his worst, with his ego showing through because of what’s happening in Congress surrounding Libya, where the President is clearly wrong.

Hearing Obama talk about “progress” and America being “an anchor to global security” was utilizing words of war used by any president stuck in a situation of his own making, while trying to fool his audience it’s what we do. It doesn’t have to be and it no longer can be, especially in a country like Afghanistan that is sucking us dry.

From Spencer Ackerman, in a piece that is really important to read:

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t — do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.

It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

It’s important here to mention David Petraeus moving to Panetta’s renewed C.I.A., where he’ll play an intense leadership role in what Spencer writes about above. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the hearing on the C.I.A.’s wider role, which was so effective in the bin Laden kill.

The big problem with the import of Pres. Obama’s message is the political foundation, culminating right before the election.

It’s simply no way to run a foreign policy, but that’s what our politics pushes, so politicians like ambitious presidents seeking a second term don’t get caught on the losing side of wars.

As for V.P. Joe Biden, he never wanted the Afghanistan surge, Libya or Iraq, and always thought Pakistan was the ballgame in this region (read his guest post on the subject from 2007). He won’t get the credit, but his message finally got through.

Sen. McCain couldn’t resist a jab at V.P. Biden when talking to Hannity, complete with that pinched little grin McCain plasters on his mug when he’s on camera and knows he’s been beaten.

The House should not let Pres. Obama’s timid withdrawal plans stop them from challenging him, just as they continue to do on Libya.

Of course, we all know what happens when courage is shown in the House. The Senate responds with silence.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

LA Times Report: 10,000 Force Drawdown in Afghanistan this Year

By on 21 June 2011

**UPDATED**

President Obama plans to announce a troop reduction in Afghanistan that Pentagon and other administration officials say is expected to bring home about 10,000 personnel by the end of the year. – Obama expected to announce major Afghan drawdown

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Zbigniew Brzezinski has a low bar for Pres. Obama. Sending a message for a “token of confidence” that things are moving in the right direction and that we’re not “stuck.” Ignoring Afghanistan after troops have left is the biggest mistake the U.S. has made over the last two decades, with Brzezinski naming former Pres. Clinton as having ignored Afghanistan. Staying engaged is his bottom line, which must include regional involvement from Pakistan, India, China and Russia.

But if Obama’s Wednesday speech doesn’t explain how the drawdown supports a political strategy for ending the war, it’ll mean one thing: he has no idea how to get out of Afghanistan. – Spencer Ackerman

Reports today reveal Pres. Obama will begin to drawdown the “surge” portion of his administration’s escalation of 30,000 troops this year, beginning with 10,000, with the remaining 20,000 to come home by 2012. It leaves 70,000 U.S. forces inside Afghanistan.

CNN is reporting this headline: Obama to announce plan to pull 30,000 troops out of Afghanistan.

However, 10,000 would be the starting number, which isn’t what the military wanted, as they were hoping for token troop withdrawal in the neighborhood of 3,000-4,000, which is politically unworkable in today’s climate.

Pres. Obama initially pledged to clean up George W. Bush’s mess in Afghanistan, after he dropped the ball to preemptively invade Iraq. However, Obama’s mission creep has been consistent, going into nation building from the start.

Part of that is due to his stalwart partner Sec. Clinton who believes strongly in our mission inside Afghanistan, particularly where Afghan society is concerned, particularly women’s roles.

I was on board until Stanley McChrystal’s implosion, which made the reality very stark, as it takes looking into the blackest abyss to cause a general to kill his own career.

Pres. Obama is under intense pressure from the Pentagon, who is no doubt telling him that he could be the proud owner of a failure on his watch if the withdrawal is too steep. It’s what the military always tells civilian leadeship, which has the same reaction every time.

I want to hear the Republicans make a different argument, the one begun by Ron Paul. Specifically, I want to hear Jon Huntsman make the case for complete Afghanistan withdrawal over the next 3-5 years. People forget that’s how long these things take.

If the presidential race could be about U.S. lack of foreign policy discipline and misadventurism it would actually be worth the space it will take up. Because there is no more important fiscal challenge to tackle than U.S. indiscriminate and unbridled spending in wars that have no end.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

New York Times: Pakistan Arrests CIA Bin Laden Informants

By on 15 June 2011

With friends like these…

Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan. [...]

The Pakistanis are denying it.

But it’s no wonder we couldn’t “find” Osama bin Laden all these years. Our relationship with the Pakistanis has been duplicitous for a long time, with Pakistan’s own leadership threatened by internal challenges, making the entire endeavor to maintain a stable channel of communication a nightmare.

We need a bigger diplomatic stick. Time to do another mangoes for nukes deal with India?

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Panetta in Pakistan

By on 10 June 2011

Coming after his confirmation hearings for SecDef, Leon Panetta arrives in Pakistan:

CIA director Leon Panetta arrived here Friday on an unannounced visit that marked his first trip to Pakistan since al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a Navy SEAL raid more than a month ago, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. Panetta’s visit comes as the administration seeks to keep its badly bruised relations with Pakistan from deteriorating any further.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Pak-US on the Rocks

By on 27 May 2011

‘Intelligence fusion’ cells, some that help us in Afghanistan, have been ordered shut down by Pakistan, with a demand that U.S. reduce troops in that country as well. From the LA Times:

In a clear sign of Pakistan’s deepening mistrust of the United States, Islamabad has told the Obama administration to reduce the number of U.S. troops in the country and has moved to close three military intelligence liaison centers, setting back American efforts to eliminate insurgent sanctuaries in largely lawless areas bordering Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

The liaison centers, also known as intelligence fusion cells, in Quetta and Peshawar are the main conduits for the United States to share satellite imagery, target data and other intelligence with Pakistani ground forces conducting operations against militants, including Taliban fighters who slip into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and allied forces.

Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who was only freed through “blood money,” had the Pakistanis upset anyone, but Seal Team 6 invading Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden has really set things off.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Atta Prez

By on 13 March 2011

Pres. Obama may have been delivering great one-liners at the Gridiron dinner last night. But earlier in the day he did something for women, for us all.

Extending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is important, with Mr. Obama’s statement in his radio address yesterday once again urging Congress to make women able to get redress if they’re paid less than men. Economic sex discrimination in the U.S. is intolerable.

We need to be the leading light in women’s economic freedoms not lag behind 21st century equality standards, because today women’s incomes matter a great deal to families.

Nearly 4 in 10 mothers (39.3 percent) are primary breadwinners, bringing home the majority of the family’s earnings, and nearly two-thirds (62.8 percent) are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of the family’s earnings. What’s more, women are now much more likely to head families on their own. – The Shriver Report

Congress should be much more aware of these realities.

Sect. Clinton is putting this into U.S. diplomacy, making the case to men in patriarchal cultures like Pakistan and beyond that women have real economic value to their family. It can end cultural abuse and change countries when women are valued fully.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Washington, DC

March is Women’s History Month, a time not only to celebrate the progress that women have made, but also the women throughout our history who have made that progress possible.

One inspiring American who comes to mind is Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1961, the former First Lady was unhappy about the lack of women in government, so she marched up to President Kennedy and handed him a three-page list of women who were qualified for top posts in his administration. This led the President to select Mrs. Roosevelt as the head of a new commission to look at the status of women in America, and the unfairness they routinely faced in their lives.

Though she passed away before the commission could finish its work, the report they released spurred action across the country. It helped galvanize a movement led by women that would help make our society a more equal place.

It’s been almost fifty years since the Roosevelt commission published its findings – and there have been few similar efforts by the government in the decades that followed. That’s why, last week, here at the White House, we released a new comprehensive report on the status of women in the spirit on the one that was released half a century ago.

There was a lot of positive news about the strides we’ve made, even in recent years. For example, women have caught up with men in seeking higher education. In fact, women today are more likely than men to attend and graduate from college.

Yet, there are also reminders of how much work remains to be done. Women are still more likely to live in poverty in this country. In education, there are areas like math and engineering where women are vastly outnumbered by their male counterparts. This is especially troubling, for we know that to compete with nations around the world, these are the fields in which we need to harness the talents of all our people. That’s how we’ll win the future.

And, today, women still earn on average only about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. That’s a huge discrepancy. And at a time when folks across this country are struggling to make ends meet – and many families are just trying to get by on one paycheck after a job loss – it’s a reminder that achieving equal pay for equal work isn’t just a women’s issue. It’s a family issue.

In one of my first acts as President, I signed a law so that women who’ve been discriminated against in their salaries could have their day in court to make it right. But there are steps we should take to prevent that from happening in the first place. That’s why I was so disappointed when an important bill to give women more power to stop pay disparities – the Paycheck Fairness Act – was blocked by just two votes in the Senate. And that’s why I’m going to keep up the fight to pass the reforms in that bill.

Achieving equality and opportunity for women isn’t just important to me as President. It’s something I care about deeply as the father of two daughters who wants to see his girls grow up in a world where there are no limits to what they can achieve.

As I’ve traveled across the country, visiting schools and meeting young people, I’ve seen so many girls passionate about science and other subjects that were traditionally not as open to them. We even held a science fair at the White House, where I met a young woman named Amy Chyao. She was only 16 years old, but she was actually working on a treatment for cancer. She never thought, “Science isn’t for me.” She never thought, “Girls can’t do that.” She was just interested in solving a problem. And because someone was interested in giving her a chance, she has the potential to improve lives.

That tells me how far we’ve come. But it also tells me we have to work even harder to close the gaps that still exist, and to uphold that simple American ideal: we are all equal and deserving of the chance to pursue our own version of happiness. That’s what Eleanor Roosevelt was striving toward half a century ago. That’s why this report matters today. And that’s why, on behalf of all our daughters and our sons, we’ve got to keep making progress in the years ahead.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Arafat’s Ghost

By on 17 February 2011

From Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch on “Turtle Bay”:

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesdy [sic] of Arab representativs [sic] and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution Friday, according to officials familar [sic] with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration [sic] will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

The Palestinians are seeing what’s rolling across the Arab world, which manifested in a sacked pharaoh in Egypt, obviously believing that this is the moment to press for it all, which would undoubtedly get vetoed.

Needless to say the Right is freaking out, as you can witness here, here, here, here for starters. Other framing so far is that the Obama administration signing on to a U.N. Security Council to reaffirm that Israeli settlements are illegitimate is “a major reversal” of U.S. policy.

It’s not a reversal of what Pres. Obama has said publicly, but to do so inside the U.N. Security Council is different.

Rep. Andy Weiner is having none of it. Via Ben Smith:

This is too clever by half. Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the U.N. The correct venue for discussions about settlements and the other aspects of a peace plan is at the negotiating table. Period.

Mr. Weiner is wrong, but he’s also a New York Democrat.

On another tract, Rep. Ron Paul is trying to get $6 billion of U.S. Middle East aide cut. Via Josh Rogin:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), have not been shy about their desire to end all U.S. foreign aid. This week, the elder member of the Paul family is seeking a full House vote on an amendment that would cut $6 billion of U.S. aid to a host of Middle East countries.

Rep. Paul is trying to build support for an amendment to the fiscal 2011 funding bill that would end all foreign assistance to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan. The funding bill currently being debated by the House, called the continuing resolution (CR), is needed to keep the government running after March 4.

If you didn’t think the world had changed enough lately, just a reminder.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

On the Tepid Side of History Until John Kerry Wrote…

By on 01 February 2011

**UPDATES BELOW**

… President Hosni Mubarak must accept that the stability of his country hinges on his willingness to step aside gracefully to make way for a new political structure. One of the toughest jobs that a leader under siege can perform is to engineer a peaceful transition. But Egyptians have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities. [...] For three decades, the United States pursued a Mubarak policy. Now we must look beyond the Mubarak era and devise an Egyptian policy. — Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee

When I heard Al Jazeera say that Sen. John Kerry was the first to call for Mubarak to step down I knew the Obama administration had finally gotten a hold of events that had thus far overtaken them.

Ruminating on Egypt before daybreak today, I couldn’t help think about George W. Bush’s disastrous “Musharaff policy,” as it was called by Joe Biden, who unfortunately didn’t take his own advice on Egypt. Today Sen. John Kerry steps forward to say it’s time for the United States to get beyond our “Mubarak policy.”

When the Egyptians began taking to the streets, Pres. Obama and his administration misjudged the moment.

Sect. Hillary Clinton then took one for the team.

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.” — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, January 25, 2011

Few wrote or remarked about it immediately, though I did, but it’s now getting more and more focus as the days go by. Glenn Kessler, who has covered Sect. Clinton, today:

The history of the Egyptian uprising has not been written. But depending on how events turn out, Clinton’s “stable” statement may enter a diplomatic hall of infamy that includes Jimmy Carter’s Dec. 31, 1977 toast in Tehran in which he said that the Shah of Iran, then a key U.S. ally, was “an island of stability” in the troubled Middle East.

Kessler’s wrong about one thing in this comparison, however. Clinton’s statement was the Obama administration message she was dispatched to deliver. Unfortunately, it’s also what Obama, Biden and Clinton agreed would fit the mood.

In a tough situation it was hard to call in the Obama world of utmost caution. It wasn’t that the carefully considered words Clinton spoke were “ill-timed” as much as they were a throwback in time, grabbing diplo-speak from the 20th century grab bag of knee jerk Support the Dictator dialogue.

However, it is a remark that Sect. Clinton will be remembered for, because she stepped out first and got it wrong, with the White House talking points sticking out like a political banner expressing U.S. self-interest in the face of Egyptians rising to claim their country.

John Kerry spoke up on the Vietnam war at a critical moment in U.S. history. He’s done it again, this time for all the world to hear.

Mubarak’s speech, Obama’s remarks >>>

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Heal This

By on 13 January 2011

Speaker John Boehner will host a cocktail party for the Republican National Committee at the same time that President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation at the memorial service for victims of the Tucson shooting. – Roll Call


I honestly don’t know what to say, when in a moment of national mourning the Speaker of the House chooses a Washington, D.C. fundraiser instead of attending the memorial in Tuscon, Arizona.

After a pitch perfect address to the House, the quieting of the congressional schedule out of respect, all of which began through eloquently stating the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was an attack on all who serve, Speaker Boehner skips out for money’s sake.

After Vice President Joe Biden, who is traveling in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Speaker Boehner is second in line to the presidency.

He’s supposed to be the serious one.

Mr. Boehner leads the Republican House that Pres. Obama and Democrats are supposed to work with to heal the nation and take another look at how we get to where we’re going.

I can’t think of one good reason for Boehner not to be in Tucson, but upon consideration a fundraiser doesn’t come to mind.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) turned down an offer by President Barack Obama to travel on Air Force One to Arizona for a memorial service on behalf of the victims of Saturday’s shooting, a decision that has upset some Democrats.

Call me an idealist, but it’s just so thunderously disappointing.


This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 09 January 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, January 9th 1788, Connecticut became the fifth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a run-down of who will be on the Sunday talk shows.

Have some links:

~By now every single person has heard of the horrific tragedy that took place yesterday in Arizona. There really aren’t words to adequately describe the senselessness of the killing. Hopefully Gabriella Gifford will make a full recovery but there were others who died on the scene, and my thoughts and prayers are with their family and friends.

~We now have a name and a face to go with the shooter, who may not have acted alone- we just don’t know at this point. The Tuscon sheriff perhaps said it best when he said yesterday, with a clear look of frustration and even sadness, that Arizona had become a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

~Taylor wrote about this yesterday, but I think it bears repeating again. The use of violent imagery and rhetoric by the right is unacceptable and has consequences- and those that use the rhetoric know it. Who is responsible for the deaths and injuries yesterday? Jared Lee Loughner. But lets not pretend that the violent symbolism and gun-rhetoric from right-wing politicians is all just a coincidence. Just as the despicable Southern Strategy is like a dog whistle for racists and anti-Semites, the thinly-veiled fear-mongering and use of language such as “overthrow,” “second amendment remedies,” “lock and load” etc. is meant to whip people up into an angry frenzy and we shouldn’t all act shocked, shocked, when someone acts on it.

Exhibit A:

As most know by now, Sarah Palin effectively used Facebook and Twitter to call attention to her political hit list for the 2010 midterm elections (image above). Palin provided a map of the United States with a gun crosshair over each of the states of Democrats that she was targeting. Palin’s use of the words “reload”, “aim” and “fire” on her Facebook page when discussing the above strategy was irresponsible. Is Palin responsible for the violent acts of others? No, but again, I do not accept that the overheated rhetoric of the right since Obama’s election is totally benign. Lets see who will step up to the plate among the conservative pundits and GOP leadership and call for the rhetoric to be toned down- will it be Boehner? Limbaugh? Beck? Fox and Friends? Or will all of the above simply revert to defensive mode and lambast liberals for daring to point out the obvious? The problem for the far right is that it isn’t just liberals who are asking hard questions right about now.

~Ok, other stories in the news: The GOP made a bunch of budget promises that they have absolutely no intention of keeping.

~Team Obama hoping to shed their boys-club image with their new press secretary pick? Oh please, they can’t help themselves. Here’s some free advice to Obama- select someone who is a) an adult, b) not thin-skinned, c) doesn’t hate the democratic base and d) actually knows how to deliver a message.

~Along those same lines, Frank Rich is hoping that Obama’s vacation reading of a biography of Ronald Reagan results in Obama learning a few lessons about communicating and governing.

~The U.S. has upped the ante in its battle against WikiLeaks, having reportedly issued a subpoena for the organization’s Twitter account.

~Southern Sudan’s referendum begins today and spates of violence have broken out in the run-up to the vote.

~Israel’s retiring Mossad chief has turned back the clock on Iran’s nuclear abilities. Trying to predict when Iran will have a nuclear weapon has been something of a political parlor game for almost two decades. For a sobering list of how often US, Israeli and British officials (and others) over the past two decades have predicted Iran is two or three years from full nuclear weapons capability, see here.

~Along those lines, David Ignatius has a more thorough take on how Stuxnet, other sabotage methods and sanctions have slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. This provides a bit of breathing room for Team Obama and other nations who are trying to work out a non-military solution.

~Secretary Gates aims to cut military health spending much to the annoyance of hypocritical deficit hawks on the Hill. Some have read between the lines and noted that Secretary Gates has been playing word games with his “defense cuts” talk, which previously amounted only to a reshuffling of funds from one area of the DoD to another- in other words, they weren’t really “cuts” as the average person understands them. Now with Jacob Lew as head of the OMB, things might get a bit trickier for Gates. Even the NYT has joined in and criticized Gates for not making the defense cuts more substantial.

~Iraq is a huge success isn’t it? Thank goodness that despot Saddam is gone.

~The son of the assassinated Punjab Governor, Salmaan Taseer, wrote an op-ed in the NYT yesterday that is worth a read.

~According to a new report, the West German security service knew about the assumed name and whereabouts of Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler’s key architects of the Final Solution. Apparently they knew about his location almost a decade before he was captured by Israel and put on trial (and sentenced to death). Strangely, Germany did not pass along the information to, well, anyone.

~It’s not just Hamas that was making money (in bribes) off the Gaza blockade.

~Golly gee, no second season for Palin’s reality show? Maybe she just needs some time to beef up on her gun-handling skills before heading back to kill some animals that CLEARLY had it coming. Can I just say that after that episode where she acted like a prima donna and had her father carry her rifle and she generally acted like she had never handled a gun before (“does it kick?”), her show lost a lot of credibility, even among some of her followers.

~One of Blackwater/Xe’s latest iterations has won yet ANOTHER State Dept. contract, which is beyond disappointing. What’s rather unclear to me is why the State Dept. hired them to provide security in the occupied West Bank?

~The State Dept. is trying not to antagonize the right-wing members of Congress and has shifted course on a bureaucratic change to how it refers to parents. Apparently they had been ready to make a change to using gender-neutral terms instead of “mother” and “father” in an attempt to be more inclusive. That upset the righties because, well, even symbolic progress upsets them.

~Environmentalists are none too pleased with British Prime Minister Cameron. It looks like the new Tory party is a lot like the old Tory party, despite Cameron’s pre-election re-branding efforts.

~The political turmoil in Haiti continues and the State Department has indicated that it might be willing to shift its policy and support an election do-over depending on the findings of investigations looking into allegations of election fraud.

The End.

[Cross-posted over at Secretary Clinton Blog]

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Pakistani Governor Assassinated After Twitter Post

By on 04 January 2011

“I was under huge pressure sure 2 cow down b4 rightest pressure on blasphemy. Refused. Even if I’m the last man standing.” – Salman Taseer (via Twitter)

Salman Taseer wouldn’t back down from saying a woman sentenced for blasphemy should be pardoned. He was adamantly opposed to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and it got him killed.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said the killer, identified as Mumtaz Husain Qadri, had confessed to the shooting and told police he was motivated by the governor’s outspoken opposition to Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws, which are strongly backed by Islamist parties. – LA Times

More from the Washington Post:

The killing of Salman Taseer, the razor-tongued governor of Punjab province, stunned the nation and further rocked his ruling Pakistan People’s Party, which is struggling to keep its government afloat following its key ally’s defection Sunday to the opposition.

The governor, an ally of embattled President Asif Ali Zardari, was assassinated Tuesday at an upscale market in Islamabad, the nation’s capital. Police said he was shot multiple times at the shopping plaza, which is near his home in Islamabad and is frequented by foreigners.

A Pakistani news station quoted a witness who said he saw a security guard get out of Taseer’s vehicle, raise a Kalashnikov rifle and fire through the window of the vehicle.

Steve Coll weighs in:

Taseer’s death will shock many Pakistanis; like Benazir Bhutto’s killing, it is a little-needed reminder to the country’s internationally minded elites that they are as vulnerable as the rest of Pakistan’s citizenry to the virus of revolutionary violence now afoot. Taseer was a flawed machine politician, but also a brave and ardent defender of the Pakistan People’s Party’s vision of a modernizing and more culturally balanced Pakistan. The political act that cost him his life involved his defense of progressive amendments to the country’s retrograde blasphemy laws.

Like Benazir Bhutto, progressive politicians aren’t simply voted out of power in Pakistan, they’re murdered because they are feared. The very thing for which they stand is a threat to right wing extremist fundamentalists who don’t want progress in Pakistan. The one thing they all have in common is their liberalness, which is at the foundation of all freedom.

Conservatism at its core takes away freedoms, which is proven through their anti women’s rights, gay rights and all equality campaigns of the individual, which for Mr. Taseer included the campaign against blasphemy laws that went at the core of the current furor over Pakistani free speech.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

WikiLeaks Further Proves 2010 Middle East Story Is Sad

By on 21 December 2010

President Obama will not be thwarted on the START Treaty by Republicans, regardless of Sen. Lindsay Graham’s caterwauling. Today’s Republicans bear no resemblance of their hero Ronald Reagan, as Sarah Palin’s recent Iran op-ed proves. Reagan was a leader on nuclear zero, but today would be run out of his own party. Playing politics with national security is one thing the Right does best, but which the media never seems to call them on. While looking across to Pres. Obama’s foreign policy plate, even beyond the depressing reality in Afghanistan he won’t acknowledge, as well as the Special Operations ground raids in Pakistan, the reality is far more worrisome. Nowhere more so than in the Middle East.

After Pres. Obama’s adamant policy against further Israeli settlements being built, a WikiLeaks cable now points to a “secret accord” for “natural growth” to be allowed. No one who follows the Middle East will be surprised, but it does once again reveal the importance of transparency. When your president and his administration is preening one policy with cables pointing to something else, it goes against what our democratic republic is all about. No wonder PM Netanyahu has ignored Pres. Obama on settlements.

No doubt feeling empowered, Mr. Netanyahu’s very public campaign to free convicted spy Jonathan Jay Pollard puts more pressure on Obama, who soon has to think about his reelection.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will officially and publicly appeal to President Obama in the coming days for the release of Jonathan Jay Pollard, the American serving a life term in a North Carolina prison for spying for Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s office announced Tuesday.

A public request, as opposed to Israel’s discreet efforts in the past, would constitute a new approach in the campaign for Mr. Pollard’s release and an additional twist in a long and painful chapter in Israeli-American relations. …

Last week I wrote about the realities in East Jerusalem after a forum held by Daniel Levy at New American Foundation. His guests were attorney Tali Nir and Hagai El-Ad, both of The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which is Israel’s oldest and preeminent civil and human rights organization. The findings reveal a chilling reality. Children between 8-13 are being arrested. Israeli security guards help Israels versus the Palestinians. There is little health care, plumbing, water, or schools. As for the PLO, they’re not allowed to operate, but don’t exactly make an effort either, many people feeling the “PA has deserted” the people, according to Nir and El-Ad.

Then there was the State Dept.’s nonchalance over the detention of Adeeb Abu Rahma, which you can see in this video, which reveals another weakness in the Obama administration’s policy. The happy ending here is that Abu Rahma finally, at long last been released after 17 months in prison. The State Dept.’s deplorable diplo ducking gives a window into just how important the unveiling of secrets by Wikileaks was, because it reminds us that our government treats its citizens like children while conducting foreign policy that ignores peaceful dissidents. There is simply no good excuse for State or the Obama administration for their handling of this other than Pres. Obama doesn’t want to rile the Right, his new best friends in deal making. After all, what would it look like if the American President was seen being fair to a Gandhi style Palestinian? More importantly, what would it mean to his reelection, which must be protected above doing what’s right,

Now, aid groups sound off against the Israeli government over their difficult reality in Gaza, which sounds very similar to what the Israeli government is doing in East Jerusalem, especially in the thwarting of building schools. Evidently Netanyahu’s government is shockingly clueless as to what breeds terrorism, which can begin with young people with no hope and no future. The Israeli government continuing to be stunningly short-sided.

Instead, aid groups say, Israeli bureaucracy and bottlenecks at border crossings are snarling the delivery of materials to international relief organizations struggling to build much-needed housing, schools and infrastructure projects.

“The United Nations, who have a responsibility to help, we’re the ones that are held up,” John Ging, director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency’s Gaza operations, said in an interview. “We’re held up from building schools. We’re held up from our other infrastructure projects, from the housing people need. And, yet, for the other parts of society here – be that either those with ulterior agendas or people who just have money – they can get on with it.”

… Securing Israeli approval of projects requires weeks or even months of negotiations and the sign-off of up to six Israeli agencies, according to Gisha, an Israeli nongovernmental group that tracks movement and access problems between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

“Hundreds of hours of staff time and millions of dollars are spent on documenting each nut and bolt – as if we were supervising the transfer of highly specialized weapons, and despite the fact that steel, concrete and gravel enter Gaza quite freely via the tunnels,” said Sari Bashi, Gisha’s executive director. …

… But Ging says his main concern is schools. Israel has approved six out of 100 the agency says it needs to build to accommodate 40,000 eligible children. “Overcrowded classrooms, tens of thousands of children failing academically, all of these things, they have long-term detrimental consequences,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury to deal with that after the peace process.” …

Since demanding the stoppage of settlement building, which has been unmasked by Wikileaks, Pres. Obama has lost all leverage against the self-defeating policies of the Netanyahu government. What began with great promise two years ago with Obama hasn’t amounted to squat.

Long-time activists working for a Palestinian state will never give up, many of them Jews, because they know that demographics are not on Israel’s side. The alternative to moving forward unthinkable.

But whatever Pres. Obama once hoped to do in the Middle East is gone. Democrats respect him, but in the hard boiled land of Middle East politics he’s proven himself very weak, with the midterms rendering him even weaker as the tax scheme deal demonstrated. Going forward it’s the Right who has the might in the Middle East and that’s not good for the Palestinians, which means it’s also bad for Israel.

This essay has been edited and cross-posted at Huffington Post.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Richard Holbrooke’s Last Words: ‘You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan.’

By on 14 December 2010

–bumped–

A foreign policy adviser to four Democratic presidents, Mr. Holbrooke was a towering, one-of-a-kind presence who helped define American national security strategy over 40 years and three wars by connecting Washington politicians with New York elites and influential figures in capitals worldwide. He seemed to live on airplanes and move with equal confidence through Upper East Side cocktail parties, the halls of the White House and the slums of Pakistan. … Mr. Holbrooke’s expansive career began in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, where he served as a field officer, and included appointments as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as one of the youngest assistant secretaries of state in U.S. history. When Republicans were in power, he was a banker, a journalist and a best-selling author. His most prominent role was as a presidential wartime problem solver, to which Mr. Holbrooke applied an unwavering energy, a flair for diplomatic improvisation and a hard-charging style that could yield dramatic breakthroughs but also generate bitterness and enmity, even among his American teammates. Although the consequences of his forceful personality were laid bare in his efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, leading to tense disagreements with leaders of those nations and fellow U.S. officials, Mr. Holbrooke never stopped trying to address the insurgencies that threaten both countries. … – Rajiv Chandrasekaran

The quote is from Rajiv Chandrasekaran, whose article on the tenaciously combustible Richard Holbrooke gives you an idea of the life he lead. Author of parts of the Pentagon Papers, Holbrooke was the architect of peace in the Balkins, as well as Pres. Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and served under four presidents going back to John F. Kennedy. Sect. of State Hillary Clinton called Mr. Holbrooke one of America’s “fiercest champions.”

Mr. Holbrooke’s countenance in the press always seemed set to permanently perturbed, so that when you saw him laughing it looked like a welcomed unleashing. At least that’s how it looked from the outside.

Following Mr. Holbrooke’s diplomatic career was like living a vicarious dream. The craft of diplomacy has always been a curiosity to me, likely because I grew up in the heat of Vietnam. It’s a war that left an impact on everyone who lived through it or was touched by the people who fought it, dodged it or tried to help the nation maneuver through it.

I got the pleasure of not only meeting him, but speaking with him one night about Afghanistan, which gave me a very tiny glimpse of the force that was Richard Holbrooke. It was an event at New America Foundation, with my friend Steve Clemons as host. Mr. Holbrooke’s wife, who is a board member of NAF, Kati Marton, is a firebrand intellectual I only saw in action once, when during another NAF event she took apart Flynt Leverett on something he was saying about Iran. The flash of passion and rhetorical heat from her seemed a kindred lash equal to something her husband might also deliver. It was through Ms. Marton’s book event at NAF back in October 2009 where I met her husband.

It was during a time when a kerfuffle was brewing in the press about a visit Sen. John Kerry had just made to Afghanistan, which didn’t include Special Envoy Holbrooke. He was standing with Steve Coll, Cliff May and a small group, including myself, and at one point when he learned I was a political writer he engaged me on the subject of Sen. Kerry. From the report I wrote back in October 2009:

“Our involvement in Pakistan is not altruistic, it’s strategic,” Holbrooke reminded May. When May continued, talking about the Pakistanis not being very happy with the aid package, Holbrooke pressed a question a couple of times. “You know who started that?” May didn’t answer. Holbrooke repeated the question, then added, “the military.” With much of what’s going on in Pakistan having to do with internal politics as much as anything else, Holbrooke also mentioned briefly his long friendship with ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as well as the internal dynamics of the stretched tensions in Pakistan.

I asked Mr. Holbrooke whether he believed the Afghan winter would impact the runoff election. That started a monologue that would last around ten minutes. Once the runoff of Nov. 7th happens, Holbrooke said there is about a two week envelope, with the winter’s impact in the north, thus the Tajiks. (Abdullah is Tajik and is from the north; Karzai a Pashtun from the south.) Continuing, he said that we got Karzai to agree to the runoff “by the skin” of our teeth, by “this much,” changing metaphors and holding up two fingers to show less than an inch. “Of course, we got it,” but it was very close, he added.

Then I interjected another question, starting with “John Kerry–”, with Holbrooke interrupting me immediately, saying “Can’t say enough about John Kerry.” … Holbrooke continued heaping praise on Sen. Kerry, stating what had already been reported about Kerry meeting with Obama after he got back. Holbrooke talking about all the serious work he’d been doing in the area and how long it had been going on, with everyone working in concert. Holbrooke, Secretary Clinton and Amb. Eikenberry also had a 40 minute conversation with Kerry as well.

At one point he added that he’d seen a caption, he believed on CNN, that said “Ambassador Kerry?”, then chuckled. Now, some would have tried to construe this as a snide aside, however, Holbrooke was obviously making a good-natured comment about Kerry’s diligent efforts, while also making the point of how everyone worked different angles together. To add, today Politico has a piece on Secretary Clinton’s vital role in giving Sen. Kerry the Afghan mission and spotlight.

“The Administration worked seamlessly on this,” Holbrooke added, nodding his head.

The interchange, however small, is one that meant something to me, because the work he did was so important and looking in on it for so very many years I respect it tremendously.

There have been countless articles written by front line foreign policy writers about Mr. Holbrooke, so there are no illusions as to his rambunctiously bombastic style. Needless to say he’s not everyone’s favorite guy.

“He’s the most egotistical bastard I’ve ever met,” Vice President-elect Biden told President-elect Obama. From what I know through others few would disagree.

I guess it’s a quality that helps when you’re doing the diplomatic work of the angels in a militaristic world.

“If you’re not on the team and you’re in his way, God help you.” – Pres. Obama (quoting one of Richard Holbrooke’s friends and admirers)

(This essay was bumped from 12.13)

Read full story · Comments { 23 }