General alert

Couldn't pass on the opportunity to comment on the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan) by US President Obama yesterday.

Obstinately, because of the candid and critical comments attributed to him and his aides in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article, The Runaway General.

While I haven't yet read the article, I'm still not convinced that his firing was appropriate or even necessary.

Yes, the war effort in particular and military policy is the purview of the civilian authorities; i.e. the "Commander-in-Chief " US President, his Cabinet and advisors. And, yes, McChrysal was impolitic in publicly airing his--and his aides--critical and negative opinions of the president and his extended civilian team of advisors. However, was it really a fire-able offense?

Was it more an issue of trying to change team leaders in the face of unsuccessful military campaign in Afghanistan? Punishment for not toeing the line vis-à-vis the Administration plans? Was it personal? Was it just an excellent opportunity for Obama to demonstrate he's really decisive and able to get angry (in response to the criticism about his handling of the BP oil spill)?

I don't see the situation in the same light as Harry S Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas McArthur (you think there's a bias/prejuice against the Mc people??). In that case, there was a clear refusal to carry out a Presidental order. Here's there's a question about the development of policy. Once issued, he pursued the order vigourously and in good faith.

It's becoming clearer that despite the 'primitive' nature of Afghanistan, it has defeated the two greatest modern military machines, the USSR in the 1980s and the USA in the 2000s. The counter-insurgency approach only works if you can get the support of the local/indigenous population. Currently, the US/NATO forces are views not as liberators but just another foreign occupying force. The political/social culture continues unabatedly. Unless, its essence is deciphered by the NATO forces quickly and soon, the war (assuming it's directed at Al Quada and its Taliban supporters) will be a complete failure.

So, I wish Gen. David Petraus the best of luck in his new assignment. One only hopes, he'll be able to convince his civilian supervisors how to adjust their war plans to better ensure victory or plan for a dignified withdrawal of forces. His legacy is at stake.

Obama dons a kaffiyeh

While I doubt Barack H Obama will actually wear a kaffiyeh during his visit to the Middle East; it's not becoming of the President and the picture will only serve as fodder for his critics, the trip offers him the opportunity to enhance America's role in the the region and articulate the new American vision/foreign policy. Words may help shape perceptions of reality, but it doesn't necessarily make it so (in real and measurable terms).

Two issues will come together for him: (i) the reemergence of "the American Interest" and (ii) reaching out to the Arab/Islamic world.

I have long felt that the driving force (ideal or goal) of the American Interest is 'economic penetration', the expansion of the American industrial complex. The Arab/Islamic world offers a large and generally untapped population. It's untapped for a variety of reasons including: (a) the Arab boycott of companies that trade with Israel as the nationalization of previously prosperous industries (viz the oil/petroleum companies in Arabia), (b) that many American products are either too sophisticated or expensive, and finally (c) the historically close diplomatic, military relationship between Israel and America.

Leading up to the trip, the Obama administration has become openly vocal in its criticism of Israel particularly with regard to its settlement policy. In addition to its call for a two state solution (two states--Palestine and Israel--side by side) it's called for a total freeze including "natural growth" of settlement growth as well as the dismantling of "illegal" settlements. Despite expressions for "secure and recognized borders", the latter has raised rankles within Israeli government and society in general. Many--including me--believe that there's a paradigm shift in American policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East in general. Israel is being offered on the altar for the sake of better relations with the Arab/Islamic world.

I remain skeptical about its prospects for real success.

Howard Feinman writing in Newsweek magazine writes about his trip in general and tomorrow's speech at Cairo University

Now comes the ultimate test of autobiographical speechmaking. Obama this week speaks at Cairo University, in the hub of Muslim-Arab culture. Perhaps the results will be Philly II: a skillful blend of grandeur and grit. On one level, he isn't risking much. After all, George W. Bush set the bar so low. All Obama has to do to be a success is elicit applause—rather than a fusillade of hurled shoes.

But he has privately told friends that his goal is far higher: nothing less than to help "reconcile Islam and modernity." He will pay homage to the Golden Age of that culture—its glorious achievements in mathematics, science, literature and diplomacy—and note that Muslim scholars rescued from oblivion the Greek and Roman (i.e., the "Western") canon. He also will draw on the by-now-familiar story of his own life. A Christian son of an African-Muslim father, he spent years in Muslim-majority Indonesia, attending a public school run by, but not suffused with, the teachings of Islam. All of this, Obama thinks, not only allows him, but obliges him, to play a grand role as bridge builder.

Yet as Fineman points out, Cairo isn't Philadelphia (where he sought to create distance between himself ans his (former) mentor and minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and Egypt isn't America. As he raises expectations and speaks of hope,

A bigger risk is that the incorrigibles in the neighborhood—the true terrorists—will see him as a naif and be emboldened by that thought. But the biggest danger for Obama is that he will become a prisoner of his own words, and the high expectations they create. The human-rights community expects him to reflect its concerns about political repression. Palestinians will want him to address the running sore of Gaza, at least. Announcing student exchanges or new development programs won't be enough. "I'm sure he'll give a fine speech," said John Esposito, an expert on Islam at Georgetown University. "The better it is, the more action people will expect. People are getting very tired of words."

Expectations aside, I'm also not sure that any outsider--someone outside the Arab &/or Islamic world--can (never mind will) bring the Arab world into the modern world. Beyond the anger the Arab/Islamic world has for the modern western world who they continue to believe subjects them to ongoing degeneration--Osama bin-Ladin is merely a recent and populist expression, it also exists among the Arab elites--, I believe that the political reality (read current political leadership) tends towards totalitarian governments--including Obama's Egyptian host Hosni Mubarak.

As Michael Crowley writes in The New Republic "Plank" blog from Cairo, the major concern of the (neutered) Muslim Brotherhood isn't so much Barack Obama as it is internal Egyptian affairs,

Habib [deputy chair of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood] explained his skepticism about Obama's speech here on Thursday. "If there is no radical change in American policies, I don't think it matters what he says," Habib told me through a translator. "I pity Obama because I know he is not on his own. He is surrounded by different forces--business conglomerates and the Zionist lobby." Nor did Habib care much for the prevailing debate in the US about how much emphasis to place on democracy promotion. "Understand that democracy in the Bush administration was not a goal itself but a curtain to hide the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan." When it comes to Egypt's internal affairs, all the Muslim Brothers ask, Habib said, was that the US end its support for Hosni Mubarak's regime. "We don't want anything from the U.S. but to back off from supporting existing dictatorships. That's it," he said.

So, despite all the hoopla surrounding Obama's tour, the only thing I expect to change in the Arab world is to have its anti-Israel feelings validated and Israel's support and security diminished. So instead of a win-win situation, it'll be a losing proposition for all who seek a safer and freer world.

The morning after...

It's now been a full day of US President Barack Obama.

The press has focused on three issues:

1. Evaluating his inaugural address (and the next day too) and the inauguration ceremony itself.
2. Evaluating his first day in office -- is he really up to the job?
3. How will it address the issues it must now confront, during its first hundred days and beyond. More broadly, what kind of presidency can be expected -- policies, image of the Presidency -- what kind of changes in government and American life?

1.

The speech was impressive in that it set out a path--mood setting--without really presenting any specific agenda items or plans. While it was in some ways a rebuke of the atmosphere of the last eight years (the George W Bush presidency), it was also an announcement that there's a (new) reality that America needs to confront, both domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, I didn't hear it live, but I did view it later and read it online.

Instead of commenting on the entire speech--you may read it for yourself--two sections deserve special comment.

(a) the popular call for a sense of personal responsibility that many others have commented upon:

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.

It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.

... What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

(b) Far more interesting for me was his comments about the role of government:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

I believe that no society can function without a supervisory body, a government, to maintain order and 'fairness' and to ensure the provision of common/community services. While I'm not sure without a government, it will be a "Hobbesian hell" where people are eating each other up, it does seem clear that society can't function efficiently without it. For better or worse, government is part of our lives. If that's indeed a given, then the question is how can it be structured to better ensure the greatest good? Bloated uncaring government bureaucracies are a drag. Insufficient oversight (complete laissez-faire) will also be a drag on functioning (as witnessed by the financial meltdown created by an ideological mindset of self-regulated financial sector under Bush).

People need to be held accountable for their behavior and actions. At the same time, they also need to know that things beyond their control, but necessary for their functioning will be taken care of. Leaving side the major responsibility for defending the country and maintaining social order, governments also need to protect their most vulnerable population(s) by providing them with the basic services to live a dignified life including health care, education, social services.

This will be of even more importance as America seeks to pull itself of the morass of its economic downturn ("depression"), as well as its international standing. Everyone will need to feel a sense of ownership and honestly pull their own weight. The automatic sense of unique or special entitlement must end, for everyone is responsible for righting the boat without regard for station.

2 & 3

He has certainly assembled an impressive supporting cast of cabinet members and advisers. Few are shrinking violets and when (if?) confirmed the meetings will probably be loud and boisterous affairs with everyone expressing their opinion. Will Obama be able to sift through the expected conflicting advice and distill the best policy/decision? No matter how experienced the supporting cast, Obama will still has a steep learning curve.

He needs to avoid making a "Bay of Pigs" incident--something planned in the previous administration and left over to the next to enact--which tripped up JFK and probably lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Unlike few before him, he has a large number of crisis balls in the air to juggle. FDR needed to address the economic situation--The Great Depression. JFK had a foreign policy issues around the Cold War (including Cuba, Vietnam). Obama needs to address foreign and domestic issues.

Eventually, the glow and "honeymoon" will end when the effects of the hard decisions sink in and the inertia of resisting changes reach a crescendo.

The morning after is just the first day of the presidency and the start of the journey. We'll see.

And the bush was consumed

Tonight is the last (full) day of the presidency of George W Bush, and in the bow to last week's parshat hashavua and the burning bush, this blog is dedicated to some thoughts on the change of government in the US (as well as taking a break from discussing the Gaza War).

With the inauguration of Barack Obama tomorrow, a new era will come to America and, hopefully, to the rest of the world.

It is as though divine intervention is involved this year in the changing of the American government. Today is Martin Luther King Jr Day (and also "National Community Service Day") and tomorrow is Inauguration Day. One day dedicated to the loss of a great American who dedicated his life to social justice and the betterment of all Americans, the next dedicated to the hope of seeing some of those dreams being put into action. The expectations of (and on) Barack Obama is enormous.

Before looking forward, it may be helpful to look back to establish a "baseline."

Many have commented on the Bush presidency like EJ Dionne "Bush's Biggest Mistake" (or "Why the Uniter Divided Us"), Dana Milbank and Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post. In The New York Times, Paul Krugman critiqued his economic policies, Mauren Dowd. Dan Froomkin's "The White House Watch" (a personal favorite) detailed the numerous foibles throughout his administration

For EJ Dionne Jr, the issue was

From the very beginning of his presidency, won courtesy of a divisive Supreme Court decision that abruptly ended his contest with Al Gore, Bush misunderstood the nature of his lease on power, the temper of the country and the proper role of partisanship in our political life. His win-at-all-costs strategy in Florida became a template for much of his presidency, reflected especially in the way the Justice Department was politicized.

Bush did not respect the obligation of a leader in a free society to forge a durable consensus. He was better at announcing policies than explaining them. He dismissed legitimate opposition and plausible doubts about the courses he wished to pursue. It is partly because of these failures that Americans reacted by selecting a successor with such a profoundly different political personality.

Eugene Robinson in turn opined:

Not to kick the president on his way out the door, but he was wrong when he told White House reporters at a wistful, nostalgic news conference yesterday that "there is no such thing as short-term history."

It's true that some presidencies look different after a few decades. But it's also true that presidential acts can have immediate consequences -- and that George W. Bush will leave office next week as a president whose eight years in office are widely seen as a nadir from which it will take years to recover. ...

Asked to identify the biggest mistake of his presidency, Bush gave a curious answer that had more to do with public relations than presidential decision making. He mentioned the "Mission Accomplished" banner that prematurely announced the end of major conflict in Iraq -- but not his decision to invade Iraq in the first place. He mentioned his failure to visit New Orleans at the height of the devastating, deadly flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina -- but not the decision to entrust the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the hapless and ineffective Michael Brown.In Bush's mind, the revelation of shocking prisoner abuse by U.S. military guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was "a huge disappointment" -- but he doesn't take any responsibility, as commander in chief, for the atmosphere of lax training and supervision that allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to happen. The failure by U.S. forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq qualifies only as "a significant disappointment" -- even though the administration's apocalyptic rhetoric about WMD was what sealed the deal for an invasion and occupation that never should have taken place.

Fareed Zakaria in "He Kept Us Safe, but..." writes:

"He kept us safe."

That has become the mantra to explain why George W. Bush -- contrary to the view of the American public, people abroad and historians -- is actually a great man. For Dick Cheney, unsurprisingly, Bush will rank "among the most decisive, determined and far-seeing leaders this nation has ever had." ...

At some level, it is not surprising that Bush's acolytes should focus on just this one issue. It is difficult to make the claim on other grounds, such as the economy, the traditional measure used by presidents. Bush inherited the most favorable economic fortunes of any president in two generations. In 2000, the Clinton administration presented the nation with a budget almost in balance -- a $17 billion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office was projecting $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the next 10 years. But within a year, most of those surpluses had been frittered away in an
extravagant set of tax cuts. At the end of eight years -- by common consent -- Bush is leaving the country in the worst economic and fiscal shape it has been in since the
1970s or the 1930s.

Under Bush, America has been put on a quasi-war footing, has spent billions on "homeland security," has massively complicated its immigration and visa system, has put friction into the gears of trade, has retreated from its open attitude toward foreigners, and has seen its Constitution circumvented. But Bush has kept us safe. I hope that when Barack Obama thinks about the challenges he faces -- the economy, health care, energy, Iraq and Afghanistan -- he does not obsessively focus on the metric of "keeping us safe."

Dan Froomkin in "The Bush Verdict is in" (WP January 13, 2009) summed up the Bush presidency by writing,

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11.

He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policy making process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

From a different perspective, see Maureen Dowd in "The Long, Lame Goodbye" (NYT January 17, 2009) who in offering a more psychological analysis in comparing the out-going Bush with the in-coming Obama wrote:

As Barack Obama got to town, one of the first things he did was seek the
counsel of past presidents, including George Bush senior.

As W. was leaving town, one of the last things he did was explain why he never sought the counsel of his father on issues that his father knew intimately, like Iraq and Saddam. ...

W. lives in the shadow of his father’s presence, while Obama lives in the shadow of his father’s absence. W.’s parlous presidency, spent trashing the Constitution, the economy and the environment, was bound up, and burdened by, the psychological traits of an asphyxiated and pampered son. The exiting and entering presidents are
opposite poles — one the parody of a monosyllabic Western gunslinger who disdains nuance, and one a complex, polysyllabic professor sort who will make a decision only after he has held it up to the light and examined it from all sides.

W. was immune to doubt and afraid of it. (His fear of doubt led to the cooking of war intelligence.) Obama is delighted by doubt.

Bush fancied himself the Decider; Obama fancies himself the Convener. Some worry that a President Obama will overdo it and turn the Situation Room into the Seminar Room. (He’s already showing a distressing lack of concern over whether his cherished eggheads bend the rules, like Tim Geithner’s not paying all his taxes, because, after all, they’re the Best and the Brightest, not ordinary folk.)

W., Cheney and Rummy loved making enemies, under the mistaken assumption that the more people hated America, the more the Bushies were standing up for principle. But is Obama neurotically reluctant to make enemies, and overly concerned with winning over those who have smacked him, from Hillary and Bill to conservative
columnists?

Whatever goodwill America generated in its history and immediately following 9/11 were lost and burned in the "bush fire" of the last eight years. For the Phoenix to rise again, the lessons of the Bush years must be identified, internalized and 'operationalized' in the running of the Obama White House.

Bob Woodward in last Sunday's (18 Jan 2009) Washington Post using his experience observing and writing about the Bush years, and believing that Presidents live in the unfinished business of their predecessors, presented the 10 lessons Obama needs to take away from the Bush experience if he hopes to correct "the errors" of the last administration.

1. Presidents set the tone. Don't be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.
2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even -- or especially -- when there are vehement disagreements.
3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts
behind his policies. (The president should not micromanage, but understanding the ramifications of his positions cannot be outsourced to anyone.)
4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure that bad news makes it to the
Oval Office, (including specifically asking their opinions and not assume or rely on second-hand information).
5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt. ...While Presidents and generals don't have to live on doubt. But they should learn to love it.
6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.
7. Presidents must tell the public the hard truth, even if that means delivering very bad news ... A president is strong when he is the voice of realism.
8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.
9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking. ... a willingness to pay a short-term price for the sort of long-term gains that go down in the history books ... [as a] President will probably be judged by the success of his long-range plans, not his daily crisis management.
10. The president should embrace transparency. (Some version of the behind-the-scenes story of what happened in his White House will always make it out to the public -- and everyone will be better off if that version is as accurate as possible.) ...
[To do so t]hey should run an internal, candid process of debate and discussion with key advisers that will make sense when it surfaces later. This sort of inside account will be told, at least in part, during the presidency. But the best obtainable version will emerge more slowly, over time, and become history.

Let's hope and pray that Obama takes the lessons to heart and the rest of world allows Obama to be himself and not the "Second Coming". A mere correction will also go a long way to setting the world straight.