At present, the Nimitz and Truman CSGs are underway in the 5th Fleet area of operations (Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf locale). The Nimitz CSG has now been deployed for eight months (a standard deployment is 6/7 months). Taking into account the fact that the Reagan and Bush CSGs are also operating in the Atlantic (a relatively short sail to the 5th Fleet AO), I think it's pretty obvious that the Pentagon is working to stack substantial military assets in the region. It's certainly interesting that over half the US Navy's total carrier force is at sea.
From my perspective, it's almost certain that escalating tensions between Iran and Israel are the motivating cause for this deployment structure (the Obama Administration is keen to cool US-Iranian tensions so the deployments are unlikely to mean deliberate US gunboat diplomacy). While the US is hopeful that Wednesday's recommencement of the P5+1 negotiations will bear fruit, the Obama Administration is simultaneously aware that their influence over Netanyahu is inherently limited... that Israel may attack Iran at any time. It's also worth noting that in the context of the sequester, these fleet deployments represent a major drain on scarce Defense Department resources. No longer does the US flex our military power without carefully weighing corollary cost considerations. That fact alone gives credence to the notion that Obama is worried.
As I argued a couple of weeks back, George HW Bush defines American class. As has been widely reported, one of the agents on Bush's Secret Service detail has a son with Leukemia - as such, the detail agents have shaved their heads in solidarity. So has their protectee. The Secret Service remains one of America's greatest institutions. Rightly so, they enable our democracy. This photo really does represent the best of America.
1) Respected pollsters Nate Silver and Harry Enten are predicting that the GOP has an increasingly strong chance of re-capturing Congress in the 2014 midterms. However, there are risks here for the GOP. As the pollsters note, if the GOP picks odd candidates (as occurred in 2012), prospective electoral victories may implode. At the same
time, even the very prospect of a GOP takeover carries problems. As more
intransigent Republicans realize that victory is possible, their
arrogance will likely grow. Believing that power shortly awaits,
they'll increasingly oppose bi-partisan compromise. I'll be writing on this issue for The Week.
2) Putin is getting bored of Snowden. Though I dislike the Russian leader, in this particular case, I understand his pain. Snowden is an insufferable ego-maniac (I think he sees himself as a modern day Jesus- suffering the persecution of the powerful in order to bring salvation to the masses). I find Putin's discomfort interesting. I suspect that Snowden is refusing to play ball with the Russian intelligence services. As a result, his presence in Moscow is little more than a political liability for the Kremlin. From their perspective, he offers nothing but an angry American Government. Snowden will probably end up in Venezuela - another bastion of effective government.
3) Burma has promised to release all political prisoners by the end of the year. Similarly, in Colombia, the FARC rebel force is finally bending to a peace process. From both states, this is very welcome news. The evolution of Burma from a brutal military regime into a graduated process of democratization is proceeding successfully. The rulers of this country have realized that detachment from the international community is a path to ruin. Comparatively, for FARC, the relentless pressure of the Colombian Government (primarily under former President Uribe) has been too much to bear. In short, they've been brought to their knees and then to the table. As outlined in Robert Kaplan's excellent book, Imperial Grunts, the United States (and especially the Bush Administration) deserves joined credit for this outcome.
4) The capture of Miguel Morales is a major milestone for the Mexican Government. The Zetas cartel are a particularly brutal organization. Hopefully this success will spur President Nieto to continue the work of his predecessor in confronting Mexican narco-terrorists. These gangsters are not resistance fighters or simple criminals, they're individuals who have no qualms about setting fire to casinos and in kidnapping, torturing and killing bus loads of civilians. They cannot be allowed to intimidate Mexico into submission. 5)Fmr. President George HW Bush was recognized at the White House yesterday. This decent man deserves the praise he received. He's a great American.
6) NASA just found out that Neptune has another Moon. It's tiny, but this latest news just provides yet more evidence to the case that I made last week - Space deserves our attention.
President Obama and former President George W Bush met in Africa earlier this week. Watching Bush's interview with CNN, it was obvious to see how comfortable he's finding retirement. Bush also renewed his commitment to avoid criticizing Obama (an approach he adopted towards the end of his Presidency). Nonetheless, I hope that Obama asked Bush for some advice. The President could take some hints from Bush's second term.
For a start, Obama
should entertain the merits of shaking up his cabinet. Bush's
appointment of Robert Gates at the Defense Department was a pivotal moment in his
administration. Right or wrong, Rumsfeld had become politically toxic by late 2006; a replacement was needed. Gates arrival re-energized the Department, renewed the necessary process of fiscal tightening and helped guide the US Military towards successful efforts in Iraq. It's obvious that a number of Obama's inner circle have become political
liabilities- Attorney General Holder being the most obvious example. But regardless of politics, a shake up could also deliver some much needed dynamism to an Administration widely perceived as suffering from policy stagnation.
Obama could also learn from Bush's leadership style. Bush's disregard for opinion poll data (something that he again mentioned in the CNN interview) is well known. But Bush was right - the job of a President isn't to pursue popularity, it's to make tough decisions. As Harry Truman put it, ''The Buck Stops Here''. Let's be clear, the American people aren't always right. Bush's Iraq surge (a decision that was vastly unpopular at the time) was a major success. Obama should be willing to make hard choices on issues of
critical national concern - addressing the debt etc. He should not be dissuaded by
polls/internal party politics. In politics, taking risks pays off - Bin Laden's death proved that. Reverting to partisan games would be a disaster.
Obama could also learn from some of Bush's mistakes. Because of the
controversy of Iraq and perceptions that his Administration didn't care
about Congressional input on defining issues - key Bush Administration policies - social security reform
for example, failed to gain traction. Noting this reality, Obama should seek personal relationships with Republicans. He should attempt to rise above the fray. His kind words (see below) about President Bush offered a good start.
The US-UK alliance brought down Nazism
and defeated imperial Japan. For nearly half a century, it guarded the frontiers of democracy against communist aggression. This was the relationship
that built the global economic expansion. But in failing to support British
sovereignty over the Falkland
Islands, President Obama is undercutting our greatest friend. And
understandably, the British are growing increasingly angry.
This isn’t a remote issue. It matters.
Like any friends, America and
Britain sometimes disagree. Sometimes strongly. We disagreed with Britain on Suez. Britain disagreed
with us on Vietnam. These occasional divergences continue to the present day.
The US-UK intelligence relationship is deep but imperfect.
Our extradition relationship is often frustrating. At the
cultural level, we share many similarities alongside many differences –
civilian gun ownership being one. And yet, our commonalities are overwhelming.
A reality reflected in Afghanistan today.
To be fair to the President, his
position towards the UK has been consistent if nothing else. First there was Churchill,
then came the DVDs,
next was the idiotic
insult from a Foreign Service officer. Then, while standing next to the
Queen, the President talked
through the British national anthem. Not exactly a stellar record.
But these errors are nothing compared to the President's position on the Falklands.
The Falklands, a set of Islands
in the South Atlantic have long
been a British overseas territory. Having failed to conquer the Islands
during the 1982 Falklands
War, Argentina, who claims the Islands as their own, now resorts to using
diplomatic pressure to drive the UK to the negotiating table. This is a
position contrary to international law and irreconcilable with freedom.Two weeks ago, the Falkland Islanders voted
by a 99% majority to remain
a British territory. Yet, in a pathetic acquiescence to Argentine pressure, the
Obama Administration has decided to ignore this self-determination.
And so, US policy is now at war with basic logic. Our position should be simple
– ‘we support the UK’; the UK is our closest ally and the right to
self-determination is our most sacred national belief. Instead however, our chosen policy is a
flaccid lump of dishonorable weakness.
Some argue that the President is
simply representing US interests. Far from betraying an ally they say, the
President is trying to re-build increasingly important relationships with Latin
America. This is a poor excuse. Our relationship with Latin America is
obviously crucial. But if we’re unwilling to stand up for our most central
values, then we’ll simply feed false but pervasive perceptions of an America
devoid of values. Like Britain, Latin America wants an America that’s an honest
friend. After all, that’s the only type of friend there is.
Again, let’s be clear. The
relationship between the US and UK is not symbiotic and nor should we expect it
to be. And yes, it’s true, too many Britons take a pathetic and intellectually
redundant pleasure in a casual
anti-Americanism. However, on essential issues of sovereignty, the UK deserves our unhesitating support.
In the end, this isn’t just about our
responsibility as an ally, it’s also about our identity as a nation. We either
stand for freedom or we don’t.
In my view, Jones's argument is weak; indicative of the author's poor understanding of international affairs and his embedded anti-american sentiment. Below, I have responded to the major arguments that Jones makes.
After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.
Cheney and Rumsfeld may be controversial characters (I often disagree with their positions), but I reject the notion that they are 'repulsive'. From their perspective, the US faced critical national security challenges that required robust policy responses. I respect that both men did what they thought was right for the United States. Jones seems to think that because Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed with his European leftist world view, they were beyond reproach. He is wrong.
Many will shudder remembering that dark era: the naked human pyramids accompanied by grinning US service personnel in Abu Ghraib; the orange-suited prisoners in Guantanamo, kneeling in submission at the feet of US soldiers; the murderous assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
I take issue with everything here. In response to the despicable abuses at Abu Ghraib, the US Military rightly punished those responsible. The actions of these personnel were an aberration from the fine conduct that the US armed forces exemplify 99% of the time. It is disgusting that Jones asserts that Abu Ghraib was a deliberate action on the part of the US Government.
On Guantanamo, the photo that Jones refers to was taken in January 2002, just after the first prisoners had arrived. The photo shows nothing more than the detainees sitting in a control position. However, for those on the hard-left like Jones, the photo serves a natural metaphor for their inherent disgust towards the notion of military justice. I always find it amusing that people like Jones have no concerns about the military justice system when it is used against military personnel, but get incredibly upset when it is used against terrorists.
Fallujah - Jones's most idiotic point. Jones evidently has absolutely no understanding of military operations in urban environments. They are always bloody, always destructive and always unpleasant. However, prior to its Fallujah operation, the US Military took great effort to evacuate the city of civilians. As a further indication of the US Military's desire to prevent civilian loss of life during the operation, only 10% of requested (pre-ground force entry) air strikes were authorized. Pre-November 2004, Fallujah was the primary base of operations for Al Qa'ida in Iraq. It was the place where car bombs were constructed to be used to murder innocent Iraqis, it was the city where hostages were held, tortured and executed. It was the physical and ideational home of those who wanted to destroy Iraq. It was where men like Janabi murdered Iraqi patriots who simply wanted to bring justice to their communities. Put simply, the US had no alternative but to take Fallujah. Had we not, thousands more Iraqis would have died at the hands of the insurgents and Iraq's stability and security (already endangered) would have been placed in much greater jeopardy. (See one example of Al Qa'ida in Iraq actions).
This week, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, demanded that the US allow independent investigation over its use of unmanned drones, or the UN would be forced to step in.
Good luck UN. The US is at war. We have the right to defend our citizens. I wonder if like me, Jones visualizes this when he writes that the UN will be 'forced to step in'. Note- I am simply arguing that the UN is an impotent joke that serves dictators rather than democracy. I am not endorsing feeding UN officials to sharks.
In one such attack [predator drone] in North Waziristan in 2009, several villagers died in an attempt to rescue victims of a previous strike.
It might be unpleasant, but the US must address those who threaten us. It would be militarily absurd to allow our enemies to be withdrawn from the battlefield, to then be able to plot against us once again.
According to Pakistan's US Ambassador, Sherry Rehman, the drone war "radicalises foot soldiers, tribes and entire villages in our region". After the latest strike this week, Pakistan's foreign ministry said the attacks were "a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are in contravention of international law". Its Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the drone war.
I have little doubt that the drone strikes help cause the radicalization of some Pakistanis. This is regrettable. However, in my opinion the US has no choice but to utilize the drones. Extremist groups in Pakistan pose a substantial threat to the security of the United States. Pakistan may complain, but Pakistan is in bed with these terrorists. Perhaps if the Pakistani government/military got tougher on extremists, Pakistan would have a logical argument with which to persuade the US to end the drone program.
It [drone program] is armed aggression by the Obama administration, pure and simple.
BS. It is self-defense justified by moral and strategic necessity.
Two months ago, former US President Jimmy Carter described drone attacks as a "widespread abuse of human rights" which "abets our enemies and alienates our friends". He's not wrong: the Pew Research Center found just 7 per cent of Pakistanis had a positive view of Obama, the same percentage as Bush had just before he left office.
You don't fight a war based on opinion polls.
[Re-Afghanistan]US involvement in a senseless, unwinnable war in the country – ruled by a weak, corrupt government that stole the 2009 presidential election with ballot stuffing, intimidation and fraud – continues.
Under Obama, the US role in the Middle East remains as cynically wedded to strategic self-interest as ever. Despotic tyrannies like Saudi Arabia are armed to the teeth: in 2010, the US signed an arms deal with the regime worth $60bn, the biggest in US history. Obama has resumed sales of military equipment to Bahrain's dictatorship as it brutally crushes protesters struggling for democracy. Last year, Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain with tacit US support. And even when the US-backed Mubarak dictatorship was on the ropes in Egypt, Obama's administration remained a cheerleader, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that the "Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people".
I actually broadly agree with Jones here. The US should have withdrawn support for Mubarak far earlier - he had become a despot beyond redemption. The US must also exert pressure on Saudi Arabia to improve human rights and democracy conditions. Unfortunately as I have previously argued, until we get rid of our oil addiction, America will remain on the Saudi leash. My concern with Jones is that he doesn't realize how hypocritical he is being when he criticizes US pro-democracy action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but simultaneously demands pro-democracy action everywhere else.
Coupled with the US's ongoing failure to pressure Israel into accepting a just peace with the Palestinians, no wonder there is rising global anger at Obama.
Peace will not come until the Israelis and Palestinians desire a lasting settlement. Jones plays the typical card of blaming Israel, even though the Israeli peace proposals in 2000 and 2008 - rejected by the Palestinian leadership - were bold and generous. I am hopeful that Netanyahu will be increasingly able to isolate extremists in his coalition who oppose peace. I also hope that HAMAS inability to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza will lead to their collapse (sadly I doubt HAMAS cares much for democratic tradition).
The US share of global economic output was nearly a quarter in 1991; today, it represents less than a fifth. The financial crash has accelerated the ongoing drain in US economic power to the East. Latin America, regarded as the US's backyard since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine claimed it for the US sphere of influence, is now dominated by governments demanding a break from the free-market Washington Consensus.
China will face major problems as it seeks to deal with a large population who lack freedom and economic mobility. With strong leadership, the US can retain its position as the world's foremost power. Jones comments on S/C America are hilarious. He neglects to mention that the major economic powerhouses of Brazil and Colombia have rejected the wacko Chavez aligned movements which are falling apart at the seams. I always find it staggering that the European left worship men like Chavez and Castro. Chavez has destroyed Venezuela's economy while supporting a band of murdering rapists in Colombia. Castro rules over a country in which only 5% of the population have cars and from which many Cubans risk crossing shark infested waters to escape the 'communist paradise'. For Jones to embrace these regimes is both morally foul and intellectually bankrupt.
the Iraq war not only undermined US military prestige and invincibility, it perversely boosted Iran's power in the Middle East.
The hard left love using this line, yet Maliki (albeit too autocratic) is by no means an Iranian stooge. The Iraqi people determine their own future now. Jones apparently mourns the 'safe hands' of Saddam Hussein.
With the last remaining superpower at its weakest since World War II, there is an unmissable opening to argue for a more equal and just world order, restricting the ability of Great Powers to throw their weight around. And a word of warning: if we don't seize this opportunity now, one superpower will simply be replaced by another – and our world will be as unequal and unjust as ever.
Since the end of the Second World War, America has preserved international security and freedom. This has come at significant expense in American treasure and at a high human cost to the American people. Without the US, the world would be at the mercy of violent extremists. The security of the seas (crucial for international trade) would be endangered and the ambitions of autocrats from Russia to China to Venezuela would be unleashed. I have no comprehension of what kind of world Jones wants. Presumably he is one of those leftists who subscribe to the incomprehensible notion that the UN can preserve international order. Just look at Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to see the UN's 'peace' record. Perhaps Jones wants the Chinese to assume the mantle of global power? Again, that might not be so good for those in Asia or those around the world who wish to be free.
In the end, I suspect that there is a deeper motivation behind Jones's words. For Jones as for so many on the hard left, America is an obstacle to their (false) socialist utopia. They wish for a system in which power is centralised with an elite who know what is best for everyone else. Conversely, America believes in and stands for a system via which individuals hold power and enrich society, through communities built upon tangible mutual interests and ideals.
America is far from perfect, but a strong America is necessary for the security and freedom of people everywhere.
Todd Akin needs to quit the Missouri Senate race. He is distracting attention away from Obama's failed economic record while also helping Democrats to frame the GOP as a party of extremists. I don't believe that Akin was malicious in what he said, just stupid. The deeper concern that I have about this issue is in the way that extreme views like those of Akin help negatively paint perceptions of the Republican Party. The fact that next week's GOP convention platform will call for a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion (without clarifying rights in cases of rape or incest), is an example of this fundamentalist encroachment on GOP policy. While Romney rightly opposes this position (as Bush opposed the 2004 call for banning civil unions for homosexuals), Republicans must be willing to speak up louder in opposition to religious extremism- a constituency that makes up a far smaller part of the GOP than most people understand. People like Tony Perkins are entitled to their views, but their views are clearly on the fringe of American social discourse and they should not be allowed to punch above their weight in GOP policy formulation. My fear is that if the GOP fails to adopt a more moderate tone on social issues, we will isolate a large swathe of the next generation of potential Republican voters. And of course, there is also the broader, more important issue of what our party stands for.
Today's terrorist attacks against the people of Iraq are a reminder that the fight for stability in that country is not over. The attacks also illustrate the degree to which the Islamist insurgency (who are responsible for these attacks) has always (at least in strategic terms) been divorced from the nationalist rooted insurgency (which sought the withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq). Much of the post-war violence in Iraq in the 2006- period onwards was due to the Islamist groups rather than Nationalist.
From my perspective, the current terrorist attacks are indicative of a resurgent Islamic State of Iraq (Sunni terrorist alliance). The group has a central two-fold focus- 1) To re-instigate a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia. 2) To use the ensuing chaos in order to form a Sunni caliphate in at least part of Iraq.
While Iraqi security forces have improved dramatically over the past few years, they still require extensive support in terms of logistics and intelligence. The United States must stand ready to provide this assistance where more is needed. We must also continue to pressure Iraqi Parliamentarians to find compromise with each other wherever possible. In addition, Prime Minister Maliki (Dawa) still retains far too much executive control over elite security units and too little interest in reconciliation with the Iraqiya block. The United States must work hard to address this problem.
I have written for the guardian a couple of times on Afghanistan (here and here) and on my blog more recently, so I don't want to repeat previous statements. However, I do want to point out this new article in the NYTimes. The article explains how, for President Obama, success in Afghanistan has always taken a distant second seat to the President's re-election considerations. It's a very sad state of affairs. The NATO summit in Chicago is going to be (like the G8) a big joke. Under Hollande (socialist concern for the oppressed being an obvious technicality), the French are abandoning Afghanistan. Under Obama, the US Military faces a timetable made up in Obama's campaign HQ, rather than one, as under GW Bush, developed the White House situation room.
In 2008, Obama stated that Afghanistan was the 'right war' that had to be won. In 2012, 'the right war' is now an obstruction in his electoral path. An abstraction to be rid of, whatever the cost.
The new Obama campaign ad claiming that Romney wouldn't have taken out Bin Laden is a complete joke. It would be pretty funny if it weren't so disappointing. It represents a damning indictment of a President willing to put politics before the national unity that could have been found (and held) from such a great moment for America.
Three other observations stand out to me.
1) Clinton's involvement in the ad is pretty stupid/stunning. This is the President who allowed Bin Laden to escape justice on a number of different occasions.
2) After Operation Neptune Spear, Obama claimed that the Bin Laden death was an opportunity to unify America. Like so many of his statements I took him at face value. Now we see Obama placing politics first. It is truly, truly sad. And truly hypocritical from the man who said he would change Washington for the better.
3) McCain or Romney would have taken out Bin Laden. Obviously.
4) Clinton's snide remark that 'one thing George Bush said that was right' is another example of the Obama Administration's disgusting attitude towards the former President. GW Bush has been an exemplary gentleman in all his interactions/conduct towards Obama. Shame the 'hope and change' candidate doesn't reciprocate.
Obama disappoints me a lot these days.
My attempted comment below the campaign video (Obama Campaign may screen it out) - This is so disappointing Mr. President. After the killing of the Al Qa'ida leader, you claimed hope that Bin Laden's death was an opportunity for unity in America.. and now you throw that sentiment 180' on its head. So much for the candidate who would change Washington for the better.
