US Election Prediction

Time's up for Romney and his pack of racsist, knuckle dragging mouth breathers and his wealthy financiers.  I give Virginia and Florida to the racists but not Ohio, despite an Attorney General who believes in voter suppression.

EV - Obama between 290 and 303. 

Peace Prize, US and Iran

In reading President Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I was struck by certain sections which are indicators of what may come. Here are the 'graphs:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

...I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms....

If I were making a bet, then this part of the speech means that if Iran keeps thumbing its nose at the international community, refuses the proposals of Russia, Turkey and others, then the US is going to act militarily. I make no judgement of whether this is smart or not, but even Moscow seems to be frustrated. Iran's leadership need to pay attention.

Short Answers to Dumb Questions

Speaking to President Obama's speech in Oslo accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Rude Pundit had these questions:

"To put it simply, Barack Obama wasn't talking to you. He wasn't even talking to Europe, really. No, he was speaking to history, offering a philosophical and not dispassionate assertion of American leadership in the world, a reasoning behind his war policies, a defense of the "just war" doctrine, and a plan for future peace. It wasn't a stemwinder, a breathtaking oratory cum sermon. It was a speech, from an intellectual president to intellectuals, and it was so fucking smart. Have we gone so far down the dumbing-down highway that we can no longer see the importance of hearing a rational man grapple with the conflict between realism and idealism? Have we been so numbed by the cowboy presidency of George W. Bush, along with a steady diet of reality-TV hysterics and high-fructose corn syrup-infused food products, that we're no longer capable of understanding anything except in relation to how it makes us feel?"

Answer to all the above regarding the American Publicus Idiotus: Yes.

Afghanistan Surge

The rumours of President Obama's decision on the next steps in Afghanistan for the United States all seem to indicate the insertion of about 34,000 more troops as part of a "surge" advocated by the Pentagon. This is less than demanded by General McChrystal. The number itself is meaningless without context and the parsing of the rumours serves no useful purpose until President Obama explains, as he has promised, the plan.

Any explanation will have to address what the Afghan government must do in the short and medium term and an exit strategy (though not necessarily characterized as such). Perhaps, too, President Obama will explain the objective and, hopefully unlike the military and their allies, it won't be to "win". Until then, I'm reserving comment.

Afghan Rumours

McClatchy reports that the Obama adminstration is hinting at the deployment of 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan - very close to the number requested by General McChrystal as a minimum and which I thought was delusional.

If this is true, then I believe it is a huge mistake. The Biden approach is much more doable than spending a huge amount of funds on a questionable deployment to support a corrupt government of a non-nation which has shown no signs of reforming. The final decision won't come until after the President finishes with his Asia trip, but a plan has yet to be articulated.

I despise people like the Taliban - but are they a threat to US interests within Afghanistan (they are different than the Pakistanian version)? Why isn't it possible to maintain a force that can surgically target threats? What is the US goal? Is there an exit strategy?

Afghanistan Fast Forward

For the past eight years, the US has been fighting in and supplying technical assistance to Afghanistan.

The focus of the current debate is whether to send significantly more troops - General McChrystal wants 40,000 - as the only alternative to "win" the war. President Obama, the Pentagon and the State Department, among others, are slowly developing a plan - something that has been lacking - regarding the way forward. But, before determining the size of the military presence, President Obama needs to explain the goal.

The goal used to be the destruction of al-Qaida and the capture of Osama bin Laden. Then the focus changed, particularly with the preparations for the war-of-choice of the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq which had no connection whatsoever to the attacks by al-Qaidi in New York and Washington. The preparatioins for the Iraq war can be directly linked to the failures in Afghanistan which were well documented by 2005 and with which the US must deal with in expanded form now.

In subsequent posts I want to examine where we have been and where we may be going in Afghanistan and some of the assumtions that underlie many policies undertaken by the US that may well be very wrong.

Russia's Problem

It did not take long for President Medvedev and PM Putin to reveal that the veneer of success portrayed in the press on the meetings in Moscow with President Obama is just that - a veneer. That veneer was scraped off as President Medvedev announced on July 10 that Russia will deploy short range missiles in Kaliningrad aimed at Warsaw if the BMD deployment in Poland by the US goes forward.

Clearly, the refusal by the United States to discuss either the deployment of the BMD system or Russia's claim of a sphere of influence over its neighbors is a deep annoyance to Putin, who cancelled his attendance at a gala in the Kremlin, resulting in a similar cancellation by President Obama.

As I have posted earlier, the interests of Russia and the United States are not at all similar. Russia wants US and European influence restricted, if not eliminated, in bordering regions. It would be a mistake for the US to accede to Russian desires. Although the BMD system deployment could, and likely should be cancelled, more positioning of US assets in Poland and the Baltic States would be more effective in focusing Russia's attention on the distrust it has cultivated in its near-abroad, Europe and the US.

The problem with Russia is that it does nothing but "oppose" by throwing up roadblocks to any movement toward settlement of issues in key areas of the world - Palestine, Iran, Georgia and Central Asia. This proclivity to create, rather than solve problems, represents the actions of a weak and paranoid state. For it to keep thrusting itself on the political stage as a world power equal to China, the EU or the US is absurd for a variety of economic and social reasons.

Although it deserves respect, Russia's inability to propose solutions other than those masquerading as such but which are always solely targeted at expanding its political sphere of influence, preclude reasonable dialogue at this time.

Obama in Ghana

Since I am on my way to Ghana again I've been following the progress of President Obama to that West African country.

At the G-8, agricultural growth in Africa was one of the primary targets of the participants and resulted in a commitment to allocate $20 billion to Africa. Leaving aside whether these funds will ever make it through the bureaucratic systems in individual countries of the G-8, this type of aid needs to be re-directed. The G-8 appear to have recognized that the policies of aid supply to African agriculture have not produced the expected results over the past 20 years, and have actually harmed local farmers. It is about time that agricultural aid is recognizing that the focus should be on helping farmers help themselves rather than attempting to impose non-indigenous concepts. So far, so good.

Yet, as President Obama correctly emphasised that each country must, in effect, help themselves, nothing in agricultural aid will produce the results necessary without a significant reduction in farm subsidies in the US and, more importantly, Europe. Given European agricultural policy, such a reduction is politically impossible.

The other aspect of agricultural reform in Africa is the slow rate of land tenure security. Agricultural reform will not be successful unless farmers have clear tenure over their land. This is a major problem in Ghana, for example, as the growth of cities is exponential - and is not due to population increases but rather an exodus from the rural areas into cities. Local chiefs, the true power in Ghana, are in some areas literally giving away land to get people to stay. But the legal system established to secure tenure is inefficient, expensive and corrupt. Although huge sums have been and will be spent in Ghana by the World Bank and USAID to improve tenure security and improve agricultural policies and practices, they have so far been unsuccessful.

There are many reasons for the slow rate of success in land tenure security, including a highly bureaucratic system and central government/chief rivalry, but until significant movement toward secure tenure is achieved, agricultural growth will remain slow and intermittent.

A Week Hiaitus

I'm back after a quiet week and celebrating the 4th at Spartak Stadium in Kyiv. Today President Obama is in Moscow. This is going to be interesting.

Iranian Football and Change

Image via Wikipedia

As it says in the sidebar, we change our minds if facts change. Although I still think that Ahmadinejad will remain as president of Iran, the demonstrations appear to have taken on a new dimension and have a life of their own.

The fact that the Iranian football team - or at least six of its players - are wearing green armbands (the color of Mousavi's campaign and also the color of Islam) seemingly in support of Mousavi, has raised the stakes for the Iranian clerics supporting Ahmadinejad, particularly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The game was televised and it is assumed widely viewed in Iran. The clerics, and Khamenei certainly, appear to have very badly miscalculated the reaction to the election.

The demonstrations appear also to be gathering in intensity and it may be too late for the government to crack down violently. Although they have the ability to do so, mass violence or turning loose the security apparatus will permanently damage their previous, well guarded reputation for dealing in an evenhanded way with past opposition figures.

Internationally, Iran has had its credibility damaged, likely to the delight of the Saudi government especially. Their house is not in order and that will affect how they can deal with or pressure neighbors.

President Obama's handling has been exactly correct. Senator Lugar (R. Ind) concurs. Supporting the opposition is exactly what the supporters of Ahmadinejad and the clerics would love. They could then portray the opposition as tools of America.

Speaking of "tools", we then are treated a profoundly stupid resolution being introduced by Mike Pence (R. Ind)that plays right into the hands of the conservative clerics, Ahmadinejad and the Republican Guard:

"Today I'm introducing a resolution that ... express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law."

Buffoon.

So, the situation has changed a little. The expanding demonstrations, calls for a new election and an inability to use force to end the stand-off may not be game changers yet - but the longer the opposition is in the streets, the less maneuvering room is available for Ali Khamenei.