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.

Tag Archives | India

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 }

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 }

Hinderaker on Sarah Palin as she Visits Israel

By on 21 March 2011

**UPDATED**

[...] Israeli military officials declined to comment on why Mrs Palin may have turned back, but the country’s defence ministry confirmed that she had made no formal request to visit the occupied West Bank – standard protocol for any foreign dignitary. The oversight could prove embarrassing for Mrs Palin’s advisers, who are unused to planning for foreign visits and have a reputation for being poorly organised. It is unclear whether Mrs Palin and her team failed to realise that Bethlehem lay on Palestinian territory rather than in Israel, a mistake often made by foreign tourists, though not so often by visiting politicians. … – Sarah Palin aborts visit to Bethlehem

Palin visited Jerusalem, “wearing a Star of David necklace,” which got a lot of press, while dining privately with PM Netanyahu.

Over the weekend it got some attention from the Right. Being one liberal who doesn’t insult Palin’s intelligence, also being one of the only political analysts on the Left who gave her credit not only for driving Obama and the Dems off their health care message, such as it was, as well as the fact Sarah was most responsible for the Right’s win in the 2010 midterms, I find Hinderaker’s statement below a head scratcher.

Liberals love to insult Sarah Palin’s intelligence. It’s not a subject on which I have any particular opinion, except to note that, apparently by a remarkable coincidence, her judgment is correct on just about every subject. – John Hinderaker

Sarah was so incorrect in her response to the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy that she’s been on a downhill spiral ever since.

There is simply no way to give Mrs. Palin any deference whatsoever in her poorly timed, self-serving “blood-libel” video after the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy, which revealed the worst about her. Not only was she incorrect to make the video on the day Pres. Obama was to speak at the memorial, but she made the entire episode about her. As Roger Ailes reportedly advised, the better part of humility would have been to not interject herself, though an even better move would have been to say she’d be part of the solution and watch her own rhetoric in the future.

It really was the turning point for Sarah Palin, a moment when she lost a lot of credibility in her ability to put the people of the United States above her own self-serving defensiveness. As my own writings have illustrated, after Sarah’s post-Tucson video she lost a lot of credibility with me.

As for Palin in Israel, let’s just call it the traditional pilgrimage all wannabe presidential hopefuls make to show they are significantly attuned to Israel’s needs. It’s the first test Democrats and Republicans have to pass.

It follows a trip Palin made to India where she thought it wise to criticize the sitting commander in chief at a time he was pondering launching air strikes at Libya. This proves that Sarah Palin not only doesn’t respect the seriousness of what Pres. Obama was about to do, but she thought playing politics at such a moment was more important than acting like an American who supports her president at a time of potential war.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Your Sunday News Round-Up: Fall Back

By on 07 November 2010

Good morning! I hope everyone enjoyed their extra hour of sleep this morning. I know I won’t be enjoying the darkness at 4:30p.m. every afternoon.

On this day in history, November 7,1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt won a fourth term in office, defeating Thomas E. Dewey.

Some links to go with your morning coffee/tea:

~I mentioned this in the comment section of Wonk’s fabulous post yesterday but I thought I’d bring it up here- the Democrats are starting to have a gay problem. Exit polls showed that 31% of voters who self-identified as glbt cast their lot for the GOP.

~Strange but true. A professional couple (read upper income) wanted to buy a unique, energy-efficient home outside of Washington D.C. but couldn’t get a mortgage lender- not because they were at risk of default or had bad credit but because the house was…round. I’d live in this house in a NY minute.

~I wanted Zenyatta to win the Breeder’s Cup. So did millions of other people.

~After the election, Peggy Noonan took aim not only at Barack Obama, but at Sarah Palin for comparing herself to Reagan. You know how ‘ole Peggy gets about Reagan! After all, she knew Ronald Reagan and she wants Palin and her fellow Tea Partiers to know “honey, you’re no Ronald Reagan!” (my words, not Peggy’s).

~In today’s WaPo Frank Luntz gives a self-serving interpretation of What Voters Want.

~In case you missed it, on Friday’s ‘Morning Joe” Lawrence O’Donnell and Glenn Greenwald went at each other with such ferocity I thought they either needed to take it outside or in the alternative, get a room. You can see the video here. No fighting!

~~Hey, in case you were vacationing in a cave for the past week, Keith Olbermann got sent to his room for a time out after it was revealed he gave money to Democratic candidates without getting permission from mom and dad Phil Griffin! Then MSNBC tapped Chris Hayes, editor of ‘The Nation,’ to be the fill-in for an unspecified period of time. You know Hayes…he always fills in for everybody- Maddow, Olbermann, etc. But it turns out Hayes has contributed to Democrats too so he was pulled! But here’s the funny thing, CNBC’s right-wing crank Larry Kudlow gave money to a Republican candidate in 2009- did heget permission from NBC prior to doing so? In fact, most of the CNBC line-up gave political contributions to candidates. So now the question is, do these NBC rules even apply to MSNBC? And if so, do they also apply to CNBC? Murky, no doubt about it. But inquiring minds want to know!

~Nancy Pelosi wants another bite at the apple.

~Obama is in India as part of a ridiculously long trip to Asia which will surely backfire politically. Why? Because even though the trip has been planned for forever and has nothing to do with the midterm election results, that won’t matter to his more vociferous critics on the right. Also, given underwhelming press conference the day after the “shallacking” it does sort of leave the impression, even if untrue, that he’s high-tailing it out of DC at a time when he should be rolling up his sleeves and figuring out what the hell he’s going to do now that those car keys he didn’t want to give to the Republicans, are now in the hands of… the Republicans. The White House is stressing this trip is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. On Saturday he announced $10 billion in new contracts for U.S. exports to India.

~China has put it’s most famous artist under house arrest for criticizing the government. If China wants to call attention to it’s ruthless authoritarian regime, this is a fantastic way to do it. The artist is Ai Weiwei and he happens to be a co-designer of the 2008 Beijing olympic stadium (aka the Bird’s Nest).

~While speaking to Indian college students today Obama said he needs to make some “midcourse corrections” but he didn’t go into specifics.

~Charles Ferguson, writing over at Foreign Policy, argues that Obama needs to get rid of his economic team. I concur. He has an interesting take on it though and the article is a good read.

~Israel is ratcheting up its rhetoric against Iran. It’s clear Israel wants either a) a green light to attack Iran or b) the U.S. to do it for them. The problem is, it would not solve the problem of a potentially nuclear Iran and worse, it could totally backfire and strengthen Iran’s position in the region.

~Along those lines, ~If you think a GOP controlled House won’t change or undermine Obama’s foreign policy, think again.

~In an unbelievable turn of events that clearly portends trouble ahead for the repeal of DADT, the new Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos told the media that DADT shouldn’t be repealed. Amos has a major role in the Defense Department’s review of the policy change and in justifying his position he falls back on stupid stereotypes and reinforces the military’s obsession with sleeping quarters and housing (and showers). The timing of these comments is interesting given the GOP now controls the House. Gen. Amos also talked to the press about Afghanistan and makes it very clear he that doesn’t give a damn about any namsy-pamsy timetable for withdrawal because the Marines are staying dammit! I continue to be amazed at how the top brass shows absolutely no respect for the Commander in Chief. Whenever they don’t like Obama’s policies they run to the media and run their mouth or they leak memos in an attempt, usually successful, to paint him into a corner (see Afghanistan). I would respectfully argue that the military becomes emboldened when wars drag on and on- their power increases and they start to openly rebel against the civilian leadership. And when that happens, they need to be reigned in quickly and decisively.

~I highly recommend reading this 2010 report which looked at how the 25 nations which allow gay people to serve openly have fared after the laws/policies banning gays were overturned. I’ll give you the short version- Many actually believe morale has increased and the best results were achieved when the policy reversal was implemented quickly and consistently (read: with minimal drama, second guessing, attempts to undermine the policy change and hand-wringing).

~Myanmar held civilian elections for the first time in 20 years. It’s too bad they were sham elections and nobody can do anything about it.

~Nick Kristoff has a commentary over at the NYT which basically points out that the GOP economic “plan” of extending all of the Bush tax cuts, makes no economic sense. It didn’t work before and it isn’t going to work now.

~Haiti was thankfully not hit as hard by Hurricane Tomas as some feared it would be, but they were still hit hard enough to to cause even more suffering in a country that has had more than it’s share of disaster and heartbreak. The situation is going from bad to worse as cholera continues to spread and the living situation for millions of Haitians is just simply not improving. It’s a great credit to their character that large-scale violence hasn’t broken out.

~I don’t want to ruin your Sunday (if I haven’t already), but Rep. Joe Barton could be poised to take over as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee although some are saying he is going about it the wrong way. If you want to see an example of just how badly the GOP wants to reward Wall Street and Big Business for their malfeasance, look no further than this article which describes the letter Barton sent to his colleagues, begging for their support.

~Lion Man.

~Here is how the GOP plans to undermine health reform and keep the issue in play for 2012.

~And here are a few more details about what the GOP plans to do in terms of spending cuts. Keep in mind that behind all this talk of spending cuts and numbers and percentages and debt ceilings, there are real human beings who will bear the brunt of this. It’s not some abstraction. That obvious fact seems to have been lost in all the heated rhetoric and lousy messaging leading up to the midterms. The more I read, the angrier I get at the Democrats.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Not These Guys Again

By on 06 October 2010



The fat cats at the big corporations are drooling at the prospect of “Speaker Boehner,” and why not?

The industries giving the most to Boehner: insurance companies, drug manufacturers and Wall Street firms, all of which now face new regulations adopted by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The political action committees and employees of insurance firms, for instance, donated nearly $426,000 to Boehner’s campaign committees through June 30, according to the center’s tally, compared with $118,000 in insurance industry donations to Pelosi’s fundraising accounts. Don Seymour, a Boehner spokesman, said contributors know that Boehner “understands the best way to help create new jobs is to cut spending, stop all the tax hikes and end some of the uncertainty facing job creators.” – USA Today

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are right behind them via American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, accumulating money to dump into races to push the GOTP over the top, especially in close, margin of error races.

American Crossroads GPS is far from the only soft-money organization that has pledged massive spending on conservative candidates. Together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million), Americans for Prosperity ($45 million), the Club for Growth ($24 million at a minimum), the NRA ($20 million), FreedomWorks ($10 million) and a host of less prominent groups, Republicans have been promised an eye-popping $400 million in “independent expenditures” — the FEC’s term for almost-unrestricted political campaign spending that can be impossible to trace back to its sources. – Political Correction

But the story Think Progress broke yesterday about the Chamber of Commerce buy-in against Democrats is frightening. Through a heavier presence in Bahrain, the Chamber plans to accumulate money overseas, then funnel it into the midterm elections, targeting Democratic candidates. The same type of operation is also in play in India, according to the Think Progress investigation, as are “affiliates” in other locales, like Egypt and well beyond. From Think Progress:

The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections. [...]

… Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats. [...]

We’ve all seen this horror film before. Here we go again.

…and all because of an anti Hillary film by David Bosse, the same wingnut who just produced the film touting conservative female politicians this cycle. Bosse’s Clinton derangement over all the years finally paid off when the Supreme Court rendered a decision that changed the midterms back to an unfettered cash free for all.

Boehner’s the ring leader of this crew, which gives you a foreshadowing of what could happen come November 3rd.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

My $0.02: An Inconvenient Hope (and some Bollywood)

By on 02 October 2010

Wonk the Vote here with my Saturday reads, rants, and recommendations.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dYb-g8MZt4&w=300&showinfo=0]
Mohd. Rafi Sahab, English recording,
“Although we hail from different lands…”

I’m actually starting this roundup on Friday night while getting my Bollywood fix–if that kind of thing bores the daylights out of you, by all means, skip down to the newsy part of this post. I have Rafi playing in the background as I type, and I just can’t pass up a chance to frontpage a bit on filmi stuff. If you haven’t scrolled past already, here’s the Times of India’s Nikhat Kazmi on the blockbuster that is breaking a lot of box office records right now:

“For anybody who wants to know what is the on-screen definition of Bollywood, Dabangg is truly text book fare. It’s loud, crazy, zany, exaggerated, larger-than-life, almost nonsensical, totally make-believe, comic book like, complete kitsch, generously peppered with the mandatory desi tadka (garnishing) of songs and dances that keep popping out of nowhere and is literally oozing with star charisma. Most importantly, it’s not meant to make sense. It’s only meant to entertain. And entertain, it does in overdoses. No, this isn’t meant for people who are looking for different cinema. Nor is it meant for the viewer who likes movies to appeal to his head. Yet, for those who celebrate and serenade the `silliness’ of mainstream masala movie lore and swear by its popcorn quotient, Dabangg is the greatest getaway of the season.”

That’s basically spot-on, except that I enjoyed Dabaang (literally “Fearless”) even though I’m a cinephile lover of all that is heady, slow, and cerebral in Indian parallel cinema (which, in my personal experience, most people don’t even realize exists when they bash Hindi films). I grew up on masala films, though, and love it for the good dumb fun it can be when it’s done fearlessly. Indian cinema so often gets a bad rap, and I mostly brought the topic up just so that I could sneak in my abridged list of my recommends from the last decade or so (some are arthouse indies, others are actual Bollywood fare believe it or not):

  1. Rituparno Ghosh’s Raincoat (2004), my all-time favorite; adaptation of O’Henri’s “Gift of the Magi.”
  2. Nagesh Kukunoor’s Dor (“the Thread,” 2006), women-centric and another all-time fav of mine.
  3. Aparna Sen’s 15 Park Avenue (2005), my favorite movie on the mystery of madness.
  4. Chandra Prakash Dwivedi’s Pinjar (“the Skeleton” or “the cage,” 2003), based on the 1970s novel of the same name, set against the backdrop of Hindu-Muslim tensions during Partition time. A look at gender-based violence in areas of social unrest. The conclusion is difficult, but the movie prokes thought and discussion.
  5. Deepa Mehta’s Water (2005) as well as Mehta’s Heaven on Earth (2008), these are technically Canadian, because Mehta is too controversial for the misogynist asshats in India who protest her.
  6. Ram Gopal Verma’s Kaun (“Who,” 1999), my favorite Indian suspense thriller.
  7. Prakash Jha’s Gangaajal (“holy waters of Ganga,” 2003), the plight and uprising of ordinary people. Loosely based on the 1980 Bhagalpur blindings.
  8. Ek Alag Mausam (“A different season,” 2003): groundbreaker, broke the silence on HIV/AIDS in Indian movies.
  9. Subhash Ghai’s Yuvvraaj (2008), one of my guilty pleasures. Shameless ripoff of Rain Man but with its own whimsy up the wazoo.
    10. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OAIAGzrFc&w=300&showinfo=0]
  10. I could really go on forever, but I’ll wrap up with a movie I saw just the other week — Anusha Rizvi’s Peepli Live (2010) dark comedy on farmer suicides in the fictional village of Peepli satirizing the media and political reactions; India’s submission to the 2011 Oscars.

Ok, now onto the news. I’ve already done my lil’ miss politically independent rant for the week (see: “Thing One and Thing Two…”), so this is just going to be a rundown of headlines with quick blurbs from me.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit Theater

By on 14 April 2010

The Post’s Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.

“I’m not going to comment on their program,” Obama said.

Obama’s disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit, by Dana Milbank

Why, of course not. But it would have added substance to what was largely Obama’s nuclear summit theater.

Can you have a real nuclear security summit without discussing Israeli nuclear reality? By ignoring what Israel’s nuclear offensive weaponry means to the Middle East, while focusing solely on Iran? For that matter, what about Pakistan and India? If you didn’t see the revolving photo op, where Pres. Obama’s team herded world leaders in one at a time to get their picture taken with Pres. Obama, you missed the quintessential message of the meeting.

Sure, Pres. Obama met with leaders of both Pakistan and India the day before the “nuclear security summit.” But when you call discussing the arms race, not to mention the dangers percolating in these two countries, as “too politically divisive” to discuss at a “nuclear security summit,” it makes a mockery of the theater which I called out yesterday, before Dana Milbank wrote his piece that takes on another aspect of omission from Pres. Obama’s summit theater.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of that limited pool: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is.”
ad_icon

Alamiri’s counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”

The Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia, but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”

Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan’s Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to “say hello to the cameras” and “thank you everybody.”

However, the elephant amidst Obama’s “nuclear security summit” theater, which Pres. Obama won’t address, and neither will experts, with much of the media playing stenographer, is the issue of Israeli nukes in a region where they could draw the world into a catastrophic conflagration, the likes of which we haven’t seen before.

Mr. Obama should have stopped with the signing of the treaty with Medvedev, when he was ahead and acting statesmanlike, while getting something concrete for his efforts. He just couldn’t resist playing the leading role as Leader of the Free World in his manufactured nuclear security summit theater.

Atlantic Wire has a good summary of the stenography. Not one of the people cited even mention Israel, Pakistan or India.

So much for the U.S. press, which largely played along with the Obama administration freezing them out, happy to write the script handed down from on top. Even Joseph Cirincione fell in line.

It doesn’t seem to dawn or matter to Mr. Cirincione or anyone else that the pledges are totally voluntary, with the goals talked about easy to forget the second the photo op souvenir with Pres. Obama is framed.

A day after the White House announced Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to cooperate with the drafting of sanctions against Iran, it was clear China had not made a total commitment to squeezing Tehran. – New York Daily News

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Netanyahu Cancels Plans to Attend Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit

By on 09 April 2010

–updated–

“The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror,” the official said. “Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama’s invitation to the conference.”

The official added: “But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combatting (sic) terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT.” – Haaretz

Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking his smallest, sending Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor to Washington, because of a potential shift in the nuclear security summit meeting that might include a discussion targeting Israel’s nuclear “ambiguity.” (To update, Chuck Todd reports NSA Jones briefed press pool on AF1, saying Netanyahu “needed to stay in Israel for Holocaust day.” Using this commemoration as cover, because Netanyahu obviously knows the dust up he’s causing, is truly a new low; Obama White House obviously offering Netanyahu as much cover as possible.)

Over 189 countries, including Arab states, are part of the NPT, with only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea not signing on.

It brings to mind the interview Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren had with Fareed Zakaria that I wrote about at the time, which was akin to Zakaria having to pull Oren’s rhetorical teeth to get him on the record regarding Israeli ambiguity about their nuclear capabilities.

FAREED ZAKARIA: If you don’t believe you can deter a country, why did you build 250 nuclear weapons yourself?

MICHAEL OREN: Israel’s position is that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the Middle East. Stand by that position.

FZ: Wait, let me be clear. Are you denying that Israel has nuclear weapons?

MO: I’m saying that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry into the Middle East.

FZ: When you say “introduce,” you mean use.

MO: I mean introduce.

FZ: “Introduce” means actually have them.

MO: To “introduce.”

FZ: All right, so… But the common sense understanding of that word is that Israel does not have nuclear weapons.

MO: The idea is that Israel will not be the first to introduce, deploy nuclear weaponry in the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s fear of being pressured on the NPT puts Israel on the spot and in a very bad place during a time when Pres. Obama is asking the entire world leadership community to stand up against nuclear proliferation, but also each nation’s own responsibility to help create a non-nuclear world.

Pres. Obama is willing to put U.S. skin in the game to get it done, asking other nations to do likewise. It is nothing less than a Reagonesque move, when back in the 1980s Pres. Reagan dared to dream about nuclear zero. This historic reality renders the caterwauling from the right even more ridiculous. Obama going one step further by prioritizing the policy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is, by his diplomatic ducking, saying he will remain outside the world community, further ostracizing Israel, which doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be safe. Not only do they have conventional weaponry for aggressive defense of their country, but the world community, led by the United States, would rightly act on Israel’s behalf if she was ever threatened.

There are other issues involved as well, including commitments of Arab nations, inspired by the dangerous saber rattling from Iran and Israel. From Haaretz:

[...] Many Muslim countries have voiced alarm at alleged nuclear programs in Israel and Iran, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.

In late March the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door sessio, calling for a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons.

They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

If Israel feels its national security is threatened by signing on to the NPT, Prime Minister Netanyahu should not equivocate in making that case strongly to world nations at a nuclear security summit if it comes up. It’s what strong leaders do: stand up for their own national security in the face of criticism or challenges of their policies.

Ah, but the problem with that is that Mr. Netanyahu might be confronted and be forced to admit that Israel’s conventional weaponry and the deep defensive and offensive structure they have built is more than enough to take out any enemy, including Iran. Face that the world actually stands behind the defense of Israel if threatened by Iran’s potential nuclear weaponization, even if that’s a long way off, and that the time to join the world to fight Iran on different turf than mere belligerence is an idea whose time has come.

The issue to be discussed at Obama’s nuclear security summit is “the danger of nuclear terror,” not the NPT, and Mr. Netanyahu hiding behind potential challenges to Israeli policy makes his country look like an unsophisticated, scared rogue nation, instead of the powerfully great little democracy it is today.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Sarah Palin’s Op-Ed

By on 09 December 2009

updated

I commend Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision today to conditionally approve drilling at three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska; it’s a decision that’s been a long time coming. The area north of the Arctic Circle contains some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves. U.S. Geological Survey researchers estimate that it contains 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. … – Sarah Palin

People are upset at the Washington Post. With over 1,500 comments and counting, I’d say they’re ecstatic about the noise that follows Mrs. Palin everywhere she goes. Is there any other Republican that could match it? Never mind that Sarah Palin’s demand that Obama boycott Copenhagen is ridiculous. There are enough skeptics after “climategate” to give her quite a platform. Besides, the business of news is real and Palin is good for it.

Cannibal polar bears (h/t Joe Subday, but warning: pictures are graphic) doesn’t concern Mrs. Palin.

Marc Ambinder points to this post, one of many surfacing about what we face as we all confront the East Anglia science and email disaster.

I am not a climate science specialist and I can’t claim to represent the wider science community. However, I am a geologist with a Ph.D. and 30 years of research experience. As I became personally involved in research on CO2 capture and storage over the past four years, I have taken an increasing interest in the underlying observations that have led the great majority of scientists to conclude that action is necessary to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions.

Palin today:

We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.

What about the cost in human quality of life, especially that of children?

A research study published in 2002 estimated that 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. And studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people.

Of course, even this truth isn’t the issue for Mrs. Palin, who is arguing something else entirely, something well beyond science, in fact, that science doesn’t matter. We’ve been here many times in human history, where scientists come up against a large group of people who have other interests at heart.

Science versus business at a time of economic instability is losing right now; at a time where U.S. economic power is seen as dwindling. With our “military industrial complex” our primary export. Old economy versus a potential new economy where green jobs are created is still a dream, with oil and gas companies, “new coal”, an oxymoron if ever there was one, fighting hard, and nuclear seen as a possible new solution, even if the old challenges remain.

All of this a national security imperative for this country, as China rises, along with India, which is fine, but not unless we’re rising too, which economically we are not. Or more to the point, creatively we are not. This is about innovation, with the conference I attended last week offering more proof that the U.S. is lagging far behind on an “innovation economy,” something Sarah Palin does not represent with her “drill, baby, drill,” with Palin’s quote at the very top of this post revealing that the Obama administration is still relying on old answers, too, which plays into Palin’s hands.

Palin’s message is reaching a segment of America that likes what she’s saying, because it’s comforting. Relying on the 20th century notion that the United States is not in a competitive challenge with other countries of the world, so there’s no need for the U.S. to gear up, including ramping up U.S. innovation to meet what other countries are doing. “We’re number one” still, the message on which the right thrives. With anyone who says we need to innovate and create green jobs, one solution, as part of a new economy beyond our 20th century comfort companies, seen as someone who “hates America” or is criticizing the U.S. by implying we’re not a great nation anymore.

It’s because of our greatness that we’ve proven time and again we can rise to any challenge, but unfortunately our politicians, regardless of party, are missing the moment we’re in. Pres. Obama not doing close to enough on the innovation side so far, something that put one of his economic advisers, Austin Goolsbee, on the defensive last week.

“Clean energy has become a jihad on both sides… Let’s make it a jobs bill.” – Jeffrey Immelt

Democrats get it, but there has thus far been little effort in the Democratic majority to get it done, to edit what futurist Eric Best has said. With this entire year a lost opportunity for Congress and Pres. Obama, who should have given Palin & company nowhere to go by launching a 21st century Project Green immediately, rising to our economic and employment crisis immediately, mimicking what J.F.K. did when he had the vision to take science and this country to the moon.

Sarah Palin is distorting science and using Copenhagen and “climategate” to her advantage, just like she did on her health care “death panels” gambit.

A politician doesn’t have to know how to solve challenges to win an argument and take center stage. They simply need to have the talent to sell a message that enough Americans are hungry to buy.

Comments are open.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama on Afghanistan: ‘It is my intention to finish the job.’

By on 24 November 2009

Reported live from the White House.

“Our core goal is to achieve peace and security for all peoples of the region.” – Pres. Obama

The most important thing Pres. Obama said about Afghanistan is that “It is my intention to finish the job.”

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 040

For more see Jake Tapper, with ABC News having video.

When Mark Knoller asked his question on Afghanistan, he attempted levity by talking about the leakers: “I suspect you don’t want my colleagues and I to rely on leaks until next week.” Obama smiled, then said, “Why stop now?”

Leaks have been a sore subject with the Administration. Obama went into how deliberative the process has been. When he said that what he’s about to decide isn’t just important to the U.S., but is also critical to the whole region, P.M. Singh nodded. It seemed clear throughout the presser that in their talks, which yielded concrete agreements on U.S. – Indian “cooperation, a connection was made between the two leaders. But, of course, Knoller did not get a definitive answer, which Obama said will come “after Thanksgiving,” with the current rumor targeting next Tuesday, but that’s pure speculation, when Obama may address the nation on his decision. After sidestepping a direct answer, Pres. Obama said that this should give “sufficient preview until after Thanksgiving.” The quote at the top is foreshadowing, with Pres. Obama’s decision likely not to make anyone happy on either side.

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 056

Beyond Afghanistan, Obama also addressed Pakistan, saying it’s not the place of the U.S. to solve the issues between these two countries. Further stating that there were times when the U.S. was solely focused on the military aspects of our relationship with Pakistan, with strategy ignoring what lies beyond. This is when Obama specifically called Clinton out giving her a nod, though he wasn’t sure where she was seated in the room, saying she had “done an excellent job to focus our State Dept. on that front,” meaning beyond the military aspects.

Nuclear issues, civilian and military, were also stressed, with both leaders agreeing on joint commitments to denuclearize. Copenhagen and climate change was up front as well.

Obama also acknowledged Mumbai attacks, which happened one year ago come the 26, November, but also terrorism and national security threats, which impact the entire region, as well as the U.S. Tapper has full quotes as well:

“It is in our strategic interests, in our national security interests, to make sure that Al Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively… We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks.”

The pictures below are mostly self-explanatory: 1) White House from the walk to the press briefing room; 2) Pres. Obama and P.M. Singh, the view from my seat; 3) Stunning chandeliers in the East Room; 4) White House, with press briefing room and walk way where we enter. 5) Thought you’d like to see where the traditional networks situate themselves for reports from the White House.

Oh, and the latest from the State Dept., where Clinton hosted a lunch for PM Singh. Here’s the menu and the wine served, remembering that the Prime Minister is a strict vegetarian.

The menu at the lunch included Butternut squash soup, Arugula, endive and roasted pear salad (with St. Pete’s Blue Cheese and Walnut Oil Vinaigrette) for the first course. The main course included sun-dried tomato crusted sea bass, toasted couscous (with grilled zucchini, red onion and fennel) and haricots verts for the main course. And for dessert: Apple Croustade with caramel and toasted pecans and vanilla ice cream.

The meal was served with Conundrum 2007 and Ravines Pinot Noir 2007.

Below is the live Twitter feed from the event earlier this morning (with this post originally posted in the 9:00 a.m. hour), though it got a bit slow once it all started, as many in the room were tweeting like mad.

9:56:09 AM: Pres Obama hosts PM Singh today with State Visit, official State Dinner this evening.

9:58:46 AM: In earlier remarks, which I watched via press briefing room, Singh said US and India must work to make world free of nuclear weapons.

11:22:45 AM: Inside the East Room White House, jammed w press, including very large Indian delegation. Presser set to start @ 11:35 am

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 054

11:29:59 AM: The chandeliers are spectacular, with large rectangular mirrors on the long walls. Maybe 250 press, cameras 2 rows deep, US press separate

11:50:07 AM: Waiting for Obama and Singh, the East Room gets chatty, as the kids get restless.

11:58:51 AM: For those of you reading this is http://www.taylormarsh.com this is a LIVE TWITTER REPORT.

12:08:09 PM: Obama: India is one of our “defining partnerships.” Hillary Clinton is also present. Obama to visit India in 2010

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 044

12:11:08 PM: Obama recommits to US civil nuclear commitment; clean energy partnership; phase our subsidies for fossil fuels. Men

12:11:13 PM: Obama recommits to US civil nuclear commitment; clean energy partnership; phase our subsidies for fossil fuels.

12:17:32 PM: Singh: “values of democracy, pluralism” celebrated today. ..We admire the leadership” of 0bama. Defense cooperation strengthening.

12:20:40 PM: Both Obama + Singh stressed importance of Copenhagen, reaching strong agreement on climate change. Nuclear security stressed.

12:22:20 PM: Mark Knoller: Kidded of leaks, asked about Afghanistan.

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 042

12:23:37 PM: It is in our strategic interest to destroy al Qaeda. After 8 years, “It is my intention to finish the job.”

12:32:08 PM: “Sect Clinton has done an excellent job to focus our State Dept. on that front,” talking abour Pakistan, beyond military.

12:35:20 PM: Clear it seemed that Obama and Singh were in sync, signaling a stronger relationship going forward. My analysis, anyway.

UPDATE II (11.25): Robin Givhan on last night’s festivities. Being fortunate enough to get pool reports, I prefer them and thank those who wrote up the evening’s fun. Sounds like the Obama’s know how to throw a party.

UPDATE: The list of expected attendees to tonight’s State Dinner has finally been released.

This post has been updated with further analysis, links and photos beyond what was first published early this morning.

Read full story · Comments are closed

One Year Later, Karzai ‘Wins’ by Default

By on 02 November 2009

“Needless to say, this is not where we wanted to be after nine months,” commented a senior aide to the president. – AfPak Channel (via New York Times)

One year since Barack Obama won the election, come November 4th, the above statement seems apt, though not just for Afghanistan or Karzai’s “win.”

Anthony Cordesman defines the latest development this way: President Obama must now make a decision that will define his presidency. Many agree, though any time someone, including experts, use terms like “win” and Afghanistan in the same argument it makes me shudder. That language sorely outdated and in need of 21st century re-imagining.


Video covers full story.

And as much as I don’t like Karzai, it’s clear Abdullah Abdullah wasn’t the man for Afghanistan. If he isn’t willing to fight for his country at a critical point, it’s hard to argue that he’d be a better choice.

That said, the general consensus from experts I’ve talked to was that the whole runoff was a “charade” anyway, with some suggesting no work had even begun for the elections.

The outcome or lack thereof in Afghanistan is all bad news. For the women in that country it is a disaster. For U.S. policy it’s almost as bad.

SecDef Gates (with whom I agreed) has also been proved right; that Obama’s strategy required implementation regardless of the election, with John Kerry and many others proved astoundingly wrong. Kerry looks ridiculous at this point, having gone so far out on a limb, though he’s by no means alone. Winter coming doesn’t change this fact.

Karzai wins, the Afghanistan people and the women in that country lose. Our mission more critical than ever.

Of course, few on the left agree. It’s not about al Qaeda, which Obama’s adviser Jones and others have said number less than 100. Once that rational disappears you often hear people like Chris Matthews and other ill informed (translation: ignorant) individuals talking about “defeating the Taliban,” which cannot be done. The Taliban is part of the Afghan consciousness, which cannot be eradicated from the fabric of the country any more than drugs can.

So, without al Qaeda and the Taliban, why are we in Afghanistan?

The country is a strategic linchpin to our central and south Asia national security strategy in an area of the world that is also nuclearized. (I’ll leave the possibility of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan sometime in the future, which could change the economic structure of that country forever, alone for now.) As we focus on supporting the Pakistanis who are just now getting a clue that the extremists in that country threaten the survival of everyday Pakistanis, Afghanistan is linked to Pakistan due to the make up of the region itself, with the trifecta actually also including India. A country whose involvement in Afghanistan makes Pakistan nervous and is one reason why they fund the Afghan Taliban. A Kabul government chummy with India is Pakistan’s worst nightmare, never mind that their preoccupation with India has allowed the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militants to thrive in their own country, which is now dawning.

There is also a human rights aspect to being involved in Afghanistan through the women of that country, which are its hopes. It goes beyond COIN and certainly counterterrorism to involve empowerment of a tortured and subjugated group of Afghans that the country cannot prosper without. Though with Karzai at the top, given his deplorable record against women’s human rights, as well as his corruption and collusion with the “warlords” the Bush-Cheney policy created, our job just got tougher, much, much tougher.

Pres. Obama started out by talking of Afghanistan in “necessary war” terms, with women’s rights part of the struggle for this country. We don’t hear much about that these days, not even from Sect. Clinton. It’s not where any of us thought we’d be nine months out.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Teddy Kennedy’s Foreign Policy Idealism

By on 28 August 2009
kennedy_treebangladesh
A tree Teddy planted in Bangladesh.
Located at Dhaka University to replace one
destroyed by the Pakistan army still stands.
_____________________________________

Little is talked about when it comes to Sen. Kennedy and foreign policy. Adam Clymer wrote a great piece for the Daily Beast on the subject. Domestic issues pervaded Teddy’s mission, but also his image at home. However, he was intensely interested and engaged in world matters, especially where human rights and the plight of the oppressed, as well as refugees were concerned. Even if he didn’t hold the appropriate Senate committee seat or ranking member slot in the foreign affairs arena.

One obvious link was Sen. Kennedy’s ties to Ireland, which go back to the 70s. Jean Kennedy Smith, the surviving sister of Teddy, was ambassador to Ireland, appointed by Clinton through Teddy’s prodding. But little is still known about the details of his efforts to aid Ireland on the road to peace back in the 90s. What is public is that he lobbied Pres. Bill Clinton, the first president to become engaged in Ireland’s struggles, directly and determinedly to give a limited U.S. visa to Sinn Fein’s Gerald Adams. It’s thought this was a move that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Time has featured a piece about it, exploring the complexities and contradictions.

It was Kennedy who, on Hume’s advice, persuaded Bill Clinton to grant a controversial U.S. visa to Gerry Adams, leader of the Irish republican party Sinn Fein, in 1994. At the time, the move was strongly opposed by the British government, but today the visa is seen as an important turning point in Northern Ireland’s recent history. Adams was able to convince IRA supporters on U.S. soil of the merits of backing the peace process. Seven months later, the IRA announced its first military ceasefire, ending a 25-year terror campaign, with Protestant paramilitary groups calling their own ceasefires shortly after.

Let’s hope more details surface, even as Kennedy refused to take credit at the time, as there is no reason not to tell the history today.

Another story comes out of Bangladesh. That tree at the top of this post was planted by Teddy and still flourishes today.

I could write the history of the war of independence between East Pakistan (formerly East Bengal) and West Pakistan and India in 1971, which led to nothing less than a massacre. A civil war for independence that created Bangladesh. When Teddy took on the Administration policies of Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who backed Pakistan against independence. Something the U.S. simply does over and over again to our detriment.

But someone I call a friend, who has written stellar foreign policy pieces for this site many times, Mash, whom old time regulars will no doubt remember, wrote a piece about it as someone who was impacted personally by the Pakistani horrors inflicted on the Bengalis. But especially the independence won for Bangladesh. “The Lion in Winter” is a wonderful piece, which I hope you’ll read in full:

Thirty five years ago when the Pakistani military was slaughtering my people by the millions, President Richard Nixon quietly offered arms to continue the killings. Along with Senators Frank Church and William Fulbright, Senator Kennedy took to the floor of the United States Senate and spoke out against the atrocities. His was one of the lonely voices in the United States government that defended the right of the Bengali people to exist. He spoke out against the massacres, the rapes, and the persecution when the Nixon administration chose to look the other way.

On August 11, 1971 Senator Kennedy visited Bengali refugee camps in Calcutta, India. There he visited with some of the 10 million Bengalis who had fled the massacres in East Pakistan. Kennedy was scheduled to visit East Pakistan but was refused entry by the Pakistani government. Nevertheless, with his visit, Senator Kennedy helped shine the world’s spotlight on the ongoing genocide. With his visit, he became a friend of the Bengali people.

On December 16, 1971 Bangladesh was liberated from Pakistan. On Valentine’s Day the following year, Senator Kennedy visited the newly formed nation. Kennedy arrived in the capital city, Dhaka, as the crowds shouted “Joi Kennedy!’ (Victory to Kennedy). He was mobbed everywhere he went.

About 8,000 people crowded into the university courtyard and jammed lecture hall balconies and roofs, to hear the most popular American among Bengalis tell them what they have been telling themselves since their war for independence began last March.

“Even though the United States government does not recognize you,” Kennedy said, “the people of the world do recognize you.”

…

In his speech, Kennedy drew parallels between the liberation of Bangladesh and the American Revolution. He said America had prospered despite people who predicted it would collapse following independence, and so would Bangladesh.

Kennedy’s early support for the Bengalis’ fight against Pakistan’s army has made him a symbol of the friendship with the United States which the Bengalis desperately want. When criticizing President Nixon for supporting Pakistan, Bengalis invariably mention Kennedy as the example to prove that the American people sympathize with their cause.

Mash also cross-posted this piece at DK, where Senator Kennedy made sure his appreciation was noted.

Mash – Thank you for this thoughtful and beautifully written diary. I read it this morning and am grateful for your words. You have reminded us all to be mindful of battles of the past as we fight to change the current course of history.

With warm regards,
Senator Edward Kennedy

Then there is South Africa. From Clymer:

He also heartened the opposition in South Africa. He visited that country in 1985, after Archbishop Desmond Tutu persuaded him that his presence would draw attention to apartheid through the American television crews that followed him. He visited slums and resettlement areas. His trip was denounced by the South African government and by the United States ambassador, Herman Nickel. Kennedy staged an illegal protest outside Pollsmoor Prison, where Nelson Mandela was being held. He said, “Behind these walls are men that are deeply committed to the cause of freedom in this land.” Years later, Mandela said he knew Kennedy had been at the gate of the prison and that “gave us a lot of strength and hope, and the feeling that we had millions behind us both in our struggle against apartheid but in our special situation in prison.”

On his return, Kennedy led an effort to impose economic sanctions on South Africa. In 1986, Congress overrode a veto by President Reagan and enacted a ban on all new investment by Americans in South African businesses and on the importation of such products as steel, coal, ammunition, and food from South Africa. “The time for procrastination and delay is over,” Kennedy said. “Now is the time to keep the faith with Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, and all those who believe in a free South Africa.”

However, Senator Kennedy’s most important foreign policy contribution was his vote against the Iraq war. Teddy watched Bobby’s anti Vietnam stance, not fully embracing his brother’s passion at first, even as they both knew what Jack’s legacy on Vietnam was on his death. Though historians like Robert Dallek have offered that JFK would have withdrawn if he’d live. We’ll never know.

What we do know is Teddy Kennedy was one of the leaders against the Iraq war from the start. I was a very lonely voice on a.m. radio at the time, railing against all the Democrats who didn’t have Teddy’s courage, Biden, Kerry and Hillary. He was smarter than them all. …so was Barack Obama, which, through a little noticed speech at the time, would change the course of history. A beginning for what would develop into a powerful political kinship between Kennedy and Obama.

“My vote against this misbegotten war is the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962.” – Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Read full story · Comments are closed

North Korea’s Nukes

By on 27 May 2009

North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. – Bloomberg

Secretary Clinton weighed in this past hour: “North Korea has made a choice. It has chosen to violate specific language, UN Security Council Resolution 1718… It has abrogated its obligations it entered into through the six-party talks and it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner to its neighbors. There are consequences to such actions.” She continued, saying the U.S. and a “unified community,” including China and Russia, are working on what steps will be taken going forward. Then Clinton underscored our commitments to “the defense of South Korea and Japan,” which is “part of our alliance obligation which we take very seriously.” The intent being to “rein in” the North Koreans and bring them back into a “framework of discussion” towards “denuclearization” that will “benefit the people of North Korean, the region and the world.”

If you’ve been reading my posts on the heavy nuclear breathing coming from Iran you know that I believe there is little the U.S. or the world can do to stop Iran from going nuclear. North Korea is a model that proves this point even more strongly. World leaders, no matter whom or where, have really missed the mark on what’s been developing over the years we’ve been trying to think small, incremental and one nation at a time, thinking disrespecting mad men and tyrants will make them more logical. Maybe we had a chance at the end of the Cold War to muster forces for a new non-proliferation coalition that actually meant something, but we didn’t think broadly enough. We simply didn’t have the imagination to envision a world at zero. We still don’t, because if we did we’d understand that the entire world has to buy in. That means everyone.

Now we’ve got North Korea making everyone nervous. Tom Ricks says ignore them. Well, they’re not going away, nor is the prowess they now have achieved going to do anything good for the region. But still we ask, How do you stop him?

.. Ed Friedman, a specialist in Asian international relations at the University of Wisconsin, was not optimistic. “The continuing development of nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them by North Korea … has large and dangerous consequences,” he said by email.

“Evidence suggests Chinese analysts have concluded that little can be done to stop either North Korea or Iran from going nuclear.”

Friedman worries Japan might ultimately go nuclear to defend itself, and that this would heighten tensions in the region – especially between Tokyo and Beijing.

Exactly. We can’t. So, now what?

Conservatives like to argue whose fault it is that North Korea went nuclear.

First, on the political front, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years. Since Obama has taken office, North Korea has kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, launched both short- and long-range missiles and tested a nuclear weapon.

If not this, it’s Iran must be stopped at all cost, including military action, which is the dumbest suggestion since preemption on Iraq, with neocons still believing in a strategy called regime change. It’s the Don’t Blame Us, You Talked to Them diplomatic bankruptcy that led to our current dilemma. But whether the U.S. can get beyond this juvenile political dialogue is doubtful given that this is what drives our critical media.

While Obama is tinkering in Iraq and Afghanistan, the importance of both not in doubt, an even more serious situation beckons beyond and I’m not talking just about Pakistan. It’s a world with Iran and North Korea both nuclear nations, Japan turning nuclear provoking China, with a wider Middle East escalation incubating as well, while loose nukes remain a big threat to U.S. security.

Smarter minds than mine aren’t offering up any solutions, let alone definitive strategies. But it seems to me that someone has to suggest a “Zero Nuke Summit” or something less threatening, bringing all players to the table, including those we don’t want to engage or admit are serious players. That means it would include Russia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia, because beyond Israel, no one has a bigger stake in Iran not going nuclear than the Saudis.

Will this happen? When pigs fly. There’s no conversation among the “experts,” let alone intellectual or media pressure coming from anywhere demanding it. Not the traditional media, including cable or network news, so dealing with the nuclear world rumblings and escalation threats collectively remains a far off conversation that amounts to talking to yourself.

We simply can’t continue to pretend this is going to go away. … Well, we can (and have), but it’s not.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan and Beyond

By on 25 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQRclOyIM8&eurl

Zakaria focused on Afghanistan today on GPS. Among his guests were Steve Coll, president of New America Foundation, Rory Stewart, who once walked across Afghanistan, Barney Rubin, who was interviewed in December 2008 on Pakistan by Scott Horton. A part of that interview is above.

The debate about our role in Afghanistan, which must include an Af-Pak policy taking the countries together, will begin to intensify as Obama shifts resources and priorities. The Af-Pak region will be as important to Obama as the Middle East.

Re: the Gaza tunnels.

Laura Rozen on India gone missing from Holbrooke’s brief.

Marc Lynch takes aim at HRC’s likely choice to be Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, which was reported by the Washington Post’s Al Kamen.

Evidently, al Qaeda needs to read American nursery rhymes. You know, stick and stones, because trying to make Obama into Bush is a child’s plan.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a “hypocrite,” a “killer” of innocents, an “enemy of Muslims.” He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month. [...]

“They’re highly uncertain about what they’re getting in this new adversary,” said Paul Pillar, a former CIA counterterrorism official who lectures on national security at Georgetown University. “For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil.” …

Al Jazeera English was the network to watch during the latest war in Gaza, which for Americans was online:

American viewership of Al-Jazeera English rose dramatically during the Israel-Hamas war, partly because the channel had what CNN and other international networks didn’t have: reporters inside Gaza. [...] Al-Jazeera had another draw: Its reporters were inside Gaza while international networks such as CNN were barred by Israel from sending reporters in throughout the entire war. Israeli TV focused mostly on Israeli casualty reports and Hamas rocket barrages. …

Another media story, The New York Times has a simple story of the Taliban using radio to terrorize.

Via the Arab Times comes the news story of the day: Gender equality pivotal to social development, says Kuwait delegate. The article cites the recent Israeli – Hamas war, making the point that it is women and children who sustain the most harm in these situations.

“The Kuwaiti government is making continuous efforts in cooperation with civil society institutions to enhance women’s empowerment which bore fruit and led to an apparent positive transformation in the last few years,” he said. “Kuwaiti women have been able to assert themselves in politics after gaining their full political rights in an effective way. They had the access to elections and leading political posts including ministerial portfolios,” Al-Najem poited out. Kuwait pursues its determined efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment in political decision-making in a bid to enhance social peace and stability. [...]

“All of us have to help Palestinian women play their due roles in the development of their society. Dealing with the Arab Economic, Social and Development Summit, hosted by Kuwait on January 19-20 in the presence of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Al-Najem said His Highness the Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah announced during the summit a financial initiative to bail out the private sector and small and medium -size industries in the Arab countries.

“Kuwait pledged to offer $500 million to the total funds of dollar two billion of the initiative which has the ultimate goal of achieving socio-economic development,” he pointed out, voicing hope that the initiative would promote empowerment for women. Kicked off on Jan 21 under the theme of “ Empowerment of Women”, NAM’s second ministerial conference will come to a close later Saturday.

More of this from Arab nations, please. A lot more. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s make sure Pakistani aid is based on something beyond military firepower.

In other areas, Ethiopia has pulled out of Somalia, leaving Islamists are taking advantage of the void, begining in Mogadishu.

Sri Lanka is making news after the army chief claimed to have taken a rebel stronghold.

According to Jeff Stein, where will Obama’s first trip be? South America. Summit of the Americas, where Obama will run head long into Hugo Chavez.

Meanwhile back at home, Barack Obama has an economic crisis, with meetings with Republicans scheduled in the coming week. John McCain said today that he will not vote for the stimulus as it stands today. Where was this McCain before the election? Lesson learned a bit too late. But all in all, this is some inheritance from Mr. Bush.

Democracy Arsenal chronicles some of the reaction to the global financial meltdown.

Tom Ricks on our generals as dinosaurs.

Oh… and Happy Chinese New Year, a bit belatedly.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }