Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

The Energy of American influence in the 21st century

More than anything else, it was the influence of American manufacturing that won the 20th century.

Its revolutionary scale provided the planes, ships and tanks that helped America, Britain, Russia and the allies to destroy Nazism and end Imperial Japan.

Facing the Soviet Union, American manufacturing offered global citizens an informed choice between the rot of communist authoritarianism and the opportunity of capitalist democracy.

It delivered the industries and machines and jobs that brought new prosperity to billions across the planet.

But that was then.

Today, there’s an urgent need for a new revolution of American industry – one that’s fit for the 21st century - an energy revolution. That which can provide the foundation of America’s future prosperity and the new shield of democratic international order.

And let’s be clear, this is no pie in the sky delusion.

American innovators have already marked out the road ahead of us.

In the Shale surge, the tapping of new reserves and the development of better supply lines, America’s energy future has never looked brighter. From the Bakken of North Dakota to Midland, Texas; we’re finding that where investment goes in, broadly shared wealth come out. After all, these boom-#towns offer $80,000 paychecks as the norm (*although social problems have also emerged).

For many reasons, we desperately need to energize this budding opportunity.

Empowered, our energy revolution would enable America’s escape from the OPEC dual-prison of Middle Eastern theocracies and Venezuela’s necrocracy. Finally, our foreign policy would see liberation from an addiction to cheap energy imports.

And at home, with dynamic and diversified energy production we’d see lower costs for individuals and businesses alike. We’d be able to expand our trade in the global economy - barriers to entry would diminish and our commerce would increase.

More relevant to present circumstances, as I’ve noted before, an empowered American energy industry would also afford Europe an alternative to Gazprom blackmail. And as Russia pursues new exports to Asia, our energy exports would undercut Putin’s strategy across the world – we could offer energy supplies at better prices and without the baggage of threats.

These ambitions are undoubtedly profound. Still, like a torch in the darkness, they offer the intersection for America’s moral and strategic imperatives.

Unfortunately however, while the bounty sits in clear view, our willingness to grasp the evident potential is far less certain.

The absurdity of President Obama’s Keystone XL standpoint provides the obvious case in point.

But it’s only a symptom of a larger dysfunction.

Instead of expedited export licenses, all too often we’re getting vague undertakings and obvious disinterest. Absent approval for new exploration, we’re getting partisan posturing. Somehow, just as the President always finds a way to fast track new energy regulations, he never manages to miss an opportunity to unleash America’s bubbling abundance. Unbelievably, the President seems to preference left wing lobby groups before national security necessities.


We can only hope that the President awakes from his slumber.


Thursday, March 13, 2014

Obama threatens Putin...

President Obama has just warned of a ''cost'' if Russia doesn't back down on Ukraine. 

Hmmm...

Not many people are listening. Here's why.

What we're seeing in Ukraine and around the world is a testament to international relations - that power must be practiced in order to be real. Instead, the President's foreign policy is rapidly descending into an absolute shambles. Devoid of perceivable strength and absent any notion of consistent grand strategy, the White House is spinning in the wind. It's a tragedy.

And a celebration for our adversaries.

Let's be clear. America would have been far better off with Mitt Romney as Commander in Chief. On that note... I'm sick of hearing the President's defenders crow about Neptune Spear. As if that one incident (achieved by CIA*/JSOC) somehow defines this White House as an institution of national security omnipotence. The ultimate reality is that Obama took months to authorize the Bin Laden raid - waiting and waiting. The President thinks he can make the tough calls, but it's increasingly obvious that he can't.

* - An organization that Democrats now seem happy to throw down the river (please see my latest @NRO).

Related thoughts in blog bio.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Ukraine and the Tombstone of the Reset

What's happening in Ukraine represents the tombstone for President Obama's reset. As I've argued before, (here and here) the Russian Government has successfully manipulated US foreign policy over the past five years. Cognizant of the President's international trepidation (an issue I've also written on here), Putin has advanced Russian strategic interests at the cost of both American prestige and influence. As I see it, the Russian surge into Crimea has two specific purposes - to deter western intervention and support for the new Ukrainian Government and to ensure that Russia's access to its Black Sea naval bases is sustained.

Still, this is about more than power politics. In part understandably (considering the ethnic make up of Crimea), Russia is deeply concerned by the prospect of appearing to abandon its key supporters. Russia wants to ensure that their opinion is represented by the new government.

Again, it's absolutely crucial to note that Russian foreign policy is always focused on local domination in service to the central authority of the Kremlin.

But of course, this is also about Putin's willingness to use military force in order to achieve his political objectives (see the video below from 13.58). Putin wagers that the US and the EU lack the constitution to restrain his intimidation. He may be right. In the days ahead, it is critical that President Obama show Putin that there are limits to Russia's power. In essence, the American President must restore Russia's faith in American power.


Monday, December 9, 2013

Analysis - Latest developments with Hizballah, Iraq and Ukraine

1) The Lebanese Hizballah appears to have lost another leader. Whoever was responsible for Lakkis's death last week, it's obvious that hostile pressure on the group is growing. With Hizballah now fully invested in Assad's survival, sectarian reactions to that strategy are also growing in intensity - hence the less of three senior leaders in as many weeks. In basic terms, Hizballah's political adversaries are taking advantage from the group's associated guilt for incidents like this one. As I've written before, Hizballah is suffering from an identity crisis of serious proportions. Devoid of a cross-sectarian base of sympathy, the organization's carefully constructed 'anti-oppression' narrative is being rendered for the lie that it is. Whatever happens with Assad, in Lebanon and beyond, Hizballah's strategic choices will leave them increasingly vulnerable. For a few of my related thoughts on Hizballah, please click (point five here), here and here.

2) ISIL continues to wreck havoc upon Iraq. In the absence of US Intelligence capabilities (please see my BBC debate on the NSA - takes a minute to load!) and amidst continuing political discord (please see my thoughts here), ISIL and its affiliates are once again endangering Iraq's stability. As the ISW's Jessica Lewis notes, ISIL has embraced a highly effective strategy of impatient resurgence. Again, it's important that we note the targeting methodology that ISIL embraces. As with their Salafi violent-extremist counterparts around the world, they are members of a death worshiping cult. Recognizing this truth, we should still be astute to the political grievances that allow groups like ISIL to prosper. Nevertheless, we must also grapple with the reality of a movement that sees cafes, markets, malls, roads and playgrounds as military targets.

3) The protests in Ukraine continue to grow. President Yanukovych has a problem. At a basic level, he has wagered against a long brewing discontent. Outraged by endemic corruption and Yanukovych's subservience to Putin's bullying/influence, many Ukrainians believe they're in a struggle for the very future of Ukraine. Quite understandably, these citizens have little interest in a future that abandons them to the ignominy of existence as a buffer state for Putin's Russia. While it's true that Ukraine is far from unified in its support for a pro-west future, younger Ukrainians are firmly ensconced with the pro-EU/US crowd. The trend lines are clear. Still, there are US policies that could help catalyze this process. Recognizing Ukraine's deep vulnerability to Russian energy blackmail, the US should urgently begin to provide an alternate source of energy to Eastern European states. By loosening regulations on US companies, exports of US Liquefied Natural Gas exports could begin in earnest. That alternate supply portfolio would enable Ukrainians to break free from their present headlock-like relationship with Russia. For some of my thoughts on Putin, please click here and here.

Other related writings can be found here.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Syria/UN: Resolution Without Resolve

''.... but the text will not threaten the use of force for a failure to comply, officials said.''

''The final draft also does not ascribe specific blame for the Aug. 21 attack that asphyxiated hundreds of Syrians.''

This ludicrous Security Council resolution is a waste of paper- it's logically and ecologically unsound.

This is the international relations equivalent of a situation in which, after murdering an entire family, the killer is caught red handed. Then however, instead of punishing the culprit - in this case a gangbanger, the Judge simply makes him promise never to repeat his crime. 
           The Judge issues a concluding warning to the murderer- should he re-offend, the convict's co-conspirator will decide an appropriate punishment. In making his ruling, the Judge proudly claims that he has served justice, whilst simultaneously also deterring the gangster's compatriots.

As I said, this resolution is ludicrous; it belongs in the UN restroom.

This is our acquiescence in the face of slaughter. President Obama might have preserved the pretense of his credibility (and even then, only in Europe), but this deal will cost America dearly. Russia has consolidated an already obvious global victory. The rules of international order have been trashed. Peace will pay the price.

I see four direct consequences.

1) Assad will view our weakness as an explicit approval to ignore his responsibilities under the UN disarmament framework.

2) Russia will be unleashed to further dominate the conduct (retrogression?) of international affairs. Putin is laughing.

3) North Korea will be emboldened to up their nuclear ante.

4) Iran will be encouraged to re-double their support for Assad and renew their long cultivated game of false, time-buying nuclear negotiations.

On this last point, please see my post from yesterday concerning the three diplomatic delusions of the Obama Administration in their interactions with Iran.

My other related writings.


Thursday, September 12, 2013

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The American Retreat

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.


George Washington once said that ''to be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.''

President Obama evidently believes otherwise.

Under this Commander in Chief, American foreign policy is adrift. The currents of others now control our course. The mafia regime of President Putin has become the arbiter of a corrupted international justice.

Children die while the world spins.

Watching his speech last night, it was clear that President Obama regards his strategy as the modern partner to Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic mantra- ''Speak softly, and carry a big stick.''

Sadly however, if the stick is made of Jell-O, the metaphorical carrot is also rotten. 

Obama's diplomacy is negotiation without an anchor and the threat of force without a threat. It isn't real, it's just delusional. In fact, it's absurd.

Now, in a looming conference in Geneva, we await the 21st century successor to Munich. A hopeless endeavor in pursuit of an impossible cause. A pretense of peace in service of brutality.

I say pretense, because the cause of peace is only rational when it's real. Devoid of rationality; without the prospect of beneficial realization, peace is injustice cloaked in false morality. Towards Assad, it's a rhetorical abstraction purchased with suffocating children.

Yes, the President might have been passionate in arguing why our intervention is important - how, as he put it, ''Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria.'' But as much as this sounds credible in America, our domestic perception is ultimately irrelevant. In the end, what matters is what our adversaries think. And what our friends think

They think we're weak. No longer can America be trusted.

This is a strategic disaster of epic proportions - a collapse of resolve and influence not seen since SaigonA superpower humbled, uncertain and fearful. Global adversaries emboldened and unconstrained. A peace process full of holes. This is the change Obama has wrought. Its bitter taste will linger for a long, long time.

Twelve years ago today, facing our own Ghouta, President Bush framed the horror with an enduring call to American purpose.

''None of us will ever forget this day,'' he said, ''yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.''

Today, twelve years on, the retreat has sounded.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Syria WMD deal? The ultimate political Ponzi scheme

The prospective WMD deal with Assad is the ultimate political hustle. On paper, everybody wins!

President Obama gets to pretend that he hasn't backed down. The President will claim that his decision to go to Congress precipitated these 'fortunate' developments. He'll argue that by moving away from the use of force, the US is serving a just peace (nothing could be further from the truth).

Putin gets to ingratiate himself with an already supplicant and now personally grateful American President (Putin has released Obama from his self-imprisonment in the authorization abyss). At the same time, Putin consolidates Assad's position. In short, he's lost nothing whilst gaining a huge political and strategic bounty. It's genius.

Assad gets to escape the military consequences that should have followed his gassing  of innocent civilians. The dictator's only sacrifice? Agreeing to a vague, unenforceable inspections regime... at a future point. Again, it's a stunning pivot.

Iran's victory is obvious. Quite simply, they've called America's cards and found us bluffing. Paying heed to Iranian security strategy, over the long term, this deal will (if it goes forward) propagate a security nightmare.

If President Obama agrees to this absurdity, he won't simply be kicking the deterrence can down the road... he'll be kicking it straight off a cliff. Right into the hands of the world's most dangerous actors. It could hardly be worse. At least if Congress had turned him down, the President could have claimed a pretense of democratic authority for his inaction. However, if he signs up to this deal, the Commander in Chief will have allowed America's enemies to score an explicit victory over the United States. At a basic level, think about the message that this deal will send to Iran, North Korea etc... 'Use WMDs and win a peace deal.' From a US security viewpoint, we're embracing strategic insanity.

Related thoughts.



Tuesday, September 3, 2013

5 latest thoughts - US debate over Syria

1) White House Waltz
On Monday, Senators Graham and McCain visited with President Obama at the White House. The reason for the meeting was pretty simple. The President knows that he needs Republican support to push his authorization of force 'strategy' through Congress. Yet, McCain's presence indicates something else - the President's desperation. President Obama knows that in making pledges (or even being perceived to make pledges) to McCain/Graham over a willingness to use major military force against Assad, he risks alienating other members of Congress (on both sides) who are deeply skeptical about a major strike. By inviting McCain/Graham, it's only possible to draw one conclusion - that the President has judged that he will not win authorization without the influence of more interventionist minded conservatives. 

I'm cognizant that this strategy might be a political necessity (McCain's influence is substantial). Nevertheless, it provides a profound example of the contradiction that infects this Administration's political management of the present crisis. They establish a 'red line' and then pretend it's pink. They claim that the President has authority to use force without Congress, but simultaneously, they insinuate that he doesn't. They suggest that the strikes will be ''limited and narrow'', but simultaneously, they tell others that the military action will be serious and comprehensive. 

           Whether you believe that America needs to make a more substantial intervention in Syria, or whether you believe that such a course would constitute a grievous mistake, it's evident to all that the Administration's position is devoid of clarity.

2) Obama Administration's Politicization of Leaks
The front page of the New York Times (at least online!) leads with an article on Syria. More specifically, it also offers this inadvertent gem of a quote - 

''Officials said that... Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.'' 

I'm sorry, but if the second paragraph of the lead story of the world's most prestigious newspaper prints something... it ain't covert. To me, this latest leak represents a broader failing on the part of the Administration - when it comes to leaks, they apply two sets of rules - one for military/civil servant leakers, another for themselves. In light of the President's recent rhetoric on the need for a legislative balance to the Executive, this leaking also represents an act of exceptional hypocrisy. The Administration is treating solemn state secrets as political footballs. Except... they're playing the role of both player and referee.

3) Putin's intransigence
The Russian Government is continuing to spout their spiel about how the US is lying etc. etc. To be honest, I don't really listen to the Putin-posse anymore. President Putin seems to have taken the worst elements of Russian history - the arrogance of the Romanovs, the paranoid authoritarianism of Stalin and the cartoonish corruption of Yeltsin... mixed them together and incorporated himself in their essence. He clearly has zero interest in serious dialogue with the United States. Until he does, President Obama should just ignore him. I mean that. The 'reset' has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.

4) Hagel, Kerry and Dempsey - Hill Testimony
The President's greatest assets are off to the Hill. Their job? To persuade a highly hesitant Congress to support military action against Assad. At least on Syria, this is the Obama A-team. Kerry has been the face of American resolve since Assad's massacre and Hagel has lead the US capability-orientation for a possible strike. But most important, when it comes to Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), as I've argued before, the President has a military leader of the highest order. Incidentally, Dempsey also has another talent...

5) Foreign Reactions
As I argued in my Week column on Sunday, when it comes to America's evolving policy towards Assad, international actors are paying very close attention to DC politics. In this vein, it's unsurprising that we're seeing the following two noticeable developments:
  • Growing concern and doubt on the part of US allies in the region.
  • The Lebanese Hizballah mobilizing their defensive/offensive capabilities.
Finally, if this report (that the Administration is planning to reach out to Iran) is true, it would speak to a seriously delusional endeavor. Since 2003, the Iranian negotiating strategy has proved one thing above all else - whether Ahmadinejad or Rouhani, America cannot negotiate with Iran from a position of weakness.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

GOP prospects in Midterms, Putin bored with Snowden, Peace in Burma and Colombia, Fmr. President HW Bush, Neptune's new Moon

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.


 

Monday, July 15, 2013

Israel pressures Obama on Iran, UK welfare state, Zimmerman trial

1) Israel is pressuring the Obama Administration to act against Iran. Following his September 2012 red line speech at the UN, Netanyahu is upping the ante once again. The Israelis are anxious for the United States to either enact tougher sanctions against the Iranians, or to more directly imply a willingness to use force. I've argued many times why I believe that Netanyahu (especially) and Israel more generally will eventually use force against Iranian nuclear facilities. For me, the key factor is this: from the Israeli perspective, while the risks of such a military operation are manageable, the consequences of inaction are not. And... unlike US caveats, Israeli red lines mean something. Further heightening the probability of Israeli action is the ongoing situation in Syria. By their undaunted support for Assad, the Lebanese Hizballah and Iran are signalling their desire to dominate the strategic evolution of the Middle East. Which leads us to point 2!

2) The Israelis have attacked a suspected Russian arms transport in Syria. Though no Russians appear to have been killed, this is serious news. The Israeli attack illustrates both Israel's overt tactical intent - to deny Assad access to high technology assets and Israel's broader strategic intent - to send a message to the Russian government (and in different ways, Iran/the US). Anyway, I salute the Israelis for their political courage in face of Russian intimidation- we in the US could learn something here.

3) The British Government has taken a small but significant step to reduce the pernicious consequences of the UK's welfare state. By imposing a cap on individual welfare eligibility, the UK may begin to see a gradual reduction in its massive state outlays. However, as a number of Conservative MP's are pointing out, much more can be done. See my thoughts on the welfare state here.

4) The Zimmerman trial has come to an end. As I argued for The Week, the news coverage was unnecessarily incessant and symptomatic of a broader problem in American society. Regardless, I do not believe that Zimmerman's guilt was established beyond all reasonable doubt - the Jury decision was correct. 
            However, I have great sympathy for Trayvon Martin's family- they are honoring their son by their highly dignified reaction to the trial outcome. Many others have reacted less impressively.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

IDF 5 year reforms, Belfast rioting, Syria rebel hostilities, Moyes first game

1) The Israeli Military has announced plans to update their force posture over the next five years. The major elements of these proposals include a reduction in the IDF officer corps and a greater focus on highly mobile weapon platforms like the Spike NLOS. At the forefront of these developments is a focus on potential future conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah. Recognizing the relative immobility of Israeli forces during the 2006 Lebanon war, the IDF wants to ensure that this hindrance is reduced before another outbreak of violence. Israel understands that in order to defeat enemies like Hamas/Hezbollah - which rely upon small skirmishing groups of highly mobile rocket teams etc. the IDF must be able to employ its own weapon systems that allow for the timely engagement of their adversaries. Cognizant of the sensitivities with which Israeli military operations are viewed internationally, the Israelis also know that they need weapons that are highly discriminate - IE - mechanisms that minimize the likelihood of civilian casualties. In another sense, the IDF also seems to be building front line deployments around their most aggressive, operationally experienced units. That makes sense - the IDF recognizes the vulnerabilities of relying upon fresh forces in critical operations.
                However, on a more negative note, it appears that the IDF will cut spending on training operations. That's a risky proposition - dependency on technological assets cannot offset the loss of basic competencies. As a broader observation, I find it pretty staggering that the Israelis are willing to cut defense spending amidst ongoing regional instability.

2) Serious rioting broke out in Belfast, Northern Ireland on Friday. The problems arose when British loyalist marchers were prevented from walking through an Irish nationalist area of the city. This behavior is pathetic. As evidenced in footage of the scuffles, many of the aggressors were young men - probably drunk. They wanted an excuse for violence. It's deeply disappointing that occasional outbreaks of disorder like this one still occur in Northern Ireland. Though the situation is far more peaceful than it once was, sectarian hatred nevertheless remains a real problem. In a less serious but similarly interesting vein, it's worth checking out today's NY Times story on the challenges that top golfer, Rory McIlroy is forced to navigate in his home country.

3) Tensions between Syria's various rebel forces have reached a boiling point. Many will argue that these hostilities necessitate greater US detachment from the conflict. On the contrary, I believe the opposite is true. At one point or another, the US was going to have to face up to the Salafist extremist threat inside Syria. As I've argued before, the US must use all of our influence to support the nationalist minded elements of the rebellion. Such a course (though admittedly risky) would allow us to support those forces who would be best placed to replace Assad with a semi-stable, pro-western government. Disengagement is not an option. Supported by the Putin mafia and supplemented by forces from Iran and Hizballah, Assad's regime has turned the tide of the conflict. We must alter this strategic equation.

4) David Moyes has lost his first game in charge of Manchester United. It's a shame, but this game was largely irrelevant. I'm confident that Moyes will be a highly successful manager for Britain's biggest club. Regardless, I'm very much looking forward to the start of the Premier League season in a month's time. With Pellegrini at Manchester City, Mourinho back at Chelsea and Fulham under ownership of a major investor, this should be an exciting year of soccer. The battle for the top four spots will be fierce; from my perspective, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Tottenham (and of course Everton!) all have a good opportunity to reach the Champions League.





Sunday, January 6, 2013

Pakistan-India, Hagel for SecDef, Assad speech, China threats, UK in EU, Debt Limit

1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must

2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).

3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.

4) China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note. China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.

5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.

6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)