Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Army Alledged Murderer ( "Alleged" because my Legal Dept. requires it!)
Do you have one bit of doubt that the army pushed alleged murderer Maj. Nidal Hasan along because of a fear of a claim of racial/religious discrimination? As the reports come it it appears that incompetence and fear on the part of his superiors and supervisors protected Hasan. See the latest report.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Rating Obama- Part 3 International Relations
The one word that could sum up the first year of the Obama administration is "naive". This administration believes that rational thinking and professorial reserve are effective traits in dealing with the entire world. They are not. Sure, Western Europe can fall in love with him, but their support, if it is present to any degree, is minimal and ineffective. When it comes to dealing with our enemies, specifically radical Islamists, rational 21st Century cool will not prevail.
Let's briefly look at some areas.
Afghanistan:
The Obama administration to add 30,000 troops over the next year is a half baked measure in light of the President's announced plan to begin withdrawing them in 2011 and 2012. First, the president has cut off at the knees his own on scene commander, Gen. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 troops. Second, he has given the Taliban and al Queda a timetable for them to resume their operations.
Counterinsurgency operations are long term commitments. Obama has demonstrated that he is not willing to make this commitment. For his failure to define an effective strategic position , Obama earns an "F". For their failure to effectively engage the enemy in their assigned areas of operation, our allies earn an "F".
Iran:
Obama has offered a open hand of friendship to the Iranian administration. His efforts have garnered repeated slaps in the face from the Iranians. In dealing with Iran's clear efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Obama is hampered by European weakness and the outright antipathy of both Russia and China. As a result of the positions taken by the latter two countries, it will be impossible to implement effective sanctions. Absent either covert mechanisms to destroy or disrupt the Iranian effort or a massive bombing campaign to destroy nuclear facilities, for the first time nuclear weapons will be in the hands of religious radicals with a 7th century mindset. For his failure to engage the issue effectively and vigorously from the beginning of his administration, Obama earns the grade of "F".
Israel-Palestine:
"Naive". It is the word that best fits the Obama approach to this area of the middle east. Obama has failed to appreciate several realities. Israel is under real and significant threats from entities sworn to her destruction-from the North in the form of Iran back Hezbollah; from the East, with a corrupt and lawless Palestinian Authority and Iran; and from the South, from Hamas controlled Gaza. At this point, Obama might have learned that the Palestinians believe that they can gain everything that they want by continuing to say "no" to any overture from Israel. The initial American position of trying to be an honest broker can not achieve any tangible improvements when one of the parties on the other side believes that it can accomplish more by refusing to negotiate. It is the tactic of the souk. And it can be very effective for them. For its part, Israel fails to play its strongest had, by making life for the Palestinians on the West bank easier, richer and more successful at a faster rate than it has been moving in this direction. There are intractable issues. Israel will never give up Jerusalem and failure of Western powers to understand that the holiest location for Israel-the Western Wall- lies in what would otherwise be Arab Jerusalem. Another non-starter is the idea of making Jerusalem an " international city". Nowhere has this idea worked. Nor will Israel allow the Palestinian refugee families to return whence they came.
Overall, I an tempted to give the Obama administration an "F" , but with the hope that a great degree of learning has taken place this year, I'll raise the grade to "D".
Russia:
After hearing the yapping from Russia, Obama decided to scrap a defensive nuclear missile program that would have placed radars in the Czech Republic and Anti-missile weapons in Poland. In return for undermining our allies, who took undertook a great degree of risk in allowing these facilities to be placed in their respective countries, the Obama administration received nothing in return from Russia. Since these defensive weapons were designed to deter an Iranian threat, one might reasonably expect that the Obama administration would tie the removal o the weapons with Russian support for strong measure to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, the Obama administration failed in achieving that simple goal. It can be fairly said that the administration surrendered a bargaining chip without securing anything in return. Grade "F".
Let's briefly look at some areas.
Afghanistan:
The Obama administration to add 30,000 troops over the next year is a half baked measure in light of the President's announced plan to begin withdrawing them in 2011 and 2012. First, the president has cut off at the knees his own on scene commander, Gen. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 troops. Second, he has given the Taliban and al Queda a timetable for them to resume their operations.
Counterinsurgency operations are long term commitments. Obama has demonstrated that he is not willing to make this commitment. For his failure to define an effective strategic position , Obama earns an "F". For their failure to effectively engage the enemy in their assigned areas of operation, our allies earn an "F".
Iran:
Obama has offered a open hand of friendship to the Iranian administration. His efforts have garnered repeated slaps in the face from the Iranians. In dealing with Iran's clear efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Obama is hampered by European weakness and the outright antipathy of both Russia and China. As a result of the positions taken by the latter two countries, it will be impossible to implement effective sanctions. Absent either covert mechanisms to destroy or disrupt the Iranian effort or a massive bombing campaign to destroy nuclear facilities, for the first time nuclear weapons will be in the hands of religious radicals with a 7th century mindset. For his failure to engage the issue effectively and vigorously from the beginning of his administration, Obama earns the grade of "F".
Israel-Palestine:
"Naive". It is the word that best fits the Obama approach to this area of the middle east. Obama has failed to appreciate several realities. Israel is under real and significant threats from entities sworn to her destruction-from the North in the form of Iran back Hezbollah; from the East, with a corrupt and lawless Palestinian Authority and Iran; and from the South, from Hamas controlled Gaza. At this point, Obama might have learned that the Palestinians believe that they can gain everything that they want by continuing to say "no" to any overture from Israel. The initial American position of trying to be an honest broker can not achieve any tangible improvements when one of the parties on the other side believes that it can accomplish more by refusing to negotiate. It is the tactic of the souk. And it can be very effective for them. For its part, Israel fails to play its strongest had, by making life for the Palestinians on the West bank easier, richer and more successful at a faster rate than it has been moving in this direction. There are intractable issues. Israel will never give up Jerusalem and failure of Western powers to understand that the holiest location for Israel-the Western Wall- lies in what would otherwise be Arab Jerusalem. Another non-starter is the idea of making Jerusalem an " international city". Nowhere has this idea worked. Nor will Israel allow the Palestinian refugee families to return whence they came.
Overall, I an tempted to give the Obama administration an "F" , but with the hope that a great degree of learning has taken place this year, I'll raise the grade to "D".
Russia:
After hearing the yapping from Russia, Obama decided to scrap a defensive nuclear missile program that would have placed radars in the Czech Republic and Anti-missile weapons in Poland. In return for undermining our allies, who took undertook a great degree of risk in allowing these facilities to be placed in their respective countries, the Obama administration received nothing in return from Russia. Since these defensive weapons were designed to deter an Iranian threat, one might reasonably expect that the Obama administration would tie the removal o the weapons with Russian support for strong measure to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, the Obama administration failed in achieving that simple goal. It can be fairly said that the administration surrendered a bargaining chip without securing anything in return. Grade "F".
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Rating Obama- Part 2- Economics/ Domestic
In late 2008, the United States economy, and by extension , the world economy, was at the brink of the abyss. The risky business practices of banks and brokerages had caused a collapse in the credit markets and bank failures were at their highest rates since the Great Depression. Home mortgages were unpaid at near record rates. Foreclosures and bankruptcies exploded. The famous Lehman Brothers brokerage house failed. AIG Insurance failed. Fear flooded Wall Street as the media broadcast news of an imminent Great Depression II and the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost almost half its value from its high point. In the last days of the Bush administration, the Republican President was forced to step in and inject money into the banks and brokerage houses to keep the nation solvent. The Great Bailout of 2008 had begun.
When Barack Obama took office, national economic failure was still an option. He quickly put together an economic stimulus package designed to get money flowing into the economy in the form of public works projects. Obama's supporters on the left felt that the almost one trillion dollar stimulus package was too little to do the job of turning the economy around. His opponents on the right felt that the stimulus would burden future generations with crippling debt. The future may prove that both sides were correct.
Along with the failures of the economic markets, the nation's automobile manufacturers were also near collapse. Decades of poor business practices and their collective failure to bring to market the products that the public wanted, and which needs were satisfied by Japanese and European manufacturers, all resulted in a downward spiral of sales and earnings. General Motors, the nation's largest car maker had run out of cash. Chrysler had nothing left in its tank. Ford was still solvent, but its products had not been selling either. These factors,combined with the lack of credit from the 2008 meltdown, meant that cars weren't moving off lots, manufacturing ceased, and the American car industry, along with its plethora of independent suppliers, was about to die, and if they did millions would be unemployed.
Against a background of Republican charges of Socialism, the Obama administration forced bankruptcy on General Motors and a subsequent sale of Chrysler to Italy's FIAT Corporation. In return for these measures, as well as product restructuring plans and union contract givebacks, the administration pumped needed cash into both companies to keep them solvent. Ford alone eschewed government intervention as the corporate leaders felt that they had enough cash on hand to weather the storm.
Today, the economy pulled back from the brink. Economists as talking about "green shoots of recovery". Following a period of severe layoffs, companies are stating to talk about hiring. A small glimmer of hope is on the horizon.
So how does one grade President Obama's performance? Within a short time after taking office, he had to have his team in place and form appropriate responses to the banking failures, the freezing of credit markets, job losses, and the potential failure of the entire automobile industry. Mr. Obama never set up false hopes of rapid recovery. He spoke calmly and honestly about the problems. Despite taking fire from both the left and the right, the President steered a course that was admirable in both its effectiveness and in its restraint, trying to do what had to be done, neither too little money nor too much government intervention.
In the category of "Economics/Domestic" President Obama earns a grade of "A".
When Barack Obama took office, national economic failure was still an option. He quickly put together an economic stimulus package designed to get money flowing into the economy in the form of public works projects. Obama's supporters on the left felt that the almost one trillion dollar stimulus package was too little to do the job of turning the economy around. His opponents on the right felt that the stimulus would burden future generations with crippling debt. The future may prove that both sides were correct.
Along with the failures of the economic markets, the nation's automobile manufacturers were also near collapse. Decades of poor business practices and their collective failure to bring to market the products that the public wanted, and which needs were satisfied by Japanese and European manufacturers, all resulted in a downward spiral of sales and earnings. General Motors, the nation's largest car maker had run out of cash. Chrysler had nothing left in its tank. Ford was still solvent, but its products had not been selling either. These factors,combined with the lack of credit from the 2008 meltdown, meant that cars weren't moving off lots, manufacturing ceased, and the American car industry, along with its plethora of independent suppliers, was about to die, and if they did millions would be unemployed.
Against a background of Republican charges of Socialism, the Obama administration forced bankruptcy on General Motors and a subsequent sale of Chrysler to Italy's FIAT Corporation. In return for these measures, as well as product restructuring plans and union contract givebacks, the administration pumped needed cash into both companies to keep them solvent. Ford alone eschewed government intervention as the corporate leaders felt that they had enough cash on hand to weather the storm.
Today, the economy pulled back from the brink. Economists as talking about "green shoots of recovery". Following a period of severe layoffs, companies are stating to talk about hiring. A small glimmer of hope is on the horizon.
So how does one grade President Obama's performance? Within a short time after taking office, he had to have his team in place and form appropriate responses to the banking failures, the freezing of credit markets, job losses, and the potential failure of the entire automobile industry. Mr. Obama never set up false hopes of rapid recovery. He spoke calmly and honestly about the problems. Despite taking fire from both the left and the right, the President steered a course that was admirable in both its effectiveness and in its restraint, trying to do what had to be done, neither too little money nor too much government intervention.
In the category of "Economics/Domestic" President Obama earns a grade of "A".
Rating Obama- Part 1- The Line Up
Technically, it is just under one year since Barack Obama took the historic oath of office on the west steps of the Capital, but it is time to hand out grades on his performance to date.
It is important to recognize that although his party holds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, these majorities are far slimmer than they appear. In their efforts to take control of both houses, the Democrats enacted a big-tent strategy which allowed them to include a wide range of political philosophies under the Democrat label. As a result of this strategy, the Senate Democrats include more conservative members, such as Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, along with left wing Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont, and noted liberals Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California. The house includes a significant conservative democratic faction, the Blue Dog Coalition to go along with the usual liberal line up.
Neither the Senate nor the House contain a philosophically monolithic Democratic majority, willing to march in lock-step where ever the President points. As a result of these political realities, President Obama must satisfy to some degree the demands of these varied factions. Whether by his own political temperament, or as the result of political calculation, Barack Obama's Presidency has been marked by a more moderate approach than that which many of his liberal supporters hoped for and his conservative detractors feared. The result is that his most liberal supporters are currently disappointed on a number of issues and already are talking of betrayal, while his conservative opponents will never be satisfied with anything he does.
In several follow-up postings, I'll take a look at the President's record on a variety of issues, such as the economy, environment, terrorism, war, relations with other nations, and the middle east.
It is important to recognize that although his party holds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, these majorities are far slimmer than they appear. In their efforts to take control of both houses, the Democrats enacted a big-tent strategy which allowed them to include a wide range of political philosophies under the Democrat label. As a result of this strategy, the Senate Democrats include more conservative members, such as Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, along with left wing Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont, and noted liberals Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California. The house includes a significant conservative democratic faction, the Blue Dog Coalition to go along with the usual liberal line up.
Neither the Senate nor the House contain a philosophically monolithic Democratic majority, willing to march in lock-step where ever the President points. As a result of these political realities, President Obama must satisfy to some degree the demands of these varied factions. Whether by his own political temperament, or as the result of political calculation, Barack Obama's Presidency has been marked by a more moderate approach than that which many of his liberal supporters hoped for and his conservative detractors feared. The result is that his most liberal supporters are currently disappointed on a number of issues and already are talking of betrayal, while his conservative opponents will never be satisfied with anything he does.
In several follow-up postings, I'll take a look at the President's record on a variety of issues, such as the economy, environment, terrorism, war, relations with other nations, and the middle east.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Turning Tide? Fighting Terrorism In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen
Two news articles today make me wonder if perhaps the Taliban have reached their high water mark and now are about to ebb back into the caves and crevices of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The New York Times reports that some Afghanis within their own country are starting to pick up arms against the religious extremists. Some "experts" claim that the formation of local militias weakens the central government. But with a central government that is not trusted by the citizenry, local action is an effective means of combating the Taliban push. Effective counter-insurgency requires the active cooperation and action from the locals in order to defeat the Taliban. Except for the British action in Malaysia against insurgent forces there, a 15 year battle which resulted in the uprooting and relocation of a major portion of the population, regular army actions against insurgents have all failed.
Taliban cruelty is becoming more well known then their supposed piety. And perhaps even in war-weary Afghanistan, there may be a limit to how much oppression people will tolerate.
Further evidence that Afghanis, may, just may, be finding a new path away from corrupt government comes in this NYTIMES story from Kabul:
From the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border comes this story about Pakistani reaction to the recent car-bombing that killed almost 100 innocents. Said one Pakistani elder who is part of a still forming anti-Taliban council:
"The people are in severe grief and fear — it is a demoralizing thing," said Raham Dil Khan, a rifle-toting, 70-something member of the tribal council. "We want the government to provide security, but one thing is very clear: The committee will stand against every type of terrorism and despite this great loss we will continue our work."
If sufficient forces form to squeeze the Taliban simultaneously from the Afghan side of the border and also from the Pakistan side of the border, the Taliban will be hard-pressed to wage effective warfare in either country. And that which makes life difficult for the Taliban also makes life difficult for Osama Bin Laden's Al-Kaida, which has been sheltered by the Taliban for decades.
The question arises: Can NATO forces provide sufficient backing for the local anti-Taliban Afghanis without raising their own profile to the degree that they are considered foreign invaders, and thus targets of nationalistic, or tribal, Afghanis?
A second question arises. If the military and political pressures in the Afghanistan-Pakistan make life uncomfortable for Al-Kaida. Where will that group go next? Al-Kaida is an idea, it is a stateless, amorphous entity that thrives without traditional governmental forms and structures. It moves like quicksilver. Push it in one direction and it will flow in another. It needs neither a capital city nor a standing army. Offshoots can and have developed where they did not exist previously such as Iraq and Yemen. It thrives wherever Islamic governments are corrupt or weak or both. It thrives where there is a disaffected Muslim populations, such as the Philippines.
It is clear that Al-Kaida must be attacked on all fronts simultaneously to prevent it from flowing and reforming where fertile environments exist: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, The Philippines. Can the United States, local governments, and whatever Western allies we can muster, commit the forces, the funds, and more important, the political will to fight what will be a delicate and decades long war against terrorism?
The New York Times reports that some Afghanis within their own country are starting to pick up arms against the religious extremists. Some "experts" claim that the formation of local militias weakens the central government. But with a central government that is not trusted by the citizenry, local action is an effective means of combating the Taliban push. Effective counter-insurgency requires the active cooperation and action from the locals in order to defeat the Taliban. Except for the British action in Malaysia against insurgent forces there, a 15 year battle which resulted in the uprooting and relocation of a major portion of the population, regular army actions against insurgents have all failed.
Taliban cruelty is becoming more well known then their supposed piety. And perhaps even in war-weary Afghanistan, there may be a limit to how much oppression people will tolerate.
Further evidence that Afghanis, may, just may, be finding a new path away from corrupt government comes in this NYTIMES story from Kabul:
KABUL, Afghanistan — In a clear signal to President Hamid Karzai that he cannot count on Parliament for support, lawmakers resoundingly rejected most of his nominees for cabinet posts and expressed discontent with the candidates’ competence.
From the eastern side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border comes this story about Pakistani reaction to the recent car-bombing that killed almost 100 innocents. Said one Pakistani elder who is part of a still forming anti-Taliban council:
"The people are in severe grief and fear — it is a demoralizing thing," said Raham Dil Khan, a rifle-toting, 70-something member of the tribal council. "We want the government to provide security, but one thing is very clear: The committee will stand against every type of terrorism and despite this great loss we will continue our work."
If sufficient forces form to squeeze the Taliban simultaneously from the Afghan side of the border and also from the Pakistan side of the border, the Taliban will be hard-pressed to wage effective warfare in either country. And that which makes life difficult for the Taliban also makes life difficult for Osama Bin Laden's Al-Kaida, which has been sheltered by the Taliban for decades.
The question arises: Can NATO forces provide sufficient backing for the local anti-Taliban Afghanis without raising their own profile to the degree that they are considered foreign invaders, and thus targets of nationalistic, or tribal, Afghanis?
A second question arises. If the military and political pressures in the Afghanistan-Pakistan make life uncomfortable for Al-Kaida. Where will that group go next? Al-Kaida is an idea, it is a stateless, amorphous entity that thrives without traditional governmental forms and structures. It moves like quicksilver. Push it in one direction and it will flow in another. It needs neither a capital city nor a standing army. Offshoots can and have developed where they did not exist previously such as Iraq and Yemen. It thrives wherever Islamic governments are corrupt or weak or both. It thrives where there is a disaffected Muslim populations, such as the Philippines.
It is clear that Al-Kaida must be attacked on all fronts simultaneously to prevent it from flowing and reforming where fertile environments exist: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, The Philippines. Can the United States, local governments, and whatever Western allies we can muster, commit the forces, the funds, and more important, the political will to fight what will be a delicate and decades long war against terrorism?
Food For Thought- How One Cup of Coffee Impacts the World and a Person
This morning I ground some Colombian coffee beans and made some fresh coffee. It was absolutely delicious and I savored every drop.
For almost all of us living in the United States, we live in a land of incomprehensible abundance when it comes to food. We have the luxury of dreaming up gourmet meals and then buying them, whether to cook them ourselves or to have someone else do the heavy work and then serving it to us for a fee.
A simple cup of coffee is not so simple. Coffee is grown in many places except in the continental United States. It must be planted, harvested, graded, shipped, roasted, ground, and then perked, dripped or French pressed. Whether you perform the last few steps at home or delegate the task to the local deli or Starbucks, there is a lot going on in that cup. It took a lot of work.
Our wealth allows us to become, "Foodies", "Gourmets", "Oenophiles". We can cook four different cuisines, serve eight course meals, and discourse intelligently on chablis and chardonnays, cabernets and syrahs.
So as we start the new year, let us take a moment to contemplate our abundance of food and the wealth which makes this all possible. We have the luxury to decide what to eat or what not to eat. We do not have to wonder which dumpster will provide our next meal or which puddle will supply our next drink.
A moment or two of thanks or appreciation is not inappropriate.
For almost all of us living in the United States, we live in a land of incomprehensible abundance when it comes to food. We have the luxury of dreaming up gourmet meals and then buying them, whether to cook them ourselves or to have someone else do the heavy work and then serving it to us for a fee.
A simple cup of coffee is not so simple. Coffee is grown in many places except in the continental United States. It must be planted, harvested, graded, shipped, roasted, ground, and then perked, dripped or French pressed. Whether you perform the last few steps at home or delegate the task to the local deli or Starbucks, there is a lot going on in that cup. It took a lot of work.
Our wealth allows us to become, "Foodies", "Gourmets", "Oenophiles". We can cook four different cuisines, serve eight course meals, and discourse intelligently on chablis and chardonnays, cabernets and syrahs.
So as we start the new year, let us take a moment to contemplate our abundance of food and the wealth which makes this all possible. We have the luxury to decide what to eat or what not to eat. We do not have to wonder which dumpster will provide our next meal or which puddle will supply our next drink.
A moment or two of thanks or appreciation is not inappropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
