1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.
2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.
3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society.The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.
4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue.But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?
5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.
President Obama has just given his speech at the UN General Assembly.
I felt the President made a generally good speech. As an American, when any President speaks to the UN as our representative and leader, I always think it's important to listen with an open mind. That being said, I didn't think the speech was perfect.
First, the POSITIVES.
I liked the tribute to Chris Stevens - though perhaps unsurprising, it was important to pay tribute to Chris's sacrifice and the tremendous work that the men and women of the Department of State/AID do for America.
With caveats (see negatives below) I liked the way the President articulated the case for free speech. This was an especially strong line- 'True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.' Words that bearinteresting similarities with those of a former President...
I also like that the President specifically articulated the US legal foundation for free speech -'I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.' The President should have made this point a couple of weeks ago.
Again - Enjoyed this quote (a message that reflects my own point of view) - 'We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'
I thought the President was correct to note the fact that most victims of violent Islamist extremism are in fact Muslims - 'Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana'a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.' This is the great hypocrisy of groups like Al Qa'ida and the Taliban, their only root to power is intimidation and murder.
I liked the President's call for the international community'to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.' This use of hatred as a distraction from internal societal/governmental challenges, is a major obstacle to international peace, stability and individual empowerment.
I thought the President's condemnation of Assad was powerful - 'In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.'With this quote, as well as attacking Assad, Obama was clearly making an implied challenge to Islamic populations to consider the hypocrisy of their relative lack of concern for the moral crisis in Syria.
I liked the President's attack on the Iranian theocrats -'In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.' I haven't previously heard this President make such a strong rebuke of the repellent authoritarian ideology that guides Iran's rulers. Drawing international attention to the hypocrisy of Iran (and Hezbollah's) liberation narrative was also deeply important.
Finally, I liked the President's final line - '... so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.'Again, note the unmistakable comparisons of this narrative to that of President George W Bush. It is my personal opinion that the Arab Spring has transformed Obama from a realist into a confused realist idealist at least in narrative, in the model of Bush.
NEGATIVES
I did not like the President's reference to the 'Innocence of Muslims' as 'a crude and disgusting video'and his statement that 'its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.' I don't disagree that the video is crude and disgusting, but I do disagree with the President when he uses his office to condemn it and to demand its rejection. The US Government should not be making subject based prescriptions on the lawful speech of US citizens. An affirmation that the US Government had no role in the video's production would have been sufficient.
On Syria, the President did not (and does not) offer any substantive plans to speed up Assad's fall. His words on this issue were strong. But words will not liberate the Syrian people. Here's what I think we should do.
On Iran, the President's threat to '... do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon' was hesitant and at least to me, simply not convincing. This was a major failing on the part of the President. In order to bring Iran to a serious negotiating position, he must persuade Iran that America will ultimately be willing to use force. He hasn't.
Finally, on Afghanistan. The President's statement that 'America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014' was utterly absurd. For me, this was by far the worst moment of the speech. It perfectly illustrated the ad-hoc approach towards Afghanistan that has typified Obama's Presidency. Sadly, the President is ignoring the positive news and is giving up on our Afghanistan mission too early.
Conclusion - A generally good speech. But as I have pointed out above, I have major issues with the practical conception of this President's foreign policy.
The Taliban worship death. They believe in a totalitarian vision of society in which adherence to an immoral religious orthodoxy is central. We must stay the course in Afghanistan and defeat the insurgents. Counter to the standard consensus, securing a relatively peaceful, democratic Afghan future is possible.
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.
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 insurgent attack on Kabul was a failure. Very few civilians were killed and Afghan security forces responded quickly and robustly. The intention was obviously to replicate a strategic perception factor like that which followed the North Vietnamese attack on Saigon in 1968, IE- That the Afghan Govt. is vulnerable everywhere and that the Taliban/Haqqani Network hold all the cards.
This would be the wrong lesson to draw from the attack. Over the past couple of years the Taliban have suffered major setbacks across Afghanistan. They have lost many mid-high level commanders (via a ISAF strategy following in the footsteps McChrystal's AQI battle plan in Iraq), the group has lost substantial power bases in the South of the country (especially in Helmand and Kandahar province), they continue to alienate the majority of the Afghan population and Afghan security forces are growing in number, strength and credibility. Karzai's corruption continues to be an issue that requires diplomatic attention, but patient resolve is paying dividends in Afghanistan.
The decision by the Obama Administration to move US forces into an 'advise and assist' role in Afghanistan in 2013 is the right call. I strongly disagreed/disagree with the Administration's artificial 2015 deadline for the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan (and their idiotic decision to announce that deadline to the Taliban - unsurprisingly leading to Taliban elated morale and increased Pakistani support for the Taliban). However, under the current albeit flawed policy, to have any chance of success, Afghan security forces will have to be relatively self-sufficient by the time US forces depart. This will require forcing Afghan forces to embrace the hard learning curve of military operations. The thinking with this 2013 deadline therefore being, that in confronting the Taliban/other anti-government forces (and protecting civilian communities) with less American support, Afghan forces will face the necessity for better command leadership, more nuanced strategy and a better, integrated force structure. I.E - different units fighting together under better leaders and in pursuit of the clear strategic objective to secure and hold civilian areas. If the US were to leave Afghanistan in 2015 without functioning Afghan security forces, the Taliban would be able to rapidly re-consolidate their position in the South and East of the country. Short of changing the withdrawal date (which as I have said we should), the US had no choice in making this latest decision.
The history and tradition of the US Marines/US Military is built upon core values of honour and integrity. These ideals are inculcated into every new Marine. Any action that departs from these values dishonours the fine service of those others who serve/have served. While the pressures deployed forces often face are extraordinary (and should be taken into account in the application of UCMJ proceedings), we are right to expect the highest standards of conduct from our military personnel.
In contrast to the argument of some that America's reverence for our armed forces is the product of an illogical, amorphous jingoism, in fact, this reverence is built upon the proper belief that our military reflects the best values of our country. Courage, compassion and sense of honour that are bounded to democratic authority.
Ultimately, for America's military to be successful it must have the moral credibility to win the support of the populations with whom it interacts. At an institutional level, the Taliban are a trulyfoul organisation dedicated to a totalitarian ideology. The distinction between them and the US Military could not be more profound. In this regard, to protect the integrity of America's current and future military operations and the integrity of the Marine Corps as an institution, this investigation is warranted and appropriate.
The ongoing night raids by US special forces in Afghanistan are necessary, proportionate and effective. They allow a clinical (albeit not perfect) application of force against identified individuals. Individuals who are playing critical roles in supporting the insurgency; constructing IEDs, organising local Taliban groups and facilitating flows of support from Pakistan and elsewhere into the country. Stopping these raids would allow the Taliban and their allies to consolidate power again and would risk undoing the substantial coalition success that has been achieved over the last year. Hopefully the US can find some measure of compromise with the Karzai government. Perhaps offering to partner more Afghan forces with US forces on these missions.
I want to focus on just one issue today: The reality of evil in the world and the need to confront this evil.
In Norway, one gunman launched a killing spree against children and attempted to murder as many people as possible by bombing central Oslo. In Afghanistan, the Taliban executed an eight year old boy because his father refused to collaborate with them.
These acts are evil. If they are not evil, then evil has no meaning.
While we should never allow emotion to dictate policy or our reaction to these atrocities, we must be resolute in our responses. This means that where we face groups and individuals who are focused on committing such terrible abuses against us, we have a responsibility to stop them. We must persuade reconcilable elements to join a meaningful peace process (as for example occurred in Iraq and N Ireland) and we must capture or destroy those who are irreconcilable to a just peace. To do otherwise is to allow evil to triumph.
6) The Space Shuttle program has been a great success for the United States. It is profoundly disappointing that the President has essentially cancelled our efforts in Space. I find this especially staggering in the context of the President's oft stated desire for a new more globally competitive, educated population. What is more encouraging for students to learn math and physics than the space program? Put simply - the space program made these subjects cool. Obama probably thinks his words are sufficient. Hopefully a future President will right this wrong decision.
1) Petraeus has done a typically great job in Afghanistan. The strategy there is working and requires patient resolve. John Allen is an impressive officer who can ensure that this success continues.
2) The Met Police Commissioner (Head of Scotand Yard) was right to resign. I think Cressida Dick would be the best choice replacement.
4) Israel - Hizballah - Iran is heating up even more. Especially interesting in the context of Ahmadinejad's friction with the theocratic elite.
5) Manchester City appear to have got a good deal for Tevez.
6) This video reflects the terrible struggle underway in Mexico. Only resolve against the drug gangs can end the violence. These police officers gave their lives to try and save their country. Mexico reminds of me of how Columbia was in the 80s-early 90s.. in that country resolve and strong leadership has brought lasting peace. FARC, once thought invincible, now spend most of their time running around in the jungle trying to avoid Columbian special forces.
1) Netanyahu played Obama yesterday. The President of the United States should never allow a foreign leader to lecture him in public without retort. Especially in the Oval Office. Regardless of the content, it makes the country like a limp dick.
2) Obama should tell Netanyahu the 67 borders with associated swaps are the way it will go down. If not in their administrations then certainly in future ones. David 2000 will provide the basic foundation for peace - Netanyahu claiming the 67 (with associated swaps) borders are not defensible is a bunch of bull. The US can (and does) guarantee Israeli security.
3) This is interesting - I would say that body art has to be distinguished against a standard copyright entity -where the art is peripheral to the central object (the body) of the profit scheme, ie.. a model shoot or whatever. Otherwise the art takes precedence over the human being. If that is the case then anyone with a tattoo would have to seek consent to appear in the public eye. In this case, if it does not apply against Tyson then it cannot apply against Ed Helms character.
4) This is a national embarrassment. We owe at least a basic level of protection to those we incarcerate. Reckless endangerment should not be an accepted reality in prison policing. Though I don't think the US should be held to the standards of UK prisons (where prisoners can sue for being attacked by other prisoners).
5) The Taliban continue to build their historical portfolio of atrocities.
6) Haha you can't control the twitter! If I was living in the US full time I would post the name of the footballer. However, seeing as I have a law degree to complete in the UK.. I will have to suffice by directing interested persons to search query 'footballer imogen thomas' on twitter.
8) Tomorrow Ian Holloway's Blackpool will play Manchester United on the English Premier League's final day. If Blackpool win then they will probably stay up. I really hope they do. Holloway is a great manager and a great guy.
