We're all now familiar with this viral exchange between Secretary Clinton and a questioner in Africa.
What's startling is that nearly seven months into her job as Secretary of State, this scene appears to be the most exposure that Clinton has received. I won't try and pretend to know what set her off. What I do know is that our top diplomat has been given little room for diplomacy.
It is the State Department that is supposed to be in charge of foreign policy and diplomacy, along with the president of course. Yet, in the Obama White House, diplomacy and foreign policy appears to be a decentralized process and much of that power lies outside of the State Department chain of command.
For instance, there's Richard Holbrooke. He's been appointed by Obama as an envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then, President Obama made Afghanistan and Pakistan the center of his GWOT policy. With it, he made Holbrooke, not Clinton, his point person on those two vital countries.
Then, there's George Mitchell. He was named special envoy to the Middle East. The Middle East is always a vital foreign policy area. Now, it's Mitchell, and not Clinton, that is the point person on that region. It was Mitchell that took the administration's first trip overseas when he went to Israel and Palestine in January. Until recently, Dennis Ross served as a special envoy to Iran. He continues to maintain, some though unclear power, within the administration over the region as well.
Meanwhile, the Vice President, Joe Biden, recently took a high profile trip through Russia and its neighbors and he appears to be carving out that region as his sphere of influence. In Iraq, Obama has continued Bush's unwritten chain of command which set most of the decision making power in the hands of our ambassador, Christopher Hill, and the General on the ground, General Ray Odierno.
That leaves very little room for Secretary Clinton to direct. As such, she spent a full week travelling through Africa. With due respect to the continent, that's not where our most important strategic decisions will be made. Instead, the Secretary of State, our main diplomat, has faded int the background on most diplomatic decisions. In most of the world's hot spots, the main decision and advisory roles are left to others.
We can only speculate as to why however this all appears to be political and strategic. It appears that President Obama took his main rival pushed them into his team and then marginalized them. Clinton was always considered of having an outside chance of challenging Obama in 2012 if things really went bad for him. Now, Obama has put her in the administration and effectively stripped her of all her power. She would have exponentially more influence right now in the health care debate as a Senator from New York. Instead, she's making trips to the Congo.
It remains to be seen how all of this will play out but it's very dangerous to run foreign policy through such a political strategy. If, in fact, President Obama orchestrated all of this simply to weaken a political rival, he also weakened the State Department with it. That has real consequences on our foreign policy and they're much more important than the rivalry between the two of them.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Obama Administration's Secret Weapon...Magic
That's what I was thinking about when I was reading this column by Obama supporter, Michael Crowley. Crowley lays out a very strong case for why things are in trouble. Then, he says not to worry. Only, the way in which Obama will succeed seems something akin to magic. First, Crowley lays out why Obama maybe on the brink of serious problems.
Crowley, then makes an even starker point.
So, let's see if I have this straight. The press corp is becoming more combative. His allies are getting more nervous. There's more and more talk of failure. Furthermore, the center piece of his entire domestic agenda lies in bills that make his own allies nervous to pass. Now, there's a recipe for success if I've ever seen one.
So, how does Crowley believe that all will go well? Magic, that's how.
As for climate chage, again, Obama will magically create a winner here.
Crowley makes a few good points. That is that we still have 16 months until the election. That gives the economy plenty of time to recover. Furthermore, more people than not still blame Bush for our troubles. Finally, we should see stimulus money spent faster going forward.
All of that maybe true, but Crowley continues to ignore reality. First, unemployment is headed to ten percent. Once it crosses over, September or October, then, it will officially be Obama's economy. Second, unemployment will likely reach 11% at least before it tops out. Furthermore, it's a laggin indicator. That means it will continue to rise long after the economy has begun to recover. So, even if jobs begin to come back this time next year, we'll be looking at double digit unemployment numbers come November 2010. Try explaining a three percent increase in unemployment after you've run up the deficit by nearly two trillion dollars.
Speaking of the deficit, Crowley seems to think that massive health care reform can pass even if it adds to the deficit even more. That's pure fantasy. First, the only way for health care reform to pass is if the so called reconciliation rule is used. That can only happen if health care reform stays revenue neutral. Furthermore, Crowley appears totally tone deaf to what Americans are concerned about. The deficit is quickly becoming the biggest fear of Americans of the Obama administration. Crowley seems to think that we can add to it with a massive new health care policy with no political fallout.
On foreign policy, Crowley is equally naive.
Then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus far, Obama has been in crisis-management mode, trying to keep the government in Islamabad from falling apart and firing his top general in Afghanistan for poor management of the war effort there. But conditions may soon improve in both countries; the Pakistani military is finally cracking down on Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, Obama has ordered 21,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. But many analysts think that, much like the Iraq surge, the fight against the Taliban is eminently winnable if there are enough troops and the right counterinsurgency strategy is adopted.
The Pakistanis have supposedly been cracking down on militias many, many times in the last five years. None of them have amounted to much of anything. Yet, now, it's the real deal if you believe Crowley. Furthermore, we're going to turn a dire situation in Afghanistan into a winner through some cryptic counter insurgency strategy that many unnamed "experts" claim is available.
What's missing from Crowley's analysis is any mention of GITMO. That situation is such a mess that Crowley doesn't even pretend Obama will fix it.
Obviously, no one knows what will happen in the future. It's possible that this time next year there will be peace and prosperity everywhere. If it's so, Obama will get credit. However, if that were to happen, it will happen with a plan by the Obama administration that even his supporters don't know about.
So it was an ominous sign for Barack Obama last week when he appeared in the White House for a press conference that was his most uncomfortable to date. Reporters who had thus far treated him with deference and even admiration treated him with something close to disrespect. Obama, as the New York Times put it, "has rarely experienced as combative and contentious an hour on live television as he did on Tuesday afternoon". Had his response to Iran, one asked, been "timid and weak"? Another tweaked the president's "Spock-like language" about healthcare reform. One even grilled an increasingly irritated president about his furtive smoking habits. The treatment left Obama a bit testy. "I got it," he groused. "You're pitching, I'm catching."
Indeed he has been catching - catching flak, that is, from critics on left and right and over both his foreign and domestic agendas. As he approaches the six-month mark of his presidency, his job has become less glamorous and more gruelling. Allies in Congress are restive and for the first time, the whiff of failures and defeats is in the air. Thus the new tone from the White House press corps, which, like animals in the wild, preys on the weak. But don't be fooled by this dark patch. Obama's long-term prospects remain bright.
Crowley, then makes an even starker point.
The only thing that makes his congressional Democratic allies more nervous than supporting sweeping and expensive healthcare reform is the grand climate-change plan, passed by the House on Friday.
So, let's see if I have this straight. The press corp is becoming more combative. His allies are getting more nervous. There's more and more talk of failure. Furthermore, the center piece of his entire domestic agenda lies in bills that make his own allies nervous to pass. Now, there's a recipe for success if I've ever seen one.
So, how does Crowley believe that all will go well? Magic, that's how.
Congress is beginning to craft a healthcare plan with Obama's guidance and the early going hasn't been pretty. Proposals have carried eye-popping price tags ($1.6 trillion, according to one preliminary estimate by a Senate finance committee), while covering a disappointingly small number of Americans. Nor have the Democrats quite settled on how they will pay for a massive expansion of care. Last week, a prominent House Democrat pronounced that "healthcare reform is on life support".
Don't be surprised if Obama resuscitates it. Although many Democrats are nervous about his plan's cost,
As for climate chage, again, Obama will magically create a winner here.
However urgent it may be to fight global warming, public support for environmentalism drops dramatically in times of economic distress. But look for Obama to settle for a modest plan - a symbolic victory - rather than accept a stark political defeat.
Crowley makes a few good points. That is that we still have 16 months until the election. That gives the economy plenty of time to recover. Furthermore, more people than not still blame Bush for our troubles. Finally, we should see stimulus money spent faster going forward.
All of that maybe true, but Crowley continues to ignore reality. First, unemployment is headed to ten percent. Once it crosses over, September or October, then, it will officially be Obama's economy. Second, unemployment will likely reach 11% at least before it tops out. Furthermore, it's a laggin indicator. That means it will continue to rise long after the economy has begun to recover. So, even if jobs begin to come back this time next year, we'll be looking at double digit unemployment numbers come November 2010. Try explaining a three percent increase in unemployment after you've run up the deficit by nearly two trillion dollars.
Speaking of the deficit, Crowley seems to think that massive health care reform can pass even if it adds to the deficit even more. That's pure fantasy. First, the only way for health care reform to pass is if the so called reconciliation rule is used. That can only happen if health care reform stays revenue neutral. Furthermore, Crowley appears totally tone deaf to what Americans are concerned about. The deficit is quickly becoming the biggest fear of Americans of the Obama administration. Crowley seems to think that we can add to it with a massive new health care policy with no political fallout.
On foreign policy, Crowley is equally naive.
Then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus far, Obama has been in crisis-management mode, trying to keep the government in Islamabad from falling apart and firing his top general in Afghanistan for poor management of the war effort there. But conditions may soon improve in both countries; the Pakistani military is finally cracking down on Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, Obama has ordered 21,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. But many analysts think that, much like the Iraq surge, the fight against the Taliban is eminently winnable if there are enough troops and the right counterinsurgency strategy is adopted.
The Pakistanis have supposedly been cracking down on militias many, many times in the last five years. None of them have amounted to much of anything. Yet, now, it's the real deal if you believe Crowley. Furthermore, we're going to turn a dire situation in Afghanistan into a winner through some cryptic counter insurgency strategy that many unnamed "experts" claim is available.
What's missing from Crowley's analysis is any mention of GITMO. That situation is such a mess that Crowley doesn't even pretend Obama will fix it.
Obviously, no one knows what will happen in the future. It's possible that this time next year there will be peace and prosperity everywhere. If it's so, Obama will get credit. However, if that were to happen, it will happen with a plan by the Obama administration that even his supporters don't know about.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Why Not a World Without Nukes?
That's the title of a piece by Eugene Robinson and it's also a relevant question now that President Obama has made nuclear disarmament a central foreign policy platform. While War Games is a favorite movie of mine, it's despite not because of its theme. That theme is essentially "Why Not a World Without Nukes". In the end, after playing a computerized version of a nuclear war in which the whole entire world blows up, the computer, Joshua, says
The real key to nuclear disarmament is how we get there. In this case, the devil is in the details. For instance, President Obama has decided to meet with Premiere Medvedev about about bi lateral talks for nuclear disarmament between Russia and the U.S. So, what if President Obama is successful? That will mean that Russia's dwindling nuclear stock pile is destroyed along with our own flourishing nuclear arsenal. At the same time, North Korea is expanding its program, Iran is trying to get one, and Pakistan and India both have significant programs as well.
Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge to have a nuclear program. Frankly, there is no way any president would ever get them to dismantle theirs. If they did, it would also spell the death of the nation. If Israel doesn't dismantle theirs, how will we get their enemies to dismantle their programs?
Finally, several rogue nations want to work in concert with rogue terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to develop a nuclear weapon that the terrorist group will use. Does anyone really believe either of those entities would be part of any non proliferation agreement?
So, where could we be? In months, President Obama could agree to dismantle our robust program at the same time the Russians dismantle their program. Given that ours is much more powerful than theirs, all that would really do is weaken the U.S. Furthermore, this would all be done while rogue nations and terrorist groups are seeking even more to acquire their own weapon. So, the reality is that a world without nukes would actually mean a world without U.S. nukes while most of our enemies would be increasing their arsenal.
Furthermore, the best way to end nuclear proliferation is to create defenses that would make nuclear weapons impotent. We have long been working on such defenses, and it is exactly these defenses that President Obama wants to reduce funding for. We can get to a world without nukes by creating a missile defense that would shoot or destroy any nuclear weapon and render it useless. That is still a long way off, but it requires much more research. It is this research that President Obama is now giving serious consideration to significantly reducing all while he is also seriously considering reducing our own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That's just the beginning. Policy making is about prioritizing. We live in a world in which Al Qaeda would like to kill as many Americans as possible, where much of the Middle East wants Israel destroyed, Iran wants nukes, North Korea is provoking, and Russia invades its neighbors. Yet, it appears that President Obama's priorities lie in nuclear disarmament. Those priorities ignore other matters that have significantly more immediate risk. Pursuing our own nuclear disarmament will only encourage more armament from both Iran and North Korea. It will do nothing to subside the threat from Al Qaeda. Making nuclear disarmament a major priority means that President Obama doesn't seem to understand the priorities of the world going on.
"Why Not a World Without Nukes" is a fantasy dreamed up by people that occupy a scope near President Obama's own ideology in which they believe that the rest of the world will follow if the U.S. will only reduce its own nuclear weapons' commitment. Such fantasy is not only naive but dangerous.
strange game, the only way to win is not to play. How about a nice game ofNow, this simplistic theme is what both War Games, President Obama and Eugene Robinson see the world through. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing and we must do all we can to stop it. Don't get me wrong, I would love to live in a world with no nuclear weapons. However, I live in reality and in reality, such a world doesn't exist.
Chess?
The real key to nuclear disarmament is how we get there. In this case, the devil is in the details. For instance, President Obama has decided to meet with Premiere Medvedev about about bi lateral talks for nuclear disarmament between Russia and the U.S. So, what if President Obama is successful? That will mean that Russia's dwindling nuclear stock pile is destroyed along with our own flourishing nuclear arsenal. At the same time, North Korea is expanding its program, Iran is trying to get one, and Pakistan and India both have significant programs as well.
Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge to have a nuclear program. Frankly, there is no way any president would ever get them to dismantle theirs. If they did, it would also spell the death of the nation. If Israel doesn't dismantle theirs, how will we get their enemies to dismantle their programs?
Finally, several rogue nations want to work in concert with rogue terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to develop a nuclear weapon that the terrorist group will use. Does anyone really believe either of those entities would be part of any non proliferation agreement?
So, where could we be? In months, President Obama could agree to dismantle our robust program at the same time the Russians dismantle their program. Given that ours is much more powerful than theirs, all that would really do is weaken the U.S. Furthermore, this would all be done while rogue nations and terrorist groups are seeking even more to acquire their own weapon. So, the reality is that a world without nukes would actually mean a world without U.S. nukes while most of our enemies would be increasing their arsenal.
Furthermore, the best way to end nuclear proliferation is to create defenses that would make nuclear weapons impotent. We have long been working on such defenses, and it is exactly these defenses that President Obama wants to reduce funding for. We can get to a world without nukes by creating a missile defense that would shoot or destroy any nuclear weapon and render it useless. That is still a long way off, but it requires much more research. It is this research that President Obama is now giving serious consideration to significantly reducing all while he is also seriously considering reducing our own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That's just the beginning. Policy making is about prioritizing. We live in a world in which Al Qaeda would like to kill as many Americans as possible, where much of the Middle East wants Israel destroyed, Iran wants nukes, North Korea is provoking, and Russia invades its neighbors. Yet, it appears that President Obama's priorities lie in nuclear disarmament. Those priorities ignore other matters that have significantly more immediate risk. Pursuing our own nuclear disarmament will only encourage more armament from both Iran and North Korea. It will do nothing to subside the threat from Al Qaeda. Making nuclear disarmament a major priority means that President Obama doesn't seem to understand the priorities of the world going on.
"Why Not a World Without Nukes" is a fantasy dreamed up by people that occupy a scope near President Obama's own ideology in which they believe that the rest of the world will follow if the U.S. will only reduce its own nuclear weapons' commitment. Such fantasy is not only naive but dangerous.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Israel, Iran, Pakistan, and the Obama Doctrine
Of course, the Obama Doctrine will likely take on many forms, and so, I will be one of the first to assign an Obama foreign policy directive the monikor "the Obama Doctrine". By this, I mean President Elect Obama's assertion that we will violate Pakistan's sovereignty if necessary in going after Al Qaeda. Now, my problem with his pronouncement is that it was so public. I think any President would be a fool not to take an opportunity to kill a high value target within Pakistan with or without their permission. What Obama did was announce his intention as a point of foreign policy assertion.
By doing this, President Elect Obama also announced to the world that under his administration sovereignty would take a back seat to national security. By doing so, he also gave license to any other country to then invade another if they made the same justification that their national security was threatened. In fact, Jake Tapper asked President Elect Obama an excellent question regarding this in the context of Pakistan and India. Tapper asked Obama if he thought that India had the right to invade Pakistan in search of the perpetrators of the Mumbai bombings if they were in Pakistan. Obama danced around the question, but the implication is clear. If Obama is going to assert that we can invade Pakistan in search of Al Qaeda, the Obama Doctrine states that sovereignty takes a back seat to national security.
This brings me to Israel and Iran. Earlier this week, news reports came out that Israel is making contingency plans to strike Iran's nuclear facilities with or without the permission of the United States.
Now, a nuclear Iran is at least as much of a threat to Israel as high value Al Qaeda targets are to the United States. As such, Israel can and will view nuclear facilities in Iran as a national security threat much like Obama views Al Qaeda in Pakistan as a national security threat to us. Still, an invasion or even an airstrike would also violate Iran's sovereignty. How would a President Obama treat an airstrike by Israel of Iran? That remains to be seen, but he has certainly backed himself into a corner on this. Whether he truly supports such a mission or not, he is left in no other position but to stand behind it. In fact, the Israelis should, and frankly better, point out that they would only be doing in Iran what he has made clear he would do in Pakistan.
This brings me to the second part of the Obama Doctrine. This part says that we need to engage our enemies more. Now, how will a President Obama square this part of his doctrine, with the first part which says that sovereignty rights take a back seat to national security? While President Obama will make every effort to end the nuclear stand off with Iran peacefully, Israel has no such intentions. Israel is not about to wait for months or years of more diplomacy in order to remove this threat. Yet, it's hard to imagine Iran engaging in any diplomacy on any level without assurances that they won't be attacked by Israel, at least while diplomacy is occurring.
Obama will be stuck trying to thread a very sharp needle. Will he sell out Israel in a cynical and totally hypocritical geopolitical power play and demand that they cease what he never would, or would he scrap plans for diplomacy? Unfortunately, one thing is clear. The two beginnings of the Obama Doctrine are going to be difficult to square.
By doing this, President Elect Obama also announced to the world that under his administration sovereignty would take a back seat to national security. By doing so, he also gave license to any other country to then invade another if they made the same justification that their national security was threatened. In fact, Jake Tapper asked President Elect Obama an excellent question regarding this in the context of Pakistan and India. Tapper asked Obama if he thought that India had the right to invade Pakistan in search of the perpetrators of the Mumbai bombings if they were in Pakistan. Obama danced around the question, but the implication is clear. If Obama is going to assert that we can invade Pakistan in search of Al Qaeda, the Obama Doctrine states that sovereignty takes a back seat to national security.
This brings me to Israel and Iran. Earlier this week, news reports came out that Israel is making contingency plans to strike Iran's nuclear facilities with or without the permission of the United States.
Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the US, it has been reported.
Officials in the Israeli Defence Ministry told the Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the US, they were preparing plans that would allow them to act in isolation."It is always better to coordinate," a senior Defence Ministry official told the newspaper. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."
However defence officials played down the reports today, telling The Times that an attack by Israeli forces alone would probably fail to take out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which experts say are scattered across several sites, some deep underground.
Now, a nuclear Iran is at least as much of a threat to Israel as high value Al Qaeda targets are to the United States. As such, Israel can and will view nuclear facilities in Iran as a national security threat much like Obama views Al Qaeda in Pakistan as a national security threat to us. Still, an invasion or even an airstrike would also violate Iran's sovereignty. How would a President Obama treat an airstrike by Israel of Iran? That remains to be seen, but he has certainly backed himself into a corner on this. Whether he truly supports such a mission or not, he is left in no other position but to stand behind it. In fact, the Israelis should, and frankly better, point out that they would only be doing in Iran what he has made clear he would do in Pakistan.
This brings me to the second part of the Obama Doctrine. This part says that we need to engage our enemies more. Now, how will a President Obama square this part of his doctrine, with the first part which says that sovereignty rights take a back seat to national security? While President Obama will make every effort to end the nuclear stand off with Iran peacefully, Israel has no such intentions. Israel is not about to wait for months or years of more diplomacy in order to remove this threat. Yet, it's hard to imagine Iran engaging in any diplomacy on any level without assurances that they won't be attacked by Israel, at least while diplomacy is occurring.
Obama will be stuck trying to thread a very sharp needle. Will he sell out Israel in a cynical and totally hypocritical geopolitical power play and demand that they cease what he never would, or would he scrap plans for diplomacy? Unfortunately, one thing is clear. The two beginnings of the Obama Doctrine are going to be difficult to square.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Pakistan, India, the GWOT, and Sovereignty
The best question from today's news conference announcing Barack Obama's new foreign policy team came from Jake Tapper. He reminded Barack Obama that he has announced that if there is actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Pakistan won't act we will. Tapper asked if he would give India the same privilege in going after the perpetrators of Mumbai in Pakistan.
Obama circled around the question and it wasn't clear how he would respond in such a situation. This is a very important question. It's easy to talk tough, but once we allow for sovereign rights to be violated, that leads to chaos. If India were to do what he suggests we will, that would lead to a war between the two nations.
None of this is easy. Most of the countries in the world are unwilling or unable to go after terrorists among their midst. Many of the terrorists are residing in Pakistan. Pakistan's government has no control over the areas that the terrorists call their home bases. Yet, if we were to enter their nation without the permission of their government, it would either lead to war or the total disintegration of the government. If India were to do the same with the perpetrators of Mumbai, it would lead to a war between two nuclear nations.
This brings me back to the question and Obama's position on the issue. Barack Obama has made it easier for other nations to violate sovereignty with this bold proclamation. By announcing boldly that if need be the U.S. is willing to violate sovereignty for the GWOT other nations also see the violation of another's sovereignty as something less consequential. Without sovereignty, we have geopolitical chaos. It's easy during a campaign to act tough, but the geopolitical reality here is a license for any country to invade another under the guise that folks within the invaded are a threat to their national security. Such operations should always be made as quietly as possible using back channel diplomacy. By being so public with his proclamation, Barack Obama has opened up such questions. He's also given license to other nations to do as he intends.
Obama circled around the question and it wasn't clear how he would respond in such a situation. This is a very important question. It's easy to talk tough, but once we allow for sovereign rights to be violated, that leads to chaos. If India were to do what he suggests we will, that would lead to a war between the two nations.
None of this is easy. Most of the countries in the world are unwilling or unable to go after terrorists among their midst. Many of the terrorists are residing in Pakistan. Pakistan's government has no control over the areas that the terrorists call their home bases. Yet, if we were to enter their nation without the permission of their government, it would either lead to war or the total disintegration of the government. If India were to do the same with the perpetrators of Mumbai, it would lead to a war between two nuclear nations.
This brings me back to the question and Obama's position on the issue. Barack Obama has made it easier for other nations to violate sovereignty with this bold proclamation. By announcing boldly that if need be the U.S. is willing to violate sovereignty for the GWOT other nations also see the violation of another's sovereignty as something less consequential. Without sovereignty, we have geopolitical chaos. It's easy during a campaign to act tough, but the geopolitical reality here is a license for any country to invade another under the guise that folks within the invaded are a threat to their national security. Such operations should always be made as quietly as possible using back channel diplomacy. By being so public with his proclamation, Barack Obama has opened up such questions. He's also given license to other nations to do as he intends.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Post Debate Wrap Up
First, the big loser in this debate was 1) Tom Brokaw, and 2) the American people as a result of Tom Brokaw. He was insistent on maintaining some silly rule about making each finish within a minute. It's as if the whole world would collapse if he didn't get to ask all of the questions he planned on asking. This brings me to an ironic point. He was so insistent on asking each and every question that I must ask...out of all the questions submitted are those really the best ones? Talk about standard questions that give each candidate the opportunity to bloviate on talking points they have perfected over the last six months. These were the questions for that minus the very last one.
That said, I think this debate ushers in the age of President Obama. McCain had the opportunity to take Obama down, but it is clear, that he neither understands the reasons for his own tax policies nor does he understand the flaws of Barack Obama's tax policies. Obama over and over hammered McCain for his $300 billion tax cuts to corporations. At one point, he said that this would take money out of the system as if corporations keeping more of the money they earned "takes money out of the system". The fact is that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. That's why we need a corporate tax cut because corporations have no tax incentive to base here. Look at Ireland. They cut their corporate tax rate to about 10% and their economy has exploded.
On the mortgage issue, both were equally clueless. Senator McCain proposed nationalizing mortgages with a proposal to give distressed mortgage borrowers brand new loans backed by the government. That's interesting because the Congress passed exactly this solution not but three months ago. Senator Obama, also in the Senate, didn't realize this was passed either and didn't say a word about how Senator McCain was proposing a recently passed law as a new idea.
Senator McCain's biggest weakness is that he simply doesn't understand and can't verbalize why Senator Obama's tax policies are so counter productive. Senator Obama wants to take from one group in order to give to another. That may have worked with Robin Hood, but Robin Hood economics doesn't work. Raising taxes on one group in order to lower taxes on another group is the road to economic stagnation. Furthermore, Senator Obama continues to claim he will lower taxes for 95% of the peole with impugnity even though this is nonsense. First, 40% of the peole don't pay any federal income taxes. You can't lower taxes on someone paying ZERO. If Senator McCain ever pointed that out, he could also point out that rather than a tax cut, Senator Obama is proposing a government welfare check for 40% of the population.
Then, at one point Senator Obama rattled off four programs that he wanted to increase spending on. Then, he had the chutzpah to say that his plan would actually lower spending, and proceeded to name ZERO programs he would cut. This fantasy proposal was never challenged and thus, Senator McCain allowed Senator Obama to propose major spending increases while boasting that he would also be able to cut overall spending without pointing out the absurdity of such a claim.
On foreign policy, Senator Obama continues to make the absurd claim that we lost UBL because we took our "eye off the ball in Afghanistan". We lost UBL in Tora Bora in December of 2001. He wound up in Pakistan shortly thereafter. We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003. There is more than a year in between the two events and yet, according to Senator Obama, we "took our eye off the ball". We didn't take our eye off anything. He is being hidden in the Tribal regions of Pakistan. If we invade, we risk the country's government falling.
At one point, Senator Obama said he never knew a nation that performed militarily while facing economic crisis. I know of one and it is the nation he wants to President of. At the start of WWII we were still in the middle of depression and yet we performed in WWII just fine.
McCain's only real hit was his comparison of Obama's tax and trade policies to those practiced by Herbert Hoover. Yet, he needed to do much more. Obama is in fantasy land if he thinks he can spend on everything he wants to spend on. McCain needed to link the spending to th ballooning deficit, to inflation. He did none of it. This was an opportunity wasted for McCain and I believe he has run out of opportunities.
That said, I think this debate ushers in the age of President Obama. McCain had the opportunity to take Obama down, but it is clear, that he neither understands the reasons for his own tax policies nor does he understand the flaws of Barack Obama's tax policies. Obama over and over hammered McCain for his $300 billion tax cuts to corporations. At one point, he said that this would take money out of the system as if corporations keeping more of the money they earned "takes money out of the system". The fact is that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. That's why we need a corporate tax cut because corporations have no tax incentive to base here. Look at Ireland. They cut their corporate tax rate to about 10% and their economy has exploded.
On the mortgage issue, both were equally clueless. Senator McCain proposed nationalizing mortgages with a proposal to give distressed mortgage borrowers brand new loans backed by the government. That's interesting because the Congress passed exactly this solution not but three months ago. Senator Obama, also in the Senate, didn't realize this was passed either and didn't say a word about how Senator McCain was proposing a recently passed law as a new idea.
Senator McCain's biggest weakness is that he simply doesn't understand and can't verbalize why Senator Obama's tax policies are so counter productive. Senator Obama wants to take from one group in order to give to another. That may have worked with Robin Hood, but Robin Hood economics doesn't work. Raising taxes on one group in order to lower taxes on another group is the road to economic stagnation. Furthermore, Senator Obama continues to claim he will lower taxes for 95% of the peole with impugnity even though this is nonsense. First, 40% of the peole don't pay any federal income taxes. You can't lower taxes on someone paying ZERO. If Senator McCain ever pointed that out, he could also point out that rather than a tax cut, Senator Obama is proposing a government welfare check for 40% of the population.
Then, at one point Senator Obama rattled off four programs that he wanted to increase spending on. Then, he had the chutzpah to say that his plan would actually lower spending, and proceeded to name ZERO programs he would cut. This fantasy proposal was never challenged and thus, Senator McCain allowed Senator Obama to propose major spending increases while boasting that he would also be able to cut overall spending without pointing out the absurdity of such a claim.
On foreign policy, Senator Obama continues to make the absurd claim that we lost UBL because we took our "eye off the ball in Afghanistan". We lost UBL in Tora Bora in December of 2001. He wound up in Pakistan shortly thereafter. We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003. There is more than a year in between the two events and yet, according to Senator Obama, we "took our eye off the ball". We didn't take our eye off anything. He is being hidden in the Tribal regions of Pakistan. If we invade, we risk the country's government falling.
At one point, Senator Obama said he never knew a nation that performed militarily while facing economic crisis. I know of one and it is the nation he wants to President of. At the start of WWII we were still in the middle of depression and yet we performed in WWII just fine.
McCain's only real hit was his comparison of Obama's tax and trade policies to those practiced by Herbert Hoover. Yet, he needed to do much more. Obama is in fantasy land if he thinks he can spend on everything he wants to spend on. McCain needed to link the spending to th ballooning deficit, to inflation. He did none of it. This was an opportunity wasted for McCain and I believe he has run out of opportunities.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Problem is Pakistan not Afghanistan
Democrats, especially Barack Obama, have constantly pounded the idea that the central front in the GWOT is Afghanistan or the Afghan/Pakistan border. That is of course up for debate. Yet, the Democrats' criticism misses a very important point. Democrats believe that we need to contribute more troops to Afghanistan and even change strategies. Now, this point is debateable, however it also misses the larger point. While I agree that our strategy in Afghanistan can be improved, that is not the real problem. The real problem is that Al Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan. They are able to train and find a home base.
No matter what our strategy is in Afghanistan, unless the sanctuary in Pakistan is cut off the real problem will never be resolved. The problem is that it doesn't matter how many troops we put into Afghanistan. It doesn't matter what our strategy in Afghanistan is. That does nothing to resolve the sanctuary in Pakistan.
For that there is no easy solution. Pakistan is now threatening to shoot our troops if we continue to cross the border. The Pakistani government will be in a difficult position to act. Both the ISI, their intelligence arm, and their military are infiltrated by people with alliances to Al Qaeda itself. The areas in which Al Qaeda operates is largely porous and lawless. Furthermore, a fairly significant portion of the population is loyal to the Islamists themselves. As long as Al Qaeda maintainst this sanctuary, they will continue to have a near endless supply of fighters that can then be sent into Afghanistan and anywhere else to cause us problems.
In fact, the battlefield that Barack Obama and the Democrats want to focus on, the one in Afghanistan, has scant few Al Qaeda and Taliban. Most don't maintain their long term presence there. If anything they cross the porous border to fight our troops but at some point find their way back to Pakistan. The problem of Pakistan neither party or candidate has an answer for.
As such, the Democrat's idea of focusing on Afghanistan misses the larger point. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. The only way to remove that sanctuary is to send in a massive amount of ground troops into Pakistan. That of course would be an act of war. It might bring down the government and an Islamist government would be installed. No matter how many troops or what strategy we have in Afghanistan, unless the sanctuary in Pakistan is removed the larger problem will never be resolved. Removing that sanctuary is no easy task.
No matter what our strategy is in Afghanistan, unless the sanctuary in Pakistan is cut off the real problem will never be resolved. The problem is that it doesn't matter how many troops we put into Afghanistan. It doesn't matter what our strategy in Afghanistan is. That does nothing to resolve the sanctuary in Pakistan.
For that there is no easy solution. Pakistan is now threatening to shoot our troops if we continue to cross the border. The Pakistani government will be in a difficult position to act. Both the ISI, their intelligence arm, and their military are infiltrated by people with alliances to Al Qaeda itself. The areas in which Al Qaeda operates is largely porous and lawless. Furthermore, a fairly significant portion of the population is loyal to the Islamists themselves. As long as Al Qaeda maintainst this sanctuary, they will continue to have a near endless supply of fighters that can then be sent into Afghanistan and anywhere else to cause us problems.
In fact, the battlefield that Barack Obama and the Democrats want to focus on, the one in Afghanistan, has scant few Al Qaeda and Taliban. Most don't maintain their long term presence there. If anything they cross the porous border to fight our troops but at some point find their way back to Pakistan. The problem of Pakistan neither party or candidate has an answer for.
As such, the Democrat's idea of focusing on Afghanistan misses the larger point. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. The only way to remove that sanctuary is to send in a massive amount of ground troops into Pakistan. That of course would be an act of war. It might bring down the government and an Islamist government would be installed. No matter how many troops or what strategy we have in Afghanistan, unless the sanctuary in Pakistan is removed the larger problem will never be resolved. Removing that sanctuary is no easy task.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Some Thoughts on Palin and the Bush Doctrine
It appears that the most controversy from yesterday's interview with Charlie Gibson by Sarah Palin appears to be regarding her answer about the Bush Doctrine. First, let's go to the tape as they say.
(Youtube has unfortunately been infected with all sorts edited tapes and others full of extra commentary. This one begins by talking about what motivates the hijackers but at almost exactly a minute in, the begin speaking about the Bush Doctrine)
Now, here is how wikipedia defines the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine has many tenets and in my opinion, the most important is not pre emptive war fare, but rather the concept that we will make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and any country that harbors them.
In any case, while some of her opponents have expressed righteous indignation that she simply didn't know the Bush Doctrine, it is just as reasonable to assume that she didn't know how to answer Gibson because the Bush Doctrine is so inclusive.
As such, her answer after Gibson clarified what she stated unequivocally that if intelligence determines that another country is planning an IMMINENT attack that we have the right to defend ourselves. Of course, this is not the Bush Doctrine. Bush believes that any country that presents a threat, imminent or not, can be taken out pre emptively. I tend to agree with Bush, however lost in the shuffle of the confusion over her answer, is the fact that Palin sees pre emptive war as strictly done only upon an imminent threat.
(Youtube has unfortunately been infected with all sorts edited tapes and others full of extra commentary. This one begins by talking about what motivates the hijackers but at almost exactly a minute in, the begin speaking about the Bush Doctrine)
Now, here is how wikipedia defines the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terroristSo, first of all, the term Bush Doctrine, according to Wikipedia, was in use prior to 9/11. Second, it refers to all sorts of things, and of course, most of the tenets of the Bush Doctrine were not even created by President Bush, himself, but rather colleagues, opponents, and other pundits.
groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United
States published on September 20, 2002.[5] This represented a dramatic shift from the United States's Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.
The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.[6]
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[10]
The Bush Doctrine has many tenets and in my opinion, the most important is not pre emptive war fare, but rather the concept that we will make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and any country that harbors them.
In any case, while some of her opponents have expressed righteous indignation that she simply didn't know the Bush Doctrine, it is just as reasonable to assume that she didn't know how to answer Gibson because the Bush Doctrine is so inclusive.
As such, her answer after Gibson clarified what she stated unequivocally that if intelligence determines that another country is planning an IMMINENT attack that we have the right to defend ourselves. Of course, this is not the Bush Doctrine. Bush believes that any country that presents a threat, imminent or not, can be taken out pre emptively. I tend to agree with Bush, however lost in the shuffle of the confusion over her answer, is the fact that Palin sees pre emptive war as strictly done only upon an imminent threat.
On the issue of Pakistan, Palin said that if need be we could cross the border of Pakistan and go after the likes of UBL. This answer is more troubling to me than her answer on the Bush Doctrine. Palin didn't delve at all about the potential consequences of invading Pakistan. They are numerous and any ground attack must take all of those into account. Pakistan is now a country that is unstable and yet, Palin appears willing to make a cross border strike and violate their sovereignty. I want UBL caught as much as everyone, but violating their sovereignty is an act of war. Pakistan could respond with war and if they don't, the government could fall. That government could be replaced by an Islamist government. Any cross border attack must take all of that into account and it doesn't appear as though that has been processed by her.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
O'Reilly Vs. Obama I
O'Reilly showed part one of his interview. It was a fairly short segment and it focused on foreign policy. Here is a link to the video.
Here is some analysis. First, Barack Obama says there is a GWOT, however he appears to catalogue our enemy. He identified Al Qaeda and the Taliban specifically as part of the GWOT. He went on to say that there all sorts of other networks all over the world included in the enemy. This is reasonable. There are dozens if not hundreds of terrorist groups.
What was interesting was when asked if Iran was part of the GWOT, he gave a qualified answer. He said they were but a different part. He catalogued terrorists in Sunni and Shia. Of course, tactically it is important to treat Shia different from Sunni but I am not sure that you can divide the GWOT into Sunni and Shia terrorists. He then alluded to the war in Iraq being a distraction even though Saddam was a Sunni just like Al Qaeda. He makes a very confusing distinctions that he never explained fully and unfortunately O'Reilly didn't follow up.
Obama said that the military option would always be on the table when dealing with Iran. He said that we haven't "exhausted" our diplomatic options. He made some vague allusions that we haven't put enough pressure on the Europeans. This is, to me at least, a critic's mentality. The Bush administration has been working with the Europeans for much of the last two administrations. On Iran, my partisan analysis is that he has a naive idea that he can apply "pressure" that folks over decades have tried and failed. This is nonsense. The Europeans have no will, and the Iranians are determined to create this confrontation. I came away with the notion that Obama's diplomatic ideas with regard to Iran are as naive as I have always thought they were.
He insisted that Afghanistan is the center of the GWOT. He agreed with O'Reilly that without the cooperation of Pakistan we are going to have great difficulty in winning there. With regards to Pakistan, once again, I took away that he has a naive critic's mentality. Once again, he said that we aren't "putting enough pressure on the Pakistani government". He said we offer them military aid but don't ask for "enough democratic reforms" in return. First, he really doesn't know what Bush asks for in private. Second, Pakistan is an extremely complicated place. The notion that if we put more Democratic pressure that complicated country will suddenly straighten up is naive.
On UBL, he said that he wouldn't send in ground troops but would take any shot at him, from the air I suppose, that he got. Of course, this is exactly the same as the current policy and so while he's spent the last four years criticizing George Bush for not getting UBL, it appears that he will have the exact same strategy.
On Iraq, he did finally acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. Here is the relevant portion.
Now, O'Reilly gave him a bit of a lifeline here. O'Reilly said that he believed that history would be with him that Iraq was in and of itself a mistake. (a point I disagree with and will address in a future post) Giving him that lifeline, O'Reilly then challenged him to admit that he was wrong on the surge. Obama refused and justified his refusal by saying that the Iraqis have not done enough politically. This is ironically absurd. Only days ago the Iraqis took over Anbar. This is the latest Iraqi progress. They have now either completed or are well on their way to completing 15 of 18 of the original benchmarks. More importantly, Maliki recently took on the Sadrites in Basrah. This operation was lead by Iraqi troops. Within a month of this operation, he sent in troops to lead an operation in Mosul against the remnants of AQI. They're near an oil sharing law, regional elections, and de Baathification. I would say that compared to the body Barack Obama currently occupies, the Iraqi government has made plenty of progress.
Here is ,part 2, and part 3, and part 4
Here is some analysis. First, Barack Obama says there is a GWOT, however he appears to catalogue our enemy. He identified Al Qaeda and the Taliban specifically as part of the GWOT. He went on to say that there all sorts of other networks all over the world included in the enemy. This is reasonable. There are dozens if not hundreds of terrorist groups.
What was interesting was when asked if Iran was part of the GWOT, he gave a qualified answer. He said they were but a different part. He catalogued terrorists in Sunni and Shia. Of course, tactically it is important to treat Shia different from Sunni but I am not sure that you can divide the GWOT into Sunni and Shia terrorists. He then alluded to the war in Iraq being a distraction even though Saddam was a Sunni just like Al Qaeda. He makes a very confusing distinctions that he never explained fully and unfortunately O'Reilly didn't follow up.
Obama said that the military option would always be on the table when dealing with Iran. He said that we haven't "exhausted" our diplomatic options. He made some vague allusions that we haven't put enough pressure on the Europeans. This is, to me at least, a critic's mentality. The Bush administration has been working with the Europeans for much of the last two administrations. On Iran, my partisan analysis is that he has a naive idea that he can apply "pressure" that folks over decades have tried and failed. This is nonsense. The Europeans have no will, and the Iranians are determined to create this confrontation. I came away with the notion that Obama's diplomatic ideas with regard to Iran are as naive as I have always thought they were.
He insisted that Afghanistan is the center of the GWOT. He agreed with O'Reilly that without the cooperation of Pakistan we are going to have great difficulty in winning there. With regards to Pakistan, once again, I took away that he has a naive critic's mentality. Once again, he said that we aren't "putting enough pressure on the Pakistani government". He said we offer them military aid but don't ask for "enough democratic reforms" in return. First, he really doesn't know what Bush asks for in private. Second, Pakistan is an extremely complicated place. The notion that if we put more Democratic pressure that complicated country will suddenly straighten up is naive.
On UBL, he said that he wouldn't send in ground troops but would take any shot at him, from the air I suppose, that he got. Of course, this is exactly the same as the current policy and so while he's spent the last four years criticizing George Bush for not getting UBL, it appears that he will have the exact same strategy.
On Iraq, he did finally acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. Here is the relevant portion.
I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
Now, O'Reilly gave him a bit of a lifeline here. O'Reilly said that he believed that history would be with him that Iraq was in and of itself a mistake. (a point I disagree with and will address in a future post) Giving him that lifeline, O'Reilly then challenged him to admit that he was wrong on the surge. Obama refused and justified his refusal by saying that the Iraqis have not done enough politically. This is ironically absurd. Only days ago the Iraqis took over Anbar. This is the latest Iraqi progress. They have now either completed or are well on their way to completing 15 of 18 of the original benchmarks. More importantly, Maliki recently took on the Sadrites in Basrah. This operation was lead by Iraqi troops. Within a month of this operation, he sent in troops to lead an operation in Mosul against the remnants of AQI. They're near an oil sharing law, regional elections, and de Baathification. I would say that compared to the body Barack Obama currently occupies, the Iraqi government has made plenty of progress.
Here is ,part 2, and part 3, and part 4
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Forget the Polls...Watch the Issues (or Why McCain Has a Real Shot to Win)
There is no better way to know that someone is either a bitter partisan or a political novice than if they make the subject of a story a brand new poll that verifies their view of the world. First, any poll three months from an election is itself nearly irrelevant. Second, one poll at any time is almost always irrelevant. Only a partisan would isolate one poll and draw attention to it as though there is any significance there. Either that or the author of said piece is a political novice and doesn't know any better. Quite possibly, they may just be making their story to take advantage of readers they suspect to be novices politically. Rather than watch the polls, the best indicator of who is in best position to win is to watch which issue or issues is most important at the time of the election.
Right now, one or more of these issues will decided the election: foreign policy, the economy, or gas prices. Other issues may yet emerge and of course there is always a certain amount of unknown, but as it stands now, depending on which of these three is most important, compared to the other two, that will decide the election.
1) The economy.
I believe the reason that Obama continues to lead slightly is that right now the economy continues to be the most important issue for most voters. Barack Obama has been effective in tying McCain's policies along with President Bush's. He has been effective in demonizing the Bush tax cuts and he has effectively turned McCain's support for making them permanent into a continuation of the same failed policies of the last eight years. Say what you will about Obama's economic plans, policy wise, but they are effective politically. He has promised reforms, regulation, and government action. I question the wisdom of such a plan, but there is no doubt he has public opinion on his side.
McCain can still make this his issue and what he needs to do is take Dick Morris' advice.
McCain needs to turn the economy from a referendum on the past, where he loses, into a choice on the future. Obama is winning the economic argument because he has simultaneously effectively demonized Bush's policies, tied McCain to them, and made his own policies part of his overall theme of "change".
McCain needs to move the debate from the existential debate over change over status quo, and make it a debate between specifics. What will happen when Barack Obama raises the capital gains tax, the payroll tax, and the top tax rate during a period of weakening? What will happen when he raises the taxes on corporations during a period of weakening? All of these questions have obvious answers however they can't be answered effectively unless they are asked effectively. So far, McCain has failed to answer them effectively.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama needs to continue to do what he has been. He needs to continue condemning the greedy bankers and mortgage brokers and continue to blame the close relationship between the Bush administration, and D.C. in general, for contributing to looking the other way while they created excess. He needs to continue to demonize the Bush tax cuts pointing out that they lined the pockets of wealthy CEO's while the wages of the average person stagnated. He needs to continue to ask this question "are you better off than you were eight years ago?"
Thus, as it stands, if this election is about the economy then Obama wins.
2) Gas prices.
This may still be the number one issue depending on how high gas prices are when the election happens. Ironically enough, with gas prices creeping down, this hurts McCain's position. On this issue, once McCain took the early bold step of flip flopping on the issue of off shore drilling he immediately began to own the issue. It didn't hurt that Barack Obama's policy proposals reminded most of Jimmy Carter. It furthermore helps McCain that the Republicans are trying their hardest to make this a frontline issue while the Democrats are running away from it at hyper speed.
This issue continues to be open to either if either can verbaliz an effective plan for true energy independence. So far, Obama has offered platitudes and vague calls for more investment in alternative energy won't do it. If either formulates a specific and effective policy for long term energy independence they will own the issue. So far though, McCain owns it with his early support of off shore drilling. If gas prices are above four dollars a gallon at the time of the election look for McCain to win.
3) Foreign policy, national security and the GWOT.
To me at least, during periods of war, there should be no other issues. Unless we win the war nothing else matters. Because we haven't been attacked in over seven years and Iraq has improved remarkably, most voters disagree with me. Because Iraq is on the brink of victory, ironically enough it is no longer an issue of great importance. Of course, it is also not an issue that will help McCain in any substantive way even though he showed political courage of the highest kind in supporting the surge when no one else would.
That said, national security as a whole can at any time become a front burner issue. Here it is really not a contest. McCain has instant credibility and trust on all such issues. Nowhere is the massive difference in experience more evident than in how the two are perceived on national security. Furthermore, Barack Obama has weakened his own position by taking so many different positions on such matters that it is unclear to the voters exactly what his foreign policy vision is. If this election is about national security, then McCain wins and he wins huge. A good test of its importance can come in the next week. Given the outbreak of war in Georgia, we can watch and see how quickly it can become national security becomes at the front of people's minds. Either most voters will see Georgia as a far away place with little strategic value for the U.S., or they will see the conflict as a reminder that we live in a dangerous world. If it is the former, Barack Obama ought to maintain his lead. If it is the latter, most folks will also intuitively feel a first term Senator is NOT the one to protect us.
Many things can still happen that can immediately make national security the front burner issue. Iran and Israel are on a collision course for war. Depending on the dynamics, that potential conflict can make national security a front burner issue at anytime. Pakistan is terribly unstable. Again, the dynamics there can move the issue to the front at anytime. Iraq and Afghanistan can flare up, or either candidate can make this issue the front burner issue. Either way, if it is, then John McCain wins in November.
So, in my estimation, the good news for John McCain is that two of three potential front burner issues are good for him. The good news for Barack Obama is that the current front burner issue favors him. How these issues will play out will go a very long way toward determining which candidate wins.
Right now, one or more of these issues will decided the election: foreign policy, the economy, or gas prices. Other issues may yet emerge and of course there is always a certain amount of unknown, but as it stands now, depending on which of these three is most important, compared to the other two, that will decide the election.
1) The economy.
I believe the reason that Obama continues to lead slightly is that right now the economy continues to be the most important issue for most voters. Barack Obama has been effective in tying McCain's policies along with President Bush's. He has been effective in demonizing the Bush tax cuts and he has effectively turned McCain's support for making them permanent into a continuation of the same failed policies of the last eight years. Say what you will about Obama's economic plans, policy wise, but they are effective politically. He has promised reforms, regulation, and government action. I question the wisdom of such a plan, but there is no doubt he has public opinion on his side.
McCain can still make this his issue and what he needs to do is take Dick Morris' advice.
McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama’s plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat’s claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.
McCain needs to turn the economy from a referendum on the past, where he loses, into a choice on the future. Obama is winning the economic argument because he has simultaneously effectively demonized Bush's policies, tied McCain to them, and made his own policies part of his overall theme of "change".
McCain needs to move the debate from the existential debate over change over status quo, and make it a debate between specifics. What will happen when Barack Obama raises the capital gains tax, the payroll tax, and the top tax rate during a period of weakening? What will happen when he raises the taxes on corporations during a period of weakening? All of these questions have obvious answers however they can't be answered effectively unless they are asked effectively. So far, McCain has failed to answer them effectively.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama needs to continue to do what he has been. He needs to continue condemning the greedy bankers and mortgage brokers and continue to blame the close relationship between the Bush administration, and D.C. in general, for contributing to looking the other way while they created excess. He needs to continue to demonize the Bush tax cuts pointing out that they lined the pockets of wealthy CEO's while the wages of the average person stagnated. He needs to continue to ask this question "are you better off than you were eight years ago?"
Thus, as it stands, if this election is about the economy then Obama wins.
2) Gas prices.
This may still be the number one issue depending on how high gas prices are when the election happens. Ironically enough, with gas prices creeping down, this hurts McCain's position. On this issue, once McCain took the early bold step of flip flopping on the issue of off shore drilling he immediately began to own the issue. It didn't hurt that Barack Obama's policy proposals reminded most of Jimmy Carter. It furthermore helps McCain that the Republicans are trying their hardest to make this a frontline issue while the Democrats are running away from it at hyper speed.
This issue continues to be open to either if either can verbaliz an effective plan for true energy independence. So far, Obama has offered platitudes and vague calls for more investment in alternative energy won't do it. If either formulates a specific and effective policy for long term energy independence they will own the issue. So far though, McCain owns it with his early support of off shore drilling. If gas prices are above four dollars a gallon at the time of the election look for McCain to win.
3) Foreign policy, national security and the GWOT.
To me at least, during periods of war, there should be no other issues. Unless we win the war nothing else matters. Because we haven't been attacked in over seven years and Iraq has improved remarkably, most voters disagree with me. Because Iraq is on the brink of victory, ironically enough it is no longer an issue of great importance. Of course, it is also not an issue that will help McCain in any substantive way even though he showed political courage of the highest kind in supporting the surge when no one else would.
That said, national security as a whole can at any time become a front burner issue. Here it is really not a contest. McCain has instant credibility and trust on all such issues. Nowhere is the massive difference in experience more evident than in how the two are perceived on national security. Furthermore, Barack Obama has weakened his own position by taking so many different positions on such matters that it is unclear to the voters exactly what his foreign policy vision is. If this election is about national security, then McCain wins and he wins huge. A good test of its importance can come in the next week. Given the outbreak of war in Georgia, we can watch and see how quickly it can become national security becomes at the front of people's minds. Either most voters will see Georgia as a far away place with little strategic value for the U.S., or they will see the conflict as a reminder that we live in a dangerous world. If it is the former, Barack Obama ought to maintain his lead. If it is the latter, most folks will also intuitively feel a first term Senator is NOT the one to protect us.
Many things can still happen that can immediately make national security the front burner issue. Iran and Israel are on a collision course for war. Depending on the dynamics, that potential conflict can make national security a front burner issue at anytime. Pakistan is terribly unstable. Again, the dynamics there can move the issue to the front at anytime. Iraq and Afghanistan can flare up, or either candidate can make this issue the front burner issue. Either way, if it is, then John McCain wins in November.
So, in my estimation, the good news for John McCain is that two of three potential front burner issues are good for him. The good news for Barack Obama is that the current front burner issue favors him. How these issues will play out will go a very long way toward determining which candidate wins.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Obama's UBL Attacks and Geopolitical Reality
Embedded in Barack Obama's mantra that Iraq took our eye of the proverbial ball in Afghanistan is the idea that we have also missed our chance to kill or capture UBL in the process. This is a simplistic argument because UBL is likely in the moutainous and lawless tribal region of Pakistan.
On this issue, Barack Obama has normally taken a hardline stance. His boldest statement came during this speech.
Now, with a complex issue like the GWOT, it is easy to be a critic. What is more difficult is actually having to execute a policy for the GWOT. Obama has criticized everything from our invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, warrantless wiretaps, torture, GITMO, and not catching UBL. That's because no matter what Bush does there will always be room for criticism. If he is aggressive you can go after him on civil rights issues. If he isn't then you can criticize him for not being aggressive enough. No matter the policy there is always room for criticism.
The reality of the hunt for UBL is a lot more complicated than fiery rhetoric of Barack Obama. The reality is that an airstrike would take an enormous amount of luck. It could happen but we would have to be lucky. In order to make a full effort to take out UBL, we would need to make a ground attack. We would have to disperse troops have them go village to village and gain enough intelligence until UBL was simply cornered.
The problem is that Pakistan has maitained its sovereign rights over its nation and refuses to allow U.S. ground forces into its nation. If we sent in ground forces over their objections, it would be an act of war. On a practical level, it would likely either cause a confrontation with the government or simply topple it. Now, Pakistan is no perfect ally, but given that it is sitting on nuclear weapons, we could do significantly worse than the current government.
In fact, it is quite likely that if the government fell, it could likely be replaced by an Islamist government. That government would now have access to nuclear weapons.
If we sent in ground troops, that means a full scale war. If the government fell because the people rose up in defiance, a likely scenario if the government doesn't confront our military, then killing UBL would only be the beginning of the operation. We would have to then rebuild yet another nation. Now, if you think that either Iraq or Afghanistan have been difficult you have no idea what Pakistan would be like.
Or, there is the other scenario. The government confronts us and we turn an ally into an enemy.
Either scenario is not very appealing. Everyone wants to bring UBL to justice however there are geopolitical realities that Obama simply disregards in order to make a political point. Or even worse, he simply doesn't understand them enough and attacks anyway. Either way, catching UBL is not as simple as the fiery Obama rhetoric makes it out to be.
On this issue, Barack Obama has normally taken a hardline stance. His boldest statement came during this speech.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Now, with a complex issue like the GWOT, it is easy to be a critic. What is more difficult is actually having to execute a policy for the GWOT. Obama has criticized everything from our invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, warrantless wiretaps, torture, GITMO, and not catching UBL. That's because no matter what Bush does there will always be room for criticism. If he is aggressive you can go after him on civil rights issues. If he isn't then you can criticize him for not being aggressive enough. No matter the policy there is always room for criticism.
The reality of the hunt for UBL is a lot more complicated than fiery rhetoric of Barack Obama. The reality is that an airstrike would take an enormous amount of luck. It could happen but we would have to be lucky. In order to make a full effort to take out UBL, we would need to make a ground attack. We would have to disperse troops have them go village to village and gain enough intelligence until UBL was simply cornered.
The problem is that Pakistan has maitained its sovereign rights over its nation and refuses to allow U.S. ground forces into its nation. If we sent in ground forces over their objections, it would be an act of war. On a practical level, it would likely either cause a confrontation with the government or simply topple it. Now, Pakistan is no perfect ally, but given that it is sitting on nuclear weapons, we could do significantly worse than the current government.
In fact, it is quite likely that if the government fell, it could likely be replaced by an Islamist government. That government would now have access to nuclear weapons.
If we sent in ground troops, that means a full scale war. If the government fell because the people rose up in defiance, a likely scenario if the government doesn't confront our military, then killing UBL would only be the beginning of the operation. We would have to then rebuild yet another nation. Now, if you think that either Iraq or Afghanistan have been difficult you have no idea what Pakistan would be like.
Or, there is the other scenario. The government confronts us and we turn an ally into an enemy.
Either scenario is not very appealing. Everyone wants to bring UBL to justice however there are geopolitical realities that Obama simply disregards in order to make a political point. Or even worse, he simply doesn't understand them enough and attacks anyway. Either way, catching UBL is not as simple as the fiery Obama rhetoric makes it out to be.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Barack Obama's Fatally Flawed Iraq Plan
Barack Obama continued with his Iraq theme with this op-ed. The biggest flaw in this plan is its timing. He decided to put out a bold plan on Iraq BEFORE he visited the country. In other words, he insists on making policy decisions BEFORE he has seen the situation on the ground first hand. He has formulated this plan without taking one briefing from General Petraeus. He hasn't spoken to one soldier on the ground, or visited one city in Iraq. This entire plan is based on faulty logic he developed prior to the surge starting. Now, let's begin to break down each and every flaw.
Of course, this is plain nonsense. Obama never spoke to one military personnel on the ground who told him that 16 months is a responsible period of time to redeploy. In fact, according to this ABC report, military personnel say the exact opposite. They say that they would have to leave their equipment behind if they had to redeploy that quickly.
So, when he claims it is "responsible" that is a total distortion.
Then, Obama says this...
and then proclaims that we should accomodate the same leaders that he sees as failing in capitulating to a timetable. The Senator can't have it both ways. If this government has failed, then we can't be expected to capitulate. If we are to respect their wish for a timetable, then they can't be the failure that he claims they are. I have already pointed out often that Iraq's demand for a timetable is nothing more than a negotiating technique. (..and agreed with by Max Boot)
Furthermore, the statement might even have simply been and according to this BBC report, here is what might have happened...(H/T to Hotair)
Then, he insists on linking our presence in Iraq to our presence in Afghanistan.
First of all, our commitment is already being reduced and as things improve that will continue. Of course, that commitment is being reduced because things are improving. If we begin withdrawing regardless of facts on the ground, then all gains will be lost. Second, Obama maintains that Iraq is not the central front on the GWOT. He is right but that's because AQI has been crushed there and they have moved their resources back to Pakistan. If we withdraw on a timetable, we would leave a vacuum for them to return. Ironically enough, things are going so well that we may likely reduce forces in a similar fashion to that which Obama demands, but we will do it because the situation warrants it, not because of some fixed timetable.
Next, Obama is simply wrong that the central government hasn't taken the necessary steps for reconcililation. The fact is that it was the central government that took on JAM in Basra and AQI in Mosul. They have scheduled regional elections for the fall, and according to the latest White House report they have satisfactorily met 15 of 18 benchmarks. Of course, given its origin we should take this report with a grain of salt, however there is no doubt the central government is making substantial and tangible progress. They just aren't making enough for Obama's liking. Does anyone really believe there was anything the central government could have done to satisfy the anti war Senator?
Then, there is the matter of the force he wants to leave...
If this sounds familiar that's because it is essentially the same as the failed Rumsfeld policy we had for four years. The reason we have had such a stunning turnaround is because we have changed into a counter insurgency strategy. He wants to cut that strategy off just as it is on the brink of victory and replace it with a strategy we saw fail for four years.
Also, look at the manner in which troops will be removed...
That's all well and good however Obama clearly doesn't account for the idea that these areas may in fact be stable because of our troop's presence. Maybe the bad guys aren't there because our troops are there. If our troops are remove those same stable areas can turn volatile very quickly.
Finally, Barack Obama foolishly believes wars are ended.
Wars aren't ended. They are either won or lost. If you end it before you win, you lose. It is just that simple.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
Of course, this is plain nonsense. Obama never spoke to one military personnel on the ground who told him that 16 months is a responsible period of time to redeploy. In fact, according to this ABC report, military personnel say the exact opposite. They say that they would have to leave their equipment behind if they had to redeploy that quickly.
So, when he claims it is "responsible" that is a total distortion.
Then, Obama says this...
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.This statement is not only duplicitous but inaccurate. Obama later goes on to point out that he believes the Iraqi government has NOT taken the steps necessary to reconcile. (I will speak more about that later) In other words, first he scolds ...
Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
and then proclaims that we should accomodate the same leaders that he sees as failing in capitulating to a timetable. The Senator can't have it both ways. If this government has failed, then we can't be expected to capitulate. If we are to respect their wish for a timetable, then they can't be the failure that he claims they are. I have already pointed out often that Iraq's demand for a timetable is nothing more than a negotiating technique. (..and agreed with by Max Boot)
Furthermore, the statement might even have simply been and according to this BBC report, here is what might have happened...(H/T to Hotair)
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.
That was the version of Mr Maliki’s remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said. … What he actually said was:
“The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”
Then, he insists on linking our presence in Iraq to our presence in Afghanistan.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
First of all, our commitment is already being reduced and as things improve that will continue. Of course, that commitment is being reduced because things are improving. If we begin withdrawing regardless of facts on the ground, then all gains will be lost. Second, Obama maintains that Iraq is not the central front on the GWOT. He is right but that's because AQI has been crushed there and they have moved their resources back to Pakistan. If we withdraw on a timetable, we would leave a vacuum for them to return. Ironically enough, things are going so well that we may likely reduce forces in a similar fashion to that which Obama demands, but we will do it because the situation warrants it, not because of some fixed timetable.
Next, Obama is simply wrong that the central government hasn't taken the necessary steps for reconcililation. The fact is that it was the central government that took on JAM in Basra and AQI in Mosul. They have scheduled regional elections for the fall, and according to the latest White House report they have satisfactorily met 15 of 18 benchmarks. Of course, given its origin we should take this report with a grain of salt, however there is no doubt the central government is making substantial and tangible progress. They just aren't making enough for Obama's liking. Does anyone really believe there was anything the central government could have done to satisfy the anti war Senator?
Then, there is the matter of the force he wants to leave...
After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
If this sounds familiar that's because it is essentially the same as the failed Rumsfeld policy we had for four years. The reason we have had such a stunning turnaround is because we have changed into a counter insurgency strategy. He wants to cut that strategy off just as it is on the brink of victory and replace it with a strategy we saw fail for four years.
Also, look at the manner in which troops will be removed...
I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later.
That's all well and good however Obama clearly doesn't account for the idea that these areas may in fact be stable because of our troop's presence. Maybe the bad guys aren't there because our troops are there. If our troops are remove those same stable areas can turn volatile very quickly.
Finally, Barack Obama foolishly believes wars are ended.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals,
...
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
Wars aren't ended. They are either won or lost. If you end it before you win, you lose. It is just that simple.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Bhutto's Death: The Day After
As the dust settles, the mourning begins, the geopolitical significance has more questions than answers. It is still unclear who was responsible though Al Qaeda appears to be the main suspect.
The geopolitical implications are as yet unsettled as I mentioned. Thus, let's look at some of the analysis. Let's look at the National Review first.
In the very short term, Pervez Musharraf is likely to declare another state of emergency or even martial law. Friends calling from the Pakistani capital tonight say that cars are being torched in the street as members of Benazir’s party, the Pakistani Peoples’ Party (PPP), express their anger and grief. This could easily grow into widespread civil unrest, especially in the wake of her funeral tomorrow.
...
Looking beyond the next few days it seems unlikely that an election will be held on the 8th of January (though both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were both technically barred from standing for prime minister). As for Musharraf, he’ll be badly damaged at least in the short term.
While Benazir had plenty of enemies, including jihadis who detested the idea of a woman leader and who were furious at her newly robust pro-Western antiterrorist stance (she had said she would let U.S. troops hunt for Osama bin Laden within Pakistani territory...
I think it goes without saying that there will need to be a state of emergency and that elections will be postponed. Here is another...
One more...
Her killing also quashes hopes of Western governments that the charismatic, two-time former prime minister could team up with President Pervez Musharraf and galvanize Pakistan's fight against Taliban and al-Qaida militants after Jan. 8 elections.
"This assassination is the most serious setback for democracy in Pakistan," said Rasul Baksh Rais, a political scientist at Lahore's University of Management Sciences. "It shows extremists are powerful enough to disrupt the democratic process. Musharraf's major concern now will be to maintain law and order and make sure this does not turn into a major movement against him."
Michael Medved has some interesting thoughts...
Here is the gloomiest and most concerning analysis I found...
If Pakistan, a key ally, and a nuclear power heads into civil war, then that is the worst case scenario and the likely hope of the killers themselves.
Finally, the reaction from both sides of the blogosphere is so obscene. I won't link to any of it. It ranges from stepping on her grave, to political opportunism of all sorts. If ever there was a time to put petty things like that aside it was now, but unfortunately such decorum isn't found in the blogosphere.
The attack yesterday at Rawalpindi bore the hallmarks of a sophisticated military operation. At first, Bhutto's rally was hit by a suicide bomb that turned out to be a decoy. According to press reports and a situation report of the incident relayed to The New York Sun by an American intelligence officer, Bhutto's armored limousine was shot by multiple snipers whose armor-piercing bullets penetrated the vehicle, hitting the former premier five times in the head, chest, and neck. Two of the snipers then detonated themselves shortly after the shooting, according to the situation report, while being pursued by local police.If Pakistani ISI was involved, that would come as little surprise to anyone who has been following the sitution. If they were it will be that much more imperative for Musharraf to confront Al Qaeda once and for all. If not, the next assassination in Pakistan will likely be his.
A separate attack was thwarted at the local hospital where Bhutto possibly would have been revived had she survived the initial shooting. Also attacked yesterday was a rival politician, Nawaz Sharif, another former prime minister who took power after Bhutto lost power in 1996.
A working theory, according to this American source, is that Al Qaeda or affiliated jihadist groups had effectively suborned at least one unit ofPakistan's Special Services Group, the country's equivalent of Britain's elite SAS commandos. This official, however, stressed this was just a theory at this point. Other theories include that the assassins were trained by Qaeda or were from other military services, or the possibility that the assassins were retired Pakistani special forces.
The geopolitical implications are as yet unsettled as I mentioned. Thus, let's look at some of the analysis. Let's look at the National Review first.
In the very short term, Pervez Musharraf is likely to declare another state of emergency or even martial law. Friends calling from the Pakistani capital tonight say that cars are being torched in the street as members of Benazir’s party, the Pakistani Peoples’ Party (PPP), express their anger and grief. This could easily grow into widespread civil unrest, especially in the wake of her funeral tomorrow.
...
Looking beyond the next few days it seems unlikely that an election will be held on the 8th of January (though both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were both technically barred from standing for prime minister). As for Musharraf, he’ll be badly damaged at least in the short term.
While Benazir had plenty of enemies, including jihadis who detested the idea of a woman leader and who were furious at her newly robust pro-Western antiterrorist stance (she had said she would let U.S. troops hunt for Osama bin Laden within Pakistani territory...
I think it goes without saying that there will need to be a state of emergency and that elections will be postponed. Here is another...
The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to restore stability and democracy in a turbulent, nuclear-armed Islamic nation that has been a critical ally in the war on terror.
While not entirely dependent on Bhutto, recent Bush administration policy on Pakistan had focused heavily on promoting reconciliation between the secular opposition leader who has been dogged by corruption allegations and Pakistan's increasingly unpopular president, Pervez Musharraf, ahead of parliamentary elections set for January.
In Washington and Islamabad, U.S. diplomats urged that Jan. 8 elections should not be postponed and strongly advised against a reimposition of emergency rule that Musharraf had lifted just weeks ago.
One more...
Her killing also quashes hopes of Western governments that the charismatic, two-time former prime minister could team up with President Pervez Musharraf and galvanize Pakistan's fight against Taliban and al-Qaida militants after Jan. 8 elections.
"This assassination is the most serious setback for democracy in Pakistan," said Rasul Baksh Rais, a political scientist at Lahore's University of Management Sciences. "It shows extremists are powerful enough to disrupt the democratic process. Musharraf's major concern now will be to maintain law and order and make sure this does not turn into a major movement against him."
Michael Medved has some interesting thoughts...
The terrorist threat remains the most important issue confronting the next president. In the campaign so far, candidates have spent most of their time debating domestic issues -- health care, immigration, the weak dollar, abortion, Congressional earmarks, tax reform, US attorney firings, energy independence, sub-prime mortgages, environmental warming and so forth. The Pakistani crisis reminds us that none of this matters as much as very real terrorist threats
...
With all our complaints about the quirks our electoral system, the Bhutto assassination should renew our gratitude for our stable, honorable, and functioning democracy. The assassin gunned down Madame Bhutto as she left a campaign rally for parliamentary elections scheduled for January eighth (three days after our New Hampshire primary)...
...
The isolationist arguments of Ron Paul and leftist Democrats look ridiculous in the face of Pakistan’s agony. The “Blame America” school of international relations loves to ascribe any danger or setback to the failed policies of the Bush administration, the machinations of the CIA or the “neo-cons,” U.S. support of Israel, or...
Here is the gloomiest and most concerning analysis I found...
SLAIN opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was laid to rest in her family crypt last night as the shock of her assassination drew angry crowds on to the streets of Pakistan for riots that threatened to push the country into civil war.
With al-Qa'ida claiming responsibility for a murder that has provoked the most serious crisis in the 60-year history of the nuclear-armed country, President Pervez Musharraf was under intense pressure from Washington to ensure
Pakistan returned to democracy through elections scheduled for January 8.
But Mr Musharraf, who has become a key ally in the war on terror, was facing a furious backlash from his own people, with mobs chanting "Killer Musharraf, go" as they set fire togovernment offices, shops and cars.
If Pakistan, a key ally, and a nuclear power heads into civil war, then that is the worst case scenario and the likely hope of the killers themselves.
Finally, the reaction from both sides of the blogosphere is so obscene. I won't link to any of it. It ranges from stepping on her grave, to political opportunism of all sorts. If ever there was a time to put petty things like that aside it was now, but unfortunately such decorum isn't found in the blogosphere.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Benazir Bhutto Dead
Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed today by an assassin who shot her and then blew himself up as she was leaving a campaign rally, ABC News has confirmed.The story is of course everywhere.
Bhutto was among at least 20 killed in the blast. A security adviser to Bhutto's party said she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle to leave the rally in Rawalpindi, near the capital city of Islamabad.
The gunman then blew himself up.
"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital, told The Associated Press.
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday, shot in the neck and chest at a campaign rally before a homicide bomber blew himself up, killing at least 20 others.
Bhutto's supporters erupted in anger and grief after her death, attacking police and burning tires and election campaign posters in several cities. At the hospital where she died, some smashed glass and wailed, chanting slogans against President Pervez Musharraf...
While we mourn, we should also be concerned of the ramification for the GWOT. Clearly, in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places political assassinations have been used by terrorists to stir up trouble effectively, and it appears the same thing happened here. If this assassination leads to even more tension between Musharraf and his opponents, then that is exactly what the terrorists would hope for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
