Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (0)

Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

When people are very pessimistic, I say to them: Don’t worry our enemies will save us.

 

By that I mean that the enemies of peace, progress, and democracy--Islamists and radical Arab nationalists, terrorists and silly people in the West alike--are so intransigent, obviously lying, and dangerously wrong about society that they will convince and force most people to reject and combat them.

 

Even when thrown lifelines, even when confronted with naiveté, they reject concessions, turn up their nose at compromise, go too far, and make their nonsense so illogical and apparent, as to either teach the naïve in political and intellectual power or persuade others push them aside in order to survive.

 

Today offers some examples of this idea:

 

The presidency of Barack Obama and the relatively soft stands of European states have given Iran a great opportunity. Tehran could have made a show of flexibility, a strong pretense about being cooperative, and met with Obama. This would have forestalled a higher level of Western sanctions, while Iran could still work secretly on nuclear weapons.

 

After all, even after a virtual coup by the most hardline faction, the stolen election, the strong repression, the show trials of dissidents, and the appointment of a wanted terrorist as defense minister [that’s a pretty amazing list, isn’t it?], the West was still willing to deal with the regime.

 

Instead, Iran produced an “offer” to negotiate so minimal that even the Europeans rejected it. While this doesn’t mean all is well—Russia and China will block and sabotage even moderate sanctions; the West Europeans will oppose really strong ones—at least Iran’s last-minute effort to derail the process altogether will fail. Read article.

 

James Taranto, Online WSJ.com

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who advised Jimmy Carter on national security, offers some informal advice to President Obama in an interview with the Daily Beast, an oddly named Web site:

 

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America's worst interest?

 

We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?

 

Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

 

This is insane on several levels. The USS Liberty was a U.S. ship that the Israelis accidentally attacked during the Six Day War in 1967--although conspiracy-minded anti-Semites suggest the attack was deliberate. Is Brzezinski a conspiracy minded anti-Semite, or is he suggesting that he would like to see the U.S. shoot down Israeli planes accidentally?

 

Whatever he may mean by the creepy analogy, though, Brzezinski seems to be making a serious policy suggestion--one that represents a reductio ad absurdum of the Obama administration's foreign policy. Read article.

 

Steven Thomma, Philly.com

 

With the military and Republicans publicly pressuring him to send more troops to Afghanistan soon and his own administration now deeply divided about how to proceed, the eight-year war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has become an increasingly urgent policy and political dilemma for President Obama.

He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base, or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.

 

Obama's decision could be a defining moment of his presidency, and it will reveal much about how he leads. Friends and enemies around the world will be watching - and judging - whether he is firmly in charge or whether he seeks some safe middle ground.

 

"This is tough for Democrats. They own this war. They own what happens from here on out. This is a bit of a mess for them all the way around," said Juan Carlos Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations. Read article.

The Foundry, Heritage.org

 

With the nation’s unemployment rate creeping ever closer to 10%, it is not surprising that Americans continue to rank the economy as the most important issue facing the country right now. Recognizing the link between a troubled economy and energy prices, last year 1.4 million Americans signed the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition demanding that the federal government enact policies that will lower our nation’s energy costs. And Congress responded by ending our nation’s quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

 

But this was just the first step Americans needed to take to free our energy from the myriad of bureaucratic restriction the enviro-left has placed between consumers and cheap energy. Before the development of our natural resources can begin, the Department of Interior must approve a five-year leasing plan detailing how federal sale of oil and gas leases in the offshore waters will take place. The case for developing our own natural resources is strong. An estimated 19 billion barrels of oil–nearly 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia–as well as substantial natural gas reserves are estimated to lie beneath these restricted areas. According to a 2008 Center for Data Analysis study, increasing domestic oil production by 1 million barrels per day would generate 128,000 jobs. At 2 million barrels per day, that figures jump to 270,000.

 

Unfortunately the Obama administration is allowing their “Green Job” fantasies to get in the way of cold hard facts and real American jobs. At an Interior Department field hearing this April in Atlantic City, Secretary Ken Salazar claimed ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States, according to the Energy Department. This is pure fiction. In 2007 the United States produced 23.48 quadrillion BTUs of power from coal. Wind produced .319 quadrillion Btus. Salazar wants the American people to believe we can increase our wind power production by 7,300%. That is unrealistic. Read article.

 

John BatchelorShow.com

 

"As commander-in-chief I am committed to doing everything in my power to advance our national security... President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missiles program poses a significant threat... to deploy a missile defense system that best responds to the threats we face... the threat posed by Iran's short and medium range missiles... our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses... deep and close ties... an attack on one is an attack on all... the threat posed by Iran's missile program...we welcome Russia's cooperation... will consult closely with Congress and our allies... thank you very much."

 

 

POTUS's remarks about Iran's missile program come in the same month that the US has agreed to unconditional negotiations with Tehran and the IAEA has signaled that Iran is now capable of constructing an atomic bomb. The atomic weapon is designed for the warhead atop the missiles. The reason the Iran missile program is a threat is because Iran is building miniaturized nukes for the warhead that can reach toward Moscow and Athens and Mumbai and Cairo and the number one target, Tel Aviv. In addition, Moscow has now reached an accord to loan Hugo Chavez and Caracas money to buy medium range missiles. 

 

Hugo Chavez has just returned from the triumphant tour to Damascus and Tehran, where he made common cause with the tyrant Assad and the usurper Ahmadinejad. I do not need to tally this mischief. The Obama administration's decision to stand down from strategic defense in Europe is an admission of weakness. Will it also be seen as a resignation from the contest against Tehran's nukes? Yes. Will Tehran back off now that the US has drawn in its talons? No. Is NATO safer because there is no answer to rogue arrows? Let NATO decide. America has gone jaw-jaw. The Twelver regime in Tehran has gone war-war. Read article.

 

Jon Meacham, Newsweek.com

 

The wars of the Obama presidency—the tea parties, the heckling, the charges of racism—are covered breathlessly, but they are, sadly, all too familiar. Controversial presidents have always inspired epic love and epic hate; Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush are among those who commanded the loyalty of millions and endured the enmity of many. Given our short national attention span, it may come as a surprise to some that our present ferocity is the historical rule, not the exception. To want to look backward sentimentally is understandable: it is more pleasant to be a Scarlett O'Hara, thinking about tomorrow, than it is to be a William Faulkner, for whom the past is never past.

 

But the airbrushing of what has come before leaves us ill equipped to judge the significance of the passing scene. That is why the sooner the political conversation takes into account the fact that there has never—never—been a golden age of bipartisanship, the better. There have been, it is true, eras in which there was more rather than less cooperation across party lines, but rival forces have always tried to destabilize one another. I sometimes think of moments like the current one—with Jimmy Carter playing the race card, and the right sputtering about the race card while happily playing the socialist and birther cards—as "Hofstadters," when commentators turn to Richard Hofstadter's 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" for an intellectual frame in which to view conspiracy-minded fury. Read article.

 

David Warren, Ottawa Citizen.com

 

What will Russia offer the U.S. in return for the Obama administration’s decision to cancel the U.S. missile defence shield installations in the Czech Republic and Poland?

 

At least four nothings, maybe more.

 

For sure, Russia will now withdraw her own threat to install new missile batteries in retaliation for any Czech or Polish desire to be protected from Russia. This will sound very generous to persons of the peacenik persuasion: for after all, what’s the difference between offensive and defensive arrangements? (The answer is, night and day.)

 

Moreover, Russia will be happy to offer increased cooperation with NATO in developing western anti-missile systems elsewhere. Again: cooperation! Peaceniks rejoice! But what this really means is that Russia is angling for fresh western missile technology — ideally for free, given an Obama administration that can be very generous with America’s security assets.

 

Russia will look more kindly on U.S. requests for overflights to resupply forces in Afghanistan. But Russia was already being quite co-operative on this front, for the simple reason that Russia feels even more threatened by the Taliban near her borders than the U.S. does by Taliban half a world away. Indeed, the Russians had already granted overflights to the Bush administration, last year.

 

The fourth nothing is “goodwill.” At the moment, it is a bit better than goodwill, as European media report downright euphoria in Moscow, quoting remarks from the Russian foreign policy establishment further tinged with triumphalism. Russia made clear to the U.S. all the former Soviet slave states — not just Ukraine and Georgia — were areas of “special Russian concern.” Finally, the Americans are showing the proper “sensitivity.” Read article.

 

Jorge G. Castaneda, Korean Times.com

 

The case against Chavez is solid if it is properly presented ― as a series of repeated violations of domestic, regional, and international commitments and covenants signed and ratified by Venezuela.

 

Whether these violations involve shutting down TV stations, imprisoning and exiling opponents, arming guerrillas in neighboring countries, provoking an arms race in the region, or flirting with Iran's nuclear enrichment program, they all can be proved and denounced.

 

If Colombia and Obama proceed in this fashion, their potential allies in the rest of the hemisphere might lose their fears about being left hanging out to dry.

 

Countries like Mexico, Peru, Chile after its December election, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic all worry that if they confront Chavez, they will not only, in certain cases, lose his largesse, but also provoke him into meddling in their domestic politics.

 

But if Obama shows that he takes the issue seriously and intends to pursue a policy of containment, these nations would probably respond favorably.

 

Letting matters drift toward greater confrontation is not a sustainable policy for Colombia, the U.S., or the rest of Latin America.

 

Such a course would allow Venezuela to choose the next conflict, postponing a showdown until deteriorating circumstances make conflict both inevitable and more dangerous. It is now time for Obama to emulate Colombia's business community and stop turning the other cheek. Read article.

 

 S A Aiyar, Times of India.com

 

Even as US military commanders seek a troop increase in Afghanistan to check a resurgent Taliban, US voter support is fast eroding. A CNN poll in September showed that 58% of Americans oppose the war while only 39% support it. Among Democrats, only 23% support the war, and the number keeps falling.

 

President Obama initially called the war in Afghanistan one of necessity, and proposed a big US troop increase. But with voter support slipping, Obama now says he will not rush the decision. Democratic Congressmen say in private that US withdrawal is a matter of time. One told me, ‘‘The British couldn’t pacify Afghanistan, the Russians couldn’t, and we can’t either.’’

 

So, do not be surprised if the coming year witnesses contacts between the US and Taliban to find a face-saving formula for US exit. Afghan president Hamid Karzai has long argued for a negotiated deal with what he calls the good Taliban. He was earlier discouraged by the US, but maybe not for much longer. Read article.

 

Selena Zito, RCP.com

 

Two political dangers have emerged in recent months for Democrats, Republicans, and the media that covers both. Those are the dismissal of protests by all three, and the crude overuse of the race card.

 

It’s disturbing that Washington really doesn't “get” the rest of the country that is beyond their bubble, says Villanova University political scientist Lara Brown.

 

Last Saturday’s “Tea Party” protest, spreading out across Capitol Hill, received little to no coverage; most news organizations wildly underreported the crowd’s size.

 

Later, former president Jimmy Carter said racism is behind the rhetoric of President Obama’s critics; New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd opined similarly.

 

Here is the problem with that: Pull out the race card, and the conversation ends. It does the president no good when anyone who disagrees with him is accused of racism; it simply builds a resentment that he did not foster.

 

Besides, most protests of and disagreements over policy have nothing to do with race – and to say that only dilutes real racism.“When it comes to race, it is unfortunate that the Democrats are seeing everything through this analytical lens,” Brown said. “It undermines those instances in which racism and discrimination are truly important factors and are harming minorities.”

 

“When it comes to race, it is unfortunate that the Democrats are seeing everything through this analytical lens,” Brown said. “It undermines those instances in which racism and discrimination are truly important factors and are harming minorities.” Read article.