Obama is running out of time

It's becoming apparent that the tendency to avoid commitment is catching up with Obama. It might be that he's a cautious and thoughtful man who waits until a consensus is built before moving boldly forward, or it might be that he's inexperienced and unsure of himself, therefore doesn't want to look foolish.

On the campaign trail he made some bold promises regarding transforming America, yet in office he's delaying on such issues as Gitmo and Iraq, equivocating on healthcare and Afghanistan and hasn't really said much at all about cap and trade lately. Perhaps he thought his presence and his speeches would inspire others to get these things done without his hands getting dirty, or without having to go on record as committing to specific plans which are clear and unequivocable.

Trying to play both sides of issues can work for awhile, but there comes a time when disagreements create standoffs and a president has to choose or look weak. In Afghanistan there's controversy over whether to increase troops and move toward an Iraq-style counterinsurgency surge or to limit the operation to killing the bad guys and simply preventing an attack on the US. Al-Qaeda may soon start attacking western targets to put pressure on the US to withdraw from Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda might also take advantage of this temporary confusion over strategy to target US troops and increase the American public's opposition to the war. 

The government of Afghanistan, if it can be called a government, is corrupt. From all indications, the government is simply a drug gang playing both sides for its advantage. There doesn't appear to be any widespread support among the Afghanistan people for any US strategy to re-build the nation, although I'm sure they'd prefer stability under some power other than the Taliban, but Iran would probably be favored over the US.

If Al-Qaeda can go into Pakistan and train terrorists and continue their campaign of terrorism, then I'm not sure what we are accomplishing. Unless we go full force into Pakistan, Al-Qaeda is simply moving operations from one location to another. Even if we did go into Pakistan with full force and chased them to another country, say, a country in Africa, then we would have to follow them to Africa, then from country to country, and then we're talking about an operation which is stretched over decades. I suppose you could argue that by continually disrupting Al-Qaeda, we are weakening their power and organization, but they will likely spread out in small cells and continuously be driven to improve their efficiency.

It appears terrorism is with us for awhile, and that the only long-term reduction in terrorism will come from states actively removing terrorist elements from within their borders, and for the supporting states to stop supporting the terrorist activities. But, right now, it doesn't seem realistic to think that continued involvement in Afghanistan is going to do much for US interests. Obama has only so much political capital to spend and it's doubtful he's going to spend it in Afghanistan, so he must make a decision, quickly. Indecision at this point can cost lives.

Obama's big prize is healthcare, and if he hoped to gain credibility on foreign policy issues as a way to improve confidence in his healthcare reform plan, then, so far he's failed to make that happen. Obama came off looking more indecisive, just one more bozo on the global bus. Obama's problem is that he misjudges which images are powerful and which are not. In Europe he might be a hero because his reticience to take charge is seen as a virtue, but that image has to play in America, and so far it looks like we're selling out to European values, when everyone knows that we have protected Europe for a long time, that European values have put them in a precarious position in a dangerous world. The fact that the US has been willing to spend its money and risk its citizens' lives so that Europe can provide expensive social programs for its people is little appreciated -- and not many realize the source of this help.

Capitalism and economic growth in the US have enabled the US to be a world protector and a generous source of aid, but that might be changing as we drift further and further toward European statism, and as capitalism is being destroyed one regulation at a time. We should never have set up this situation in which we find ourselves in a quandary with no easy exit. America's interference in foreign affairs has made us the global ATM machine and a target for terrorist groups who resent our power and interference.

If we had never left the path set by Harding and Coolidge, we would be a lot better off. Both Harding and Coolidge knew that the less government does, the better off we all are, and that the free market is preferable to social engineering at home and global engineering abroad, although they still allowed too much engineering globally regarding tarrifs and money manipulation.

It appears that Obama has at least chosen between the Harding/Coolidge philosophy and the FDR philosophy, although he hasn't acted on this choice. In a way, this might be a good thing, because at least he hasn't yet put the juggernaut to destruction in irreversible motion. There's still time to make other decisions, like releasing the free market to start the engines of economic growth, to begin withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to start turning Europe back over to Europe. He can also decide that government run healthcare will be a disaster and choose free market reforms instead. I won't be holding my breath. One thing is for sure, though, as president, and as one who has created high expectations of bold action, Obama is going to have to act -- the speech-strategy and image-making are over -- they haven't worked -- the consensus has been built, and I think it's stating, "Okay, Big Guy, now what?".

The Afghanistan bog

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL11764020090828?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews Why does the U.S. continue to get involved in situations like this where we wind up supporting someone who later proves to be unworthy of support. The pure political maneuvering in places like Afghanistan always cause us problems, and worsen our reputation overseas. There's no vertical or horizontal legitimacy for the state in Afghanistan. We have no business staying there -- there is no reasonable goal. Non-intervention is the only reasonable, ethical policy -- intervention always backfires, one way or another.

Afghanistan and Iraq

In an attempt to understand the neo-con position regarding the Middle East, I've read a lot of the neo-con writings, including Norman Podhoretz's book -- World War IV. Podhoretz makes some good points regarding the danger of terrorism, and the failure of the paleo-conservatives, isolationists, realists and liberal internationalists to come up with a better response to terrorism than Bush's two-prong attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, but only as his points relate to the resistance of the Bush Doctrine being an obsession to destroy Bush and put Israel in its place rather than an alternate solution to terrorism. His points justifying preemptive attacks and the goal to democratize the region are not very good points, but then I'm a crazy non-interventionist -- not an isolationist, though, because I think we should interact globally through free trade while maintaining a policy of defensivism against terrorism -- more about this at the end of the post.

It appears there's a lot of pressure now for the U.S. to return to liberal internationalism, yet, there isn't much movement going on to reverse what Bush started. The rhetoric coming from the Whitehouse is influenced by liberal internationalism, but the actions are a continuation of the Bush Doctrine. You could say that we've gone too far to turn back in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'm not sure this is correct -- we could pull out now and claim we've done everything we can, and that the region is now responsible for its own destiny, that this is as close to victory as you can get in this type of war with this type of enemy. I can't imagine anyone calling a pullout now a defeat, except the most ardent neo-cons who have been thoroughly discredited by the media and universities and liberal establishment as Podhoretz shows in his book. Obama won, so he can now establish his own doctrine as Commander-In-Chief.

The liberal internationalist rhetoric hasn't produced much support for a continuation of the two wars and the U.S. is practically going it alone, although I don't hear the cries of unilateralism, but that's another issue. The neo-con position is that a pull-out would encourage the terrorists to continue their war against the U.S., and would make Israel vulnerable, that it could be another Viet Nam-type disgrace, but I'm not sure this is the reality now -- perhaps a couple of years back it would have been. I don't really know how Obama is going to do anything different, though, than what Bush was doing. Oddly, there has been little indication of the long term plans regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent report I linked to above shows some support for an early pullout from Iraq, but the adminsitration might be worried that an early pullout could backfire -- isn't this the neo-con position? Plus, even if the administration pulled out early in Iraq, all indications are that it would do so in order to concentrate more effort on Afghanistan -- but to what purpose?

I don't know -- it seems to me that the image projected is one of liberal internationalism, but the actions are more neo-con. Obama might be trying to put his own style on the leadership, but the goal seems to be to democratize the region. It could be a more realist goal of stabilizing the region, but this remains to be seen -- one thing is for sure, liberal internationalism is not working so far. And, to be fair to Obama, I doubt he will use preemption as a strategy in other countries such as Iran or North Korea -- so, perhaps he's winding down the current situation, looking for an escape hatch, but it sure seems like he has grander plans for Afghanistan for some reason which are, so far, unrevealed.

In the spirit of my previous post - Private Voices in The New Media - I believe our continuing focus on politics and government is leading us astray, even in foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the whole war on terrorism -- and this is where I disgree with neo-cons and whatever we call Obama's doctrine when it materializes -- perhaps roll-back of regimes who don't follow our global vision. In Afghanistan, the enemy is becoming invisible. Around the world, small countries have options other than the U.S. -- China and India -- and it's becoming mainly economic options. As we waste our resources over-seas, being bled by invisible enemies who pin-prick us to financial collapse -- and as we pull in at home, centralizing and regulating and hamstringing business -- other countries are making economic advances and increasing their influence around the world, while despite the liberal international rhetoric, we're seen more and more as the dinosaur with a big stick. The big stick approach will not work in the global economy.

We've got to get down to the business of production, business and competition. Our problem is not terrorism, it's wasting our resources on fear of terrorism, and wasting our resources trying to be the leader of the world. Let the world take care of itself, we'll all join in competition and those who stay behind in superstitious ignorance will change or collapse. Yes, we have to defend ourselves against real threats, but we're smart enough to figure that out, or should be, without falling into the trap of our Middle East presence where the plan is to bleed and distract us to death, slowly. While we play this political game of American world leadership (control), China and India are moving forward economicially, and we're going backwards.

Afghan farm subsidies?

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/01/29/obama-and-the-afghan-narco-state/

If Obama decides to buy the opium from Afghan farmers, this would be preferable to wasting American lives and money trying to change this country. The real answer, though, is to pull out, quickly.

What a nightmare. Come home, America.

The second most important issue facing us regarding the future of our nation, the first being education, is the development of a non-intervention policy regarding foreign countries -- free trade, Yes! -- political and military intervention, No!