Last September there was a posting, "Afghanistan: The Chinese Water Torture". It focused on the corruption of the government of President Karzai, corruption partly funded by the U.S., and the general frustration of dealing with the Karzai government at any level on any issue. The Chinese water torture was described as "a slow drop at a time on the forehead until you cry out for mercy or go insane." This ancient form of torture has now been replaced by water boarding.
Dealing with the Republicans on the debt ceiling issue is our domestic version of the slow drip on the forehead. The issue concerns the need to increase the $14.3 trillion limit on federal debt or face financial default which in turn will have negative consequences for the international economy. The Treasury Department has set August 2 as the deadline for avoiding default. There are two basic, interconnected problems in dealing with the GOP on the issue: 1) who speaks for the GOP?; and 2) the Republicans keep moving the goal posts on what they seem to want.
There is a small bipartisan congressional group that has been negotiating for several weeks with Vice President Biden on what would be a mutually agreeable deal for increasing the debt ceiling, an increase opposed most fiercely by tea party members of Congress and other conservative fiscal hawks. The Biden group appeared to be arriving at an agreement on the basics, although not the specifics. The general outline of the package that seemed to be evolving was that the debt limit would be increased, there would be major spending cuts, and a long term set of spending caps would be adopted to keep the lid on deficits in the future. (It should be noted that there is no plan anywhere for paying down the debt and nothing has been said specifically about raising revenues except the budget of President Obama who wants to increase the income tax on upper income earners.) Drip.
Then along came GOP House Speaker Boehner (see previous post) who shifted the goal posts on what the GOP said it wanted in exchange for agreeing to increase the debt ceiling. Boehner said there could be no agreement on the debt ceiling unless it included trillions of dollars in spending cuts, without specifying any time frame for the reduction -- 1 year, 5 years, a decade, or what? Boehner is on record supporting the need to raise the debt ceiling but is under pressure, particularly from the 87 new GOP members of the House, to up the ante on spending cuts as the price for getting the necessary House GOP votes on the debt ceiling increase. There are also some House members who will oppose any increase in the debt ceiling. (In a vote set up by the Republicans to fail, the House Tuesday night voted 318-97 against a bill to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion without any spending cuts. That did nothing except to leave the issue on square one where it was before the vote.) Drip, drip.
A few days ago the GOP shifted the goal posts once again when Republican Senate Minority Leader McConnell said that the entire so-called Ryan budget should be considered part of the debt ceiling negotiations. That budget, passed by the House in early spring, calls for about $5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade and includes restructuring of the two major health care programs, medicare and medicaid. Medicare would be replaced by a voucher system that would subsidize but not cover the full cost of health insurance to be bought from the private sector. Further, the vouchers would cover a decreasing share of the insurance costs over the years. Persons over age 55 would be grandfathered into the existing medicare program. Medicaid would be severly cut in funds and the program converted into a block grant that would basically turn control of health care for the low income over to the states. Both the medicare and medicaid proposals have backfired politically on the Republicans, particularly the abolition of medicare as we know it. Drip, drip,drip.
The Ryan budget plan, which has become the official GOP budget, has caused so much political trouble for the Republicans that the McConnell idea to make it a part of the debt ceiling negotiations is seen as a ploy to force Democrats to show where they stand on the spending cut parts of the Ryan budget now, while also agreeing to longer term changes in medicare and medicaid. So the current picture seems to be three different approaches presented by three different sources. The public is left confounded and confused by the question of whether the GOP members of the Biden group are the official party spear carriers, or does Boehner or McConnell represent the official GOP position? Thus, the beg-for-mercy reference, "Chinese water torture," in this posting's title. Drip, drip, drip, drip.
0-0-0-0-0
To close on a brief note of positive news. In Murfreesboro, TN, a judge has ruled against efforts by some in the community to block the building of a new mosque (see previous post). The religious-based objections were cast aside, although the judge permitted the opponents to continue their case based on a procedural issue about adequate notice of a public hearing. And in Chattanooga, TN, construction is underway on a $2 million Islamic center. Unlike Murfreesboro, the Chattanooga center is proceeding without issue.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
NEGOTIATING (OR NOT) WITH TERRORISTS: HAMAS AND THE TALIBAN
It has long been a stated position, at least rhetorically, of our government that we will not negotiate with terrorists, a position sometimes quietly ignored if events and circumstances demand otherwise.
The latest pronouncement of this "policy" came in President Obama's speech on the Middle East when he stated clearly that Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, could not be a part of any negotiations for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. (designated by State Department), and the European Union. The need for Obama to make this point came when the Palestinian Authority (PA) (Fatah is the largest faction of the PA coalition) recently made a reconciliation agreement with Hamas, a reconciliation brokered by the post-Mubarak Egyptian government. The PA controls, to the extent allowed by Israel, the occupied West Bank while Hamas dominates in the Gaza strip. Both areas, in whole or in part, are intended to be included in a future independent Palestine. The PA and Hamas had been at odds for four years after Hamas won the parliamentary elections in 2006 and soon militarily threw the PA out of Gaza.
So far, so good. But now we come upon the problem of Afghanistan and efforts to negotiate a political settlement which is likely to include the Taliban. There was another report last week that talks with the Taliban had been ginned together by Germany and Qatar, talks which include the United States. Turkey earlier had also offered to facilitate talks with the Taliban. We have been fighting a war against the Taliban for 10 years and have put a reward of $10 million on Mullah Muhammad Omar, the spiritual head of the Afghan Taliban. It was the Taliban who, in their five years of control of Afghanistan under radical Islamic law, hosted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda until both were ousted by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following al-Qaeda's destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001.
While al-Qaeda and several of its franchised organizations in other countries have been designated terrorist groups by the U.S., the Afghan Taliban have not. One Pakistan-based Taliban group has been so designated but not the Afghan Taliban. So, despite a 10-year war with the Afghan Taliban and the various factions that have re-located to Pakistan and a bounty on Omar's head, it is not a designated terrorist group and thus can be a negotiating partner in any Afghan peace settlement.
But the puzzlement is the designation or non-designation of organizations as terrorist groups and the implications for political settlement of very thorny problems such as Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. We won't talk with Hamas with whom the Israelis, but not the U.S., has had a continuing problem of terrorist activities and Hamas has clearly stated that it seeks the destruction of Israel. But we will talk with the Afghan Taliban which is determined to return to power there and has committed many attacks on the Afghan government and civilians, attacks which could be called terrorist.
There is, of course, the legally nuanced distinction between a designated terrorist organization, or not, as a rationale for permitting or not permitting direct negotiation. Also, we are committed to the security of Israel and are thus supportive of its stand prohibiting negotiations with Hamas. But it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that our own domestic politics has a role to play in choosing negotiating partners. Last week the U.S. House of Representatives fell just 12 votes short of including in a defense bill an amendment to speed our exit from Afghanistan, including pursuit of a political settlement to achieve an early departure. Presumably that political settlement implied negotiating with the Taliban. But it is highly doubtful that Congress, where Israel enjoys considerable political support, would urge any political settlement of the Palestinian problem if it meant negotiation with Hamas.
Such is the fine tuning between official evil doers such as Hamas and just plain evil doers such as the Taliban who kill American soldiers and cost billions for an increasingly unpopular war. This is not to argue that there is no clear distinction to be made between the designated and non-designated terrorist organizations, but only to say that in the world of foreign problem solving, we sometimes find ourselves in a dilemma in seeking to link political pragmatism with asymmetrical policies.
The latest pronouncement of this "policy" came in President Obama's speech on the Middle East when he stated clearly that Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, could not be a part of any negotiations for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. (designated by State Department), and the European Union. The need for Obama to make this point came when the Palestinian Authority (PA) (Fatah is the largest faction of the PA coalition) recently made a reconciliation agreement with Hamas, a reconciliation brokered by the post-Mubarak Egyptian government. The PA controls, to the extent allowed by Israel, the occupied West Bank while Hamas dominates in the Gaza strip. Both areas, in whole or in part, are intended to be included in a future independent Palestine. The PA and Hamas had been at odds for four years after Hamas won the parliamentary elections in 2006 and soon militarily threw the PA out of Gaza.
So far, so good. But now we come upon the problem of Afghanistan and efforts to negotiate a political settlement which is likely to include the Taliban. There was another report last week that talks with the Taliban had been ginned together by Germany and Qatar, talks which include the United States. Turkey earlier had also offered to facilitate talks with the Taliban. We have been fighting a war against the Taliban for 10 years and have put a reward of $10 million on Mullah Muhammad Omar, the spiritual head of the Afghan Taliban. It was the Taliban who, in their five years of control of Afghanistan under radical Islamic law, hosted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda until both were ousted by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following al-Qaeda's destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001.
While al-Qaeda and several of its franchised organizations in other countries have been designated terrorist groups by the U.S., the Afghan Taliban have not. One Pakistan-based Taliban group has been so designated but not the Afghan Taliban. So, despite a 10-year war with the Afghan Taliban and the various factions that have re-located to Pakistan and a bounty on Omar's head, it is not a designated terrorist group and thus can be a negotiating partner in any Afghan peace settlement.
But the puzzlement is the designation or non-designation of organizations as terrorist groups and the implications for political settlement of very thorny problems such as Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. We won't talk with Hamas with whom the Israelis, but not the U.S., has had a continuing problem of terrorist activities and Hamas has clearly stated that it seeks the destruction of Israel. But we will talk with the Afghan Taliban which is determined to return to power there and has committed many attacks on the Afghan government and civilians, attacks which could be called terrorist.
There is, of course, the legally nuanced distinction between a designated terrorist organization, or not, as a rationale for permitting or not permitting direct negotiation. Also, we are committed to the security of Israel and are thus supportive of its stand prohibiting negotiations with Hamas. But it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that our own domestic politics has a role to play in choosing negotiating partners. Last week the U.S. House of Representatives fell just 12 votes short of including in a defense bill an amendment to speed our exit from Afghanistan, including pursuit of a political settlement to achieve an early departure. Presumably that political settlement implied negotiating with the Taliban. But it is highly doubtful that Congress, where Israel enjoys considerable political support, would urge any political settlement of the Palestinian problem if it meant negotiation with Hamas.
Such is the fine tuning between official evil doers such as Hamas and just plain evil doers such as the Taliban who kill American soldiers and cost billions for an increasingly unpopular war. This is not to argue that there is no clear distinction to be made between the designated and non-designated terrorist organizations, but only to say that in the world of foreign problem solving, we sometimes find ourselves in a dilemma in seeking to link political pragmatism with asymmetrical policies.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
#$@%& AS A SYNONYM FOR CONGRESS
Last September I referred to the tea party (TP) as a New Puritanism. At the time I said, "That is, it (the TP) has a package of grievances it perceives as threats to our governmental and fiscal future and moral values. In political terms, this translates to 'if you want our support, you must accept and endorse the entire package or we'll fight against you.' " The posting referred to GOP Senator Scott Brown as an example of how the TP turns against you if you don't conform to its agenda.
That litmus test of the TP now seems to have a wider application in the Republican party on the issue of the so-called Ryan budget. This is the budget of Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, whose plan passed the House earlier this spring and has become the official budget plan of the party. If you presume to oppose that budget plan or any part of it, you are some kind of evil doer. The example here is Newt Gingrich who had the temerity to refer to Ryan's proposal on medicare as "right wing social engineering". His words were hardly spoken when he was castigated by fellow Republicans. In a rather wimpy fashion, Gingrich quickly apologized for his blasphemy to Ryan, but it was too late. In the parlance of the day, the bullet had already left the gun and Gingrich's newly launched presidential campaign was quickly in trouble.
Senator Brown, already cast into outer darkness by the TP, faces a similar outcome with many of his fellow Republicans. He said he would not support the Ryan budget on medicare if or when it came before the Senate. Again, it was "for shame". Brown is not expected to be alone in his dissent. Other Republican Senators expected to vote "no" are Snowe and Collins of Maine and perhaps Murkowski of Alaska who seems to have become more independent since her bitter primary election victory of TP candidate Joe Miller last year.
Such GOP objections to the medicare part of the Ryan/GOP budget is not surprising since many Republicans have created some distance between themselves and Ryan's plan to replace traditional medicare with a voucher system that would subsidize the purchase of health care insurance from private insurers. When members of Congress went home for the Easter recess, they found that senior voters and others in their districts/states were strongly opposed to the abolition of medicare as it has operated for the last 45 years, even though those over age 55 would be grandfathered into the present system.
0-0-0-0-0
Speaking of congressional recesses. Barely back from the Easter recess, the Senate, according to its online calender will go home again for Memorial Day, from May 30-June 5. While I am certainly not an admirer of TP Senator Rand Paul, you can't help but applaud his sentiment that he feels like he should be giving back his pay because the Senate never does any work.
While both chambers are enjoying lots of home time, the task of working out a debt limit/deficit spending deal has been left to the administration for leadership. The bipartisan Senate Gang of 6 who had been trying for months to work out a budget agreement seems to have fallen apart, leaving the problems of the debt ceiling and spending cuts to Vice President Biden and a small bipartisan group of House and Senate members.
The big question is, aren't there other pressing national issues that need attention in Congress which continues primarily to play gotcha politics to politically embarrass one party or the other. A recent example was the easily forcasted Senate Republican rejection of a Democratic proposal to end $21 billion in tax benefits received by the five major oil companies. The Senate Democrats were then quick to reject, as expected, a Republican counter proposal to increase oil drilling as a means of reducing reliance on foreign oil imports. The same Senate gotcha game may be just ahead on the Ryan and Obama budgets although the Byzantine politics of the Senate may come up with a way to avoid embarrassing partisan votes by both sides.
Meanwhile, the public can continue to wonder what exactly the Congress has accomplished in the last five months, except for its recesses. Some easily agreed upon stuff perhaps, but the difficult issues like immigration, job creation, and major education amendments are nowhere to be seen.
0-0-0-0-0
With all of the congressional wind gusts linking debt ceiling and spending cuts, there doesn't seem to be much talk about ending the $6 billion tax subsidy to the ethanol industry which has been absorbing an increasing share of the nation's corn crop thanks to congressional mandates to produce more and more of the stuff. Of course, in the process of eating up more and more corn for ethanol, the politically well placed corn farmers see the price of corn continually rising. And, of course, the consumers at the bottom of the political food chain have seen the rise in the price of things such as pork, beef, and chicken which are dependent upon corn for feed.
So when does ending the ethanol subsidy get on the congressional calender? Maybe after some distant recess.
That litmus test of the TP now seems to have a wider application in the Republican party on the issue of the so-called Ryan budget. This is the budget of Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, whose plan passed the House earlier this spring and has become the official budget plan of the party. If you presume to oppose that budget plan or any part of it, you are some kind of evil doer. The example here is Newt Gingrich who had the temerity to refer to Ryan's proposal on medicare as "right wing social engineering". His words were hardly spoken when he was castigated by fellow Republicans. In a rather wimpy fashion, Gingrich quickly apologized for his blasphemy to Ryan, but it was too late. In the parlance of the day, the bullet had already left the gun and Gingrich's newly launched presidential campaign was quickly in trouble.
Senator Brown, already cast into outer darkness by the TP, faces a similar outcome with many of his fellow Republicans. He said he would not support the Ryan budget on medicare if or when it came before the Senate. Again, it was "for shame". Brown is not expected to be alone in his dissent. Other Republican Senators expected to vote "no" are Snowe and Collins of Maine and perhaps Murkowski of Alaska who seems to have become more independent since her bitter primary election victory of TP candidate Joe Miller last year.
Such GOP objections to the medicare part of the Ryan/GOP budget is not surprising since many Republicans have created some distance between themselves and Ryan's plan to replace traditional medicare with a voucher system that would subsidize the purchase of health care insurance from private insurers. When members of Congress went home for the Easter recess, they found that senior voters and others in their districts/states were strongly opposed to the abolition of medicare as it has operated for the last 45 years, even though those over age 55 would be grandfathered into the present system.
0-0-0-0-0
Speaking of congressional recesses. Barely back from the Easter recess, the Senate, according to its online calender will go home again for Memorial Day, from May 30-June 5. While I am certainly not an admirer of TP Senator Rand Paul, you can't help but applaud his sentiment that he feels like he should be giving back his pay because the Senate never does any work.
While both chambers are enjoying lots of home time, the task of working out a debt limit/deficit spending deal has been left to the administration for leadership. The bipartisan Senate Gang of 6 who had been trying for months to work out a budget agreement seems to have fallen apart, leaving the problems of the debt ceiling and spending cuts to Vice President Biden and a small bipartisan group of House and Senate members.
The big question is, aren't there other pressing national issues that need attention in Congress which continues primarily to play gotcha politics to politically embarrass one party or the other. A recent example was the easily forcasted Senate Republican rejection of a Democratic proposal to end $21 billion in tax benefits received by the five major oil companies. The Senate Democrats were then quick to reject, as expected, a Republican counter proposal to increase oil drilling as a means of reducing reliance on foreign oil imports. The same Senate gotcha game may be just ahead on the Ryan and Obama budgets although the Byzantine politics of the Senate may come up with a way to avoid embarrassing partisan votes by both sides.
Meanwhile, the public can continue to wonder what exactly the Congress has accomplished in the last five months, except for its recesses. Some easily agreed upon stuff perhaps, but the difficult issues like immigration, job creation, and major education amendments are nowhere to be seen.
0-0-0-0-0
With all of the congressional wind gusts linking debt ceiling and spending cuts, there doesn't seem to be much talk about ending the $6 billion tax subsidy to the ethanol industry which has been absorbing an increasing share of the nation's corn crop thanks to congressional mandates to produce more and more of the stuff. Of course, in the process of eating up more and more corn for ethanol, the politically well placed corn farmers see the price of corn continually rising. And, of course, the consumers at the bottom of the political food chain have seen the rise in the price of things such as pork, beef, and chicken which are dependent upon corn for feed.
So when does ending the ethanol subsidy get on the congressional calender? Maybe after some distant recess.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON OBAMA'S MIDEAST SPEECH
It would be difficult to ignore President Obama's speech last Thursday on the Middle East and the Arab world. At the same time, it triggered so many random thoughts so in place of a seamless posting on the speech, it seemed okay to set out these thoughts independently.
-- One wonders why Obama gave the speech at all unless he felt a need to assemble all of the events-- past and ongoing -- into a single policy speech to seek to re-assert U.S. leadership in an area where in fact our influence has been marginalized by the so-called "Arab Spring". With so many moving parts still in motion, the speech seemed somewhat premature if it was intended as a new policy road map.
-- Why the seeming haste now on an Israeli-Palestinian settlement when so many relevant factors are still undetermined? These factors include: great instability in neighboring Syria where demonstrations, stern repression, and deaths are still occurring; the future of Egyptian policy toward Israel which has become less supportive already and the coming Egyptian elections may further influence Cairo's policy toward Israel; and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation may or may not last but it greatly influences both U.S. and Israeli attitudes toward the possibility of negotiations. Alternatively, is it less a matter of Obama trying to speed up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than it is his giving up on the process by presenting a seemingly reasonable basis of negotiation that is clearly unacceptable to both sides? In either case, the United States now seems to be isolated from the relevant players.
-- Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's acting like an American politician seeking to create a talking point to guide Israel's true believers. His reference to the l967 borders as being "indefensible" is predicated on those borders being adopted as final in any Israeli-Palestinian settlement. By talking tough Netanyahu was also playing to his audience in Israel. In fact his statement is a red herring since Obama made it abundantly clear that the l967 border was just a starting point for negotiations which would undoubtedly include some significant land swaps. Such swaps would reflect the Jewish settlements that have sprung up over the past 44 years and perhaps involve the status of East Jerusalem which the Palestinians would like to get back as their capital for an independent Palestine. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's statement immediately became the basis for political attacks by U.S. politicians like Mitt Romney and pro-Israeli members of Congress, of which there are many. A number of GOP would-be Presidents will attend the AIPAC (a potent pro-Israel lobbying group) policy conference this week in Washington.
And while on the subject of l967 borders, the issue with the Palestinians is not the only border dispute. There is also the Golan Heights dispute with Syria who wants the land back, land which Israel regards as essential to its military security.
-- There appeared to be little in the speech to please the Arab world. There were promises of financial aid to Tunisia and Egypt and general support, once again, for the spread of democracy in the region, but Syrian dictator Assad seemed to get another pass. Instead of "go now", Obama told Assad to promote peaceful democratic reform or "get out of the way". Reaction from the Arab world about Obama's speech was less than enthusiastic.
To me there was something more for the Arabs than met the eye or ear. In becoming the first official U.S. public statement about using the l967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, Obama was in fact tilting somewhat toward a more balanced policy between Israel and Arab contries. Obama has been and continues to be perceived as less friendly toward Israel than previous administrations. But if Obama hoped that this would be seen as a more pro-Arab bias he lost points with his absolutist statement on Hamas and his opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek United Nations recognition of an independent Palestine this fall.
-- On the lighter side, at least to this blogger, and perhaps not linked to the speech was the report that Representative Peter King of New York is considering running for President. Maybe King figures his Long Island political base is fertile ground for tapping into pro-Israeli sentiment, at least for fund raising. Certainly his anti-Muslim House hearings earlier this year must have strengthened his ties to the pro-Israeli community, if they needed to be strengthened.
-- Still on the presidential candidate theme. All of the attention given to Obama's speech must have distracted from the campaign visit to New Hampshire of a new GOP wannabee -- Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and Obama's ambassador to China until recently. Huntsman's tracking through New Hampshire for five days would most likely have gotten more national media attention if Obama's speech hadn't dominated the news cycles in the early part of Huntsman's visit. And if past manipulation of the media is any guide to the future, look for Huntsman to become the new media darling, one likely to last longer than the most recent media love affair with Donald Trump.
So much for the random thoughts.
-- One wonders why Obama gave the speech at all unless he felt a need to assemble all of the events-- past and ongoing -- into a single policy speech to seek to re-assert U.S. leadership in an area where in fact our influence has been marginalized by the so-called "Arab Spring". With so many moving parts still in motion, the speech seemed somewhat premature if it was intended as a new policy road map.
-- Why the seeming haste now on an Israeli-Palestinian settlement when so many relevant factors are still undetermined? These factors include: great instability in neighboring Syria where demonstrations, stern repression, and deaths are still occurring; the future of Egyptian policy toward Israel which has become less supportive already and the coming Egyptian elections may further influence Cairo's policy toward Israel; and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation may or may not last but it greatly influences both U.S. and Israeli attitudes toward the possibility of negotiations. Alternatively, is it less a matter of Obama trying to speed up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than it is his giving up on the process by presenting a seemingly reasonable basis of negotiation that is clearly unacceptable to both sides? In either case, the United States now seems to be isolated from the relevant players.
-- Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's acting like an American politician seeking to create a talking point to guide Israel's true believers. His reference to the l967 borders as being "indefensible" is predicated on those borders being adopted as final in any Israeli-Palestinian settlement. By talking tough Netanyahu was also playing to his audience in Israel. In fact his statement is a red herring since Obama made it abundantly clear that the l967 border was just a starting point for negotiations which would undoubtedly include some significant land swaps. Such swaps would reflect the Jewish settlements that have sprung up over the past 44 years and perhaps involve the status of East Jerusalem which the Palestinians would like to get back as their capital for an independent Palestine. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's statement immediately became the basis for political attacks by U.S. politicians like Mitt Romney and pro-Israeli members of Congress, of which there are many. A number of GOP would-be Presidents will attend the AIPAC (a potent pro-Israel lobbying group) policy conference this week in Washington.
And while on the subject of l967 borders, the issue with the Palestinians is not the only border dispute. There is also the Golan Heights dispute with Syria who wants the land back, land which Israel regards as essential to its military security.
-- There appeared to be little in the speech to please the Arab world. There were promises of financial aid to Tunisia and Egypt and general support, once again, for the spread of democracy in the region, but Syrian dictator Assad seemed to get another pass. Instead of "go now", Obama told Assad to promote peaceful democratic reform or "get out of the way". Reaction from the Arab world about Obama's speech was less than enthusiastic.
To me there was something more for the Arabs than met the eye or ear. In becoming the first official U.S. public statement about using the l967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, Obama was in fact tilting somewhat toward a more balanced policy between Israel and Arab contries. Obama has been and continues to be perceived as less friendly toward Israel than previous administrations. But if Obama hoped that this would be seen as a more pro-Arab bias he lost points with his absolutist statement on Hamas and his opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek United Nations recognition of an independent Palestine this fall.
-- On the lighter side, at least to this blogger, and perhaps not linked to the speech was the report that Representative Peter King of New York is considering running for President. Maybe King figures his Long Island political base is fertile ground for tapping into pro-Israeli sentiment, at least for fund raising. Certainly his anti-Muslim House hearings earlier this year must have strengthened his ties to the pro-Israeli community, if they needed to be strengthened.
-- Still on the presidential candidate theme. All of the attention given to Obama's speech must have distracted from the campaign visit to New Hampshire of a new GOP wannabee -- Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and Obama's ambassador to China until recently. Huntsman's tracking through New Hampshire for five days would most likely have gotten more national media attention if Obama's speech hadn't dominated the news cycles in the early part of Huntsman's visit. And if past manipulation of the media is any guide to the future, look for Huntsman to become the new media darling, one likely to last longer than the most recent media love affair with Donald Trump.
So much for the random thoughts.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
THE GOP, AND THEN THERE WERE . . . . ; CONGRESS AND SHAKESPEARE
Okay, so now the Republicans have lost Trump and Huckabee, and Gingrich seems to have already shot himself in the foot, or his big mouth. There are plenty of Republican wannabee's left but not one of them has exactly caught the love of the party's right wing base, or at least has been able to move beyond that base. Speaking of the base, here are a few random thoughts.
The first rule of electoral politics is to secure the base. Huckabee seemed to have been pretty successful in doing that. But when the polls of GOP voters put a would-be as a leader but with only 20 percent support, he or she has to wonder if the grueling, nasty task of raising tons of money to compete, entering multiple primary elections, and subjecting yourself and one's family to the nastiness of a presidential campaign is really warranted with a popularity showing of just 20 percent.
Then there is Trump who shot to the top or near top of the GOP popularity poll, again in the 20 percent range. He seemingly became competitive when he played the birther card to pander to the extreme right wing GOP base. But his only real base was the easily manipulated media and it was quickly discovered that he had no sustained voting base. When his possible candidacy became an obvious joke, even the media wrote him off.
But the really strange case is Gingrich who seems to be only randomly rational in his statements about any issue. On occasions he sounds like Glenn Beck. He was in a rational mode last Sunday when he blasted Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to end medicare as we know it as right wing "social engineering". This may have been okay if it weren't for the fact that, while the GOP has quietly backed away from the Ryan plan for medicare, it stands as part of the official budget proposal passed by House Republicans, and is backed by the right wing deficit hawks of the party.
Second, and really weird is the "secure the base" rule which Gingrich seems to have tossed overboard. His unspecified, anti-right wing ideas for dealing with medicare deficits seemed more to appease independents and political centrists than the right wing base. No doubt Gingrich will now take a stand on something that appeals to that base, but his stand against "right wing social engineering" and the immediate right wing backlash is not something easy to overcome. If you don't believe that, ask Mitt Romney who can't shake his leftist image from his days as governor of Massachusetts and his health care plan in that state.
On to another subject.
0-0-0-0-0
In the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare posed the question: "Do all men kill the things they do not love?" Congress should have this in mind before it makes any effort to remake U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Palestine. There are some members of Congress who seem to want to "kill" our financial support for Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (PA) because they do not love them any more.
First, Pakistan and its ever shakey relations with the U.S. The latest event to create tremors in U.S.-Pakistan relations was the U.S. military incursion into Pakistan to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The mission was carried out unilaterally with no consultation or advance warning to the Pakistani government or its military.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that the Pakistani government, or at least its military intelligence service, knew where bin Laden had been hiding and was protecting him. Thus, to alert the Pakistanis that we were coming would probably have led to bin Laden's being warned and his fleeing to a new hiding place. That is the argument being made by some members of Congress who want to now cut our substantial aid to Pakistan, about $1.3 billion a year.
While Pakistan's actions and statements are often disconcerting, to say the least, it is a major conduit for supporting the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan and has been permissive of our covert use of bases in Pakistan for fighting the Taliban, particularly in our use of unmanned, armed predator aircraft. But the bottom line case for continuing our support of Pakistan, war or no war, is that we can't allow, through our policies, the implosion of the Pakistani government which in turn could put its nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists or an unfriendly government with close ties to such groups.
0-0-0-0-0-0
That takes us to the Middle East where we seem to have a similar problem with some members of Congress calling for an end to aid for the Palestinian Authority (PA) because of its recent reconciliation with Hamas, which the U.S., Israel, and the European Union have labeled a terrorist organization. Right now the U.S. provides about $500 million a year to the PA (Fatah) as a way of supporting PA President Mamoud Abbas and the Palestinians on the West Bank governed, at least to the extent allowed by Israel, by the PA
Because of strong congressional support of Israel which has denounced the reconciliation as an obstacle to peace, there was an almost instant demand for ending the financial aid which is a crucial prop to the PA which we see as the viable partner for negotiating the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Israel.
To this blogger, like the case of aid to Pakistan, it would be a good idea to step back and see what the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation will really mean before taking action against the PA in which we have invested so much of our policy for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Certainly there are real grievances between Israel and Hamas, not the least of which is Hamas' call for the destruction of Israel. But, as stated in a previous post, it would be a good time for both Israelis and Palestinians (Fatah/Hamas) to engage in a period of mutual political and economic confidence building to see if some basis can be reached for once again getting negotiations underway for creating an independent Palestinian state.
Congress, in its knee jerk, pro-Israeli reaction should also cool it for a while before giving any serious consideration to ending our aid to Abbas and the PA.
The first rule of electoral politics is to secure the base. Huckabee seemed to have been pretty successful in doing that. But when the polls of GOP voters put a would-be as a leader but with only 20 percent support, he or she has to wonder if the grueling, nasty task of raising tons of money to compete, entering multiple primary elections, and subjecting yourself and one's family to the nastiness of a presidential campaign is really warranted with a popularity showing of just 20 percent.
Then there is Trump who shot to the top or near top of the GOP popularity poll, again in the 20 percent range. He seemingly became competitive when he played the birther card to pander to the extreme right wing GOP base. But his only real base was the easily manipulated media and it was quickly discovered that he had no sustained voting base. When his possible candidacy became an obvious joke, even the media wrote him off.
But the really strange case is Gingrich who seems to be only randomly rational in his statements about any issue. On occasions he sounds like Glenn Beck. He was in a rational mode last Sunday when he blasted Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to end medicare as we know it as right wing "social engineering". This may have been okay if it weren't for the fact that, while the GOP has quietly backed away from the Ryan plan for medicare, it stands as part of the official budget proposal passed by House Republicans, and is backed by the right wing deficit hawks of the party.
Second, and really weird is the "secure the base" rule which Gingrich seems to have tossed overboard. His unspecified, anti-right wing ideas for dealing with medicare deficits seemed more to appease independents and political centrists than the right wing base. No doubt Gingrich will now take a stand on something that appeals to that base, but his stand against "right wing social engineering" and the immediate right wing backlash is not something easy to overcome. If you don't believe that, ask Mitt Romney who can't shake his leftist image from his days as governor of Massachusetts and his health care plan in that state.
On to another subject.
0-0-0-0-0
In the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare posed the question: "Do all men kill the things they do not love?" Congress should have this in mind before it makes any effort to remake U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Palestine. There are some members of Congress who seem to want to "kill" our financial support for Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (PA) because they do not love them any more.
First, Pakistan and its ever shakey relations with the U.S. The latest event to create tremors in U.S.-Pakistan relations was the U.S. military incursion into Pakistan to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The mission was carried out unilaterally with no consultation or advance warning to the Pakistani government or its military.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that the Pakistani government, or at least its military intelligence service, knew where bin Laden had been hiding and was protecting him. Thus, to alert the Pakistanis that we were coming would probably have led to bin Laden's being warned and his fleeing to a new hiding place. That is the argument being made by some members of Congress who want to now cut our substantial aid to Pakistan, about $1.3 billion a year.
While Pakistan's actions and statements are often disconcerting, to say the least, it is a major conduit for supporting the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan and has been permissive of our covert use of bases in Pakistan for fighting the Taliban, particularly in our use of unmanned, armed predator aircraft. But the bottom line case for continuing our support of Pakistan, war or no war, is that we can't allow, through our policies, the implosion of the Pakistani government which in turn could put its nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists or an unfriendly government with close ties to such groups.
0-0-0-0-0-0
That takes us to the Middle East where we seem to have a similar problem with some members of Congress calling for an end to aid for the Palestinian Authority (PA) because of its recent reconciliation with Hamas, which the U.S., Israel, and the European Union have labeled a terrorist organization. Right now the U.S. provides about $500 million a year to the PA (Fatah) as a way of supporting PA President Mamoud Abbas and the Palestinians on the West Bank governed, at least to the extent allowed by Israel, by the PA
Because of strong congressional support of Israel which has denounced the reconciliation as an obstacle to peace, there was an almost instant demand for ending the financial aid which is a crucial prop to the PA which we see as the viable partner for negotiating the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Israel.
To this blogger, like the case of aid to Pakistan, it would be a good idea to step back and see what the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation will really mean before taking action against the PA in which we have invested so much of our policy for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Certainly there are real grievances between Israel and Hamas, not the least of which is Hamas' call for the destruction of Israel. But, as stated in a previous post, it would be a good time for both Israelis and Palestinians (Fatah/Hamas) to engage in a period of mutual political and economic confidence building to see if some basis can be reached for once again getting negotiations underway for creating an independent Palestinian state.
Congress, in its knee jerk, pro-Israeli reaction should also cool it for a while before giving any serious consideration to ending our aid to Abbas and the PA.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
THE BOEHNER GRENADE
In a previous post about Congress and Parkinson's Law, the point was made that Congress seemed to be filling in the extra time it has to deal with the debt ceiling issue by playing "gotcha" partisan politics. That is, both parties, in order to embarrass the other side, have been playing to their voter bases by forcing votes on proposals that have little or no chance of becoming law.
But Congress may be forced to confront some real issues before it takes its month-long summer vacation beginning August 8.
Both Democrats and Republicans, with some GOP exceptions, are in general agreement that the debt ceiling will have to be raised above the existing $14.3 trillion cap in order to avoid a federal financial default and bring on another worldwide financial crisis. A week ago the issue seemed to be safely in the hands of Vice President Biden and a bipartisan congressional group, the objective being to work out a mutually acceptable deal. The group includes House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The general outline of a deal that seemed to be evolving was that the debt limit would be raised, but without a fixed figure stated as yet; an agreement to do some more spending cuts, also undetermined at this early stage of negotiations; and a longer-term framework for deficit reduction.
This would moot important parts of the so-called Ryan budget for fiscal 2012 which begins Oct. 1 and was passed by the House last month. That budget called for about $5 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years with major savings coming from the restructuring of medicare and medicaid which account for much of the government's red ink. There was no prospect that Ryan's budget would get Senate approval and would certainly never escape a presidential veto. Also, over the Easter recess Republican lawmakers were backing away from the Ryan plan after getting an earful of opposition back home from the elderly and elderly to-be about the GOP plan to get rid of medicare as it now operates. With such dim prospects for the GOP budget plan, it seemed that the Biden group would stick with the debt level-spending cuts as stated above, leaving the big decisions on health care to be taken up after the 2012 presidential election.
Into this seemingly agreeable atmosphere of conflict resolution stepped House Speaker Boehner who threw a grenade that has the ability to resurrect the bitter partisanship we experienced in early spring when Congress finally dealt with closing out the fiscal 2011 budget, six months after the budget year began. What Boehner did was, in effect, to say "Whoa, slow down," we're not going to accept any deal on increasing the debt limit unless it includes TRILLIONS of dollars in spending cuts, without specifying the time frame for the reductions.
To do this would require Congress and President Obama to deal with the big ticket health care programs now, not after next year's elections. This could be finessed by dealing with these issues as part of the 2012 budget rather than be part of the debt ceiling issue. If Boehner's declaration becomes the operational GOP map for resolving the debt ceiling issue, then we are in for some very bitter politics in the weeks ahead. The expanded time contemplated in Parkinson's Law will be filled with clash and clang, to the barricades politics not the "gotcha" game that is now underway.
The first question is, however: Is Boehner serious or is he once again playing to the fiscal conservatives/tea party element of the House GOP. He did this before with the 2011 budget fight so a reprise of that political ploy would come as no surprise. Boehner said some time ago that it was essential to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the really bad fiscal consequences of not doing so. So once again, the question: "Will the real John Boehner please stand up?"
While Boehner is talking trillions in spending cuts, the Democrats have targeted big oil for a $21 billion tax increase, a proposal that runs directly counter to the bedrock GOP philosophy of opposition to any tax increases. And the Democratic Senate may again try to put immigration reform on the legislative calendar, an issue the GOP would like to avoid since their basic anti-immigration reform stand jeopardizes any chances they may have for picking up Hispanic votes.
As said in several previous postings on various subjects -- stay tuned.
But Congress may be forced to confront some real issues before it takes its month-long summer vacation beginning August 8.
Both Democrats and Republicans, with some GOP exceptions, are in general agreement that the debt ceiling will have to be raised above the existing $14.3 trillion cap in order to avoid a federal financial default and bring on another worldwide financial crisis. A week ago the issue seemed to be safely in the hands of Vice President Biden and a bipartisan congressional group, the objective being to work out a mutually acceptable deal. The group includes House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The general outline of a deal that seemed to be evolving was that the debt limit would be raised, but without a fixed figure stated as yet; an agreement to do some more spending cuts, also undetermined at this early stage of negotiations; and a longer-term framework for deficit reduction.
This would moot important parts of the so-called Ryan budget for fiscal 2012 which begins Oct. 1 and was passed by the House last month. That budget called for about $5 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years with major savings coming from the restructuring of medicare and medicaid which account for much of the government's red ink. There was no prospect that Ryan's budget would get Senate approval and would certainly never escape a presidential veto. Also, over the Easter recess Republican lawmakers were backing away from the Ryan plan after getting an earful of opposition back home from the elderly and elderly to-be about the GOP plan to get rid of medicare as it now operates. With such dim prospects for the GOP budget plan, it seemed that the Biden group would stick with the debt level-spending cuts as stated above, leaving the big decisions on health care to be taken up after the 2012 presidential election.
Into this seemingly agreeable atmosphere of conflict resolution stepped House Speaker Boehner who threw a grenade that has the ability to resurrect the bitter partisanship we experienced in early spring when Congress finally dealt with closing out the fiscal 2011 budget, six months after the budget year began. What Boehner did was, in effect, to say "Whoa, slow down," we're not going to accept any deal on increasing the debt limit unless it includes TRILLIONS of dollars in spending cuts, without specifying the time frame for the reductions.
To do this would require Congress and President Obama to deal with the big ticket health care programs now, not after next year's elections. This could be finessed by dealing with these issues as part of the 2012 budget rather than be part of the debt ceiling issue. If Boehner's declaration becomes the operational GOP map for resolving the debt ceiling issue, then we are in for some very bitter politics in the weeks ahead. The expanded time contemplated in Parkinson's Law will be filled with clash and clang, to the barricades politics not the "gotcha" game that is now underway.
The first question is, however: Is Boehner serious or is he once again playing to the fiscal conservatives/tea party element of the House GOP. He did this before with the 2011 budget fight so a reprise of that political ploy would come as no surprise. Boehner said some time ago that it was essential to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the really bad fiscal consequences of not doing so. So once again, the question: "Will the real John Boehner please stand up?"
While Boehner is talking trillions in spending cuts, the Democrats have targeted big oil for a $21 billion tax increase, a proposal that runs directly counter to the bedrock GOP philosophy of opposition to any tax increases. And the Democratic Senate may again try to put immigration reform on the legislative calendar, an issue the GOP would like to avoid since their basic anti-immigration reform stand jeopardizes any chances they may have for picking up Hispanic votes.
As said in several previous postings on various subjects -- stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN, PART III
The euphoria over the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has now shifted to the question of the effects of his killing on the war in Afghanistan. Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said bin Laden's death makes it easier for us to get out of Afghanistan. Senator Joe Lieberman said Osama's death gives us momentum in the war. Presumably Lieberman means, "so let's keep going".
Then there are the questions of what did the Pakistanis know about bin Laden's hiding out not far from their capital, and when did they know it? There's also the question of who will succeed bin Laden as both the symbolic and operational leader of al-Qaeda.
This posting focuses on the last question but in a different way. Now that bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is, at least for now, leaderless, maybe it's time to take advantage of the disarray and quickly press for serious talks with the Taliban about a political settlement in Afghanistan, a solution that would hasten our exodus from this long and costly war.
Before registering my own views, a quick retracing of how we got into the war is in order. To capsulize: bin Laden's al-Qaeda was the terrorist gang that put together and executed the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. Bin Laden had his base in Afghanistan and was the "guest" of the Taliban who governed that country and repressed its people, particularly women, through radical application of Islamic law. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to kill off both the guest and the host government. A decade later we are still fighting the war.
Given that the war is with the Taliban inside of Afghanistan and in enclaves in Pakistan, does bin Laden's death do what Levin or Lieberman think? To me the crucial point is that bin Laden's demise may create a new opportunity to persuade the Taliban to negotiate a political settlement to the war and thus make it easier to get out. Last fall President Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones said, "The Taliban generally as a group has never signed on to the global jihad business and doesn't seem to have ambitions beyond its region." (see earlier post). In a sense it defined how the Taliban could cleanse itself -- break free of al-Qaeda. Perhaps the Taliban and its spiritual leader Mullah Omar will see that with the death of bin Laden, they are free, in effect, to throw the now leaderless Afghanistan-linked al-Qaeda under the bus and do some serious bargaining with the relevant parties about ending the war. This point has also been made by General Petraeus. There have been reports from time to time about various negotiations between the government of Afghan President Karzai and the Taliban, but little, if anything, has been said about any progress. And it must be kept in mind that there are important tribal and ethnic leaders in Afghanistan who are bitterly opposed to both Karzai and the Taliban and may resist any settlement that would bring the Taliban into the government.
This Taliban-free-of-al-Qaeda approach may also appeal to Pakistan which hosts several factions of the Taliban within its borders. While elements of al-Qaeda are also within Pakistan, that country's past attachment is to the Taliban which Pakistan has supported and views as its trump card (particularly the hard line Haqqani group) for exercising future political influence in neighboring Afghanistan. Certainly the presence within its borders of both its Taliban allies and al-Qaeda has caused Pakistan considerable grief through terrorist attacks on Pakistan itself, as well as in severely complicating Pakistan's relations with the United States. Pakistan, along with the Afghans, may now see the benefit of taking the death of bin Laden as an opportunity to promote getting meaningful negotiations started for an end of the war. Any political settlement is almost certain to reinstate some form of Taliban participation in Afghan governance (see previous post) and Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, but this time without the burden of al-Qaeda.
That would hardly mean the end of al-Qaeda as a terrorist threat to the U.S. and other countries. It already has franchised operations in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to name just some of the places where it has established organizations. The al-Qaeda leaders and followers currently sheltered in Pakistan could relocate or, in a worst case scenario for Pakistan, remain there and increase its terrorist operations in hopes of toppling the regime of Pakistan and perhaps gaining access to and control of parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
So the bottom line is to press quickly for meaningful post-bin Laden talks between the relevant parties and the Taliban. Such a quick resumption, if achieved, doesn't mean there would be a quick settlement, but bin Laden's death may have created a window of opportunity for having another go at it.
Then there are the questions of what did the Pakistanis know about bin Laden's hiding out not far from their capital, and when did they know it? There's also the question of who will succeed bin Laden as both the symbolic and operational leader of al-Qaeda.
This posting focuses on the last question but in a different way. Now that bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is, at least for now, leaderless, maybe it's time to take advantage of the disarray and quickly press for serious talks with the Taliban about a political settlement in Afghanistan, a solution that would hasten our exodus from this long and costly war.
Before registering my own views, a quick retracing of how we got into the war is in order. To capsulize: bin Laden's al-Qaeda was the terrorist gang that put together and executed the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. Bin Laden had his base in Afghanistan and was the "guest" of the Taliban who governed that country and repressed its people, particularly women, through radical application of Islamic law. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to kill off both the guest and the host government. A decade later we are still fighting the war.
Given that the war is with the Taliban inside of Afghanistan and in enclaves in Pakistan, does bin Laden's death do what Levin or Lieberman think? To me the crucial point is that bin Laden's demise may create a new opportunity to persuade the Taliban to negotiate a political settlement to the war and thus make it easier to get out. Last fall President Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones said, "The Taliban generally as a group has never signed on to the global jihad business and doesn't seem to have ambitions beyond its region." (see earlier post). In a sense it defined how the Taliban could cleanse itself -- break free of al-Qaeda. Perhaps the Taliban and its spiritual leader Mullah Omar will see that with the death of bin Laden, they are free, in effect, to throw the now leaderless Afghanistan-linked al-Qaeda under the bus and do some serious bargaining with the relevant parties about ending the war. This point has also been made by General Petraeus. There have been reports from time to time about various negotiations between the government of Afghan President Karzai and the Taliban, but little, if anything, has been said about any progress. And it must be kept in mind that there are important tribal and ethnic leaders in Afghanistan who are bitterly opposed to both Karzai and the Taliban and may resist any settlement that would bring the Taliban into the government.
This Taliban-free-of-al-Qaeda approach may also appeal to Pakistan which hosts several factions of the Taliban within its borders. While elements of al-Qaeda are also within Pakistan, that country's past attachment is to the Taliban which Pakistan has supported and views as its trump card (particularly the hard line Haqqani group) for exercising future political influence in neighboring Afghanistan. Certainly the presence within its borders of both its Taliban allies and al-Qaeda has caused Pakistan considerable grief through terrorist attacks on Pakistan itself, as well as in severely complicating Pakistan's relations with the United States. Pakistan, along with the Afghans, may now see the benefit of taking the death of bin Laden as an opportunity to promote getting meaningful negotiations started for an end of the war. Any political settlement is almost certain to reinstate some form of Taliban participation in Afghan governance (see previous post) and Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, but this time without the burden of al-Qaeda.
That would hardly mean the end of al-Qaeda as a terrorist threat to the U.S. and other countries. It already has franchised operations in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to name just some of the places where it has established organizations. The al-Qaeda leaders and followers currently sheltered in Pakistan could relocate or, in a worst case scenario for Pakistan, remain there and increase its terrorist operations in hopes of toppling the regime of Pakistan and perhaps gaining access to and control of parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
So the bottom line is to press quickly for meaningful post-bin Laden talks between the relevant parties and the Taliban. Such a quick resumption, if achieved, doesn't mean there would be a quick settlement, but bin Laden's death may have created a window of opportunity for having another go at it.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
CONGRESS AND PARKINSON'S LAW
Parkinson's Law says, "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The work to fill in the time is often referred to as "make work."
Thanks to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, that seems to be what's going on in Washington right now. For months the Obama administration had talked about the U.S. running out of money this spring unless the debt limit was raised above the current legal level of $14.3 trillion. Failure to act in a timely way could mean the U.S. defaulting on its financial obligations, bringing on bankruptcy which in turn would lead to an international financial meltdown. Then it was said the spring deadline could be stretched a bit by various methods of juggling of the books. Then last week the Treasury Department reported a greater than expected increase in revenues, extending the debt ceiling deadline to early August. A timely extension since Congress begins a one-month recess/vacation on August 8.
Here is where Parkinson's Law begins to enter the picture. If the spring debt deadline had held, Congress would now be engaged in a bitter partisan dispute about using the debt ceiling issue as a vehicle for forcing more spending cuts on the administration. Within that context extension of the deadline until August has given the administration and Congress time needed to work out an acceptable agreement on the debt-spending issue. Reports are circulating that Vice President Biden, working with a bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers, is cobbling together an agreement that combines raising the debt ceiling with near-term spending cuts and a longer term plan for controlling deficits.
What is important to note is that the Biden group is not dealing with the really contentious issues of reducing the costs of medicare and medicaid, two big drivers of deficit spending. Presumably these would be dealt with in the normal budget process, if there is such a thing anymore. That would put the so-called Ryan budget to end medicare as it has operated for the past 45 years and greatly reducing and restructuring medicaid spending up against the far less drastic budget plan of President Obama. But the reality is that making such big decisions will probably be treated in the normal political way -- put off such contentious decisions until after next year's presidential/congressional elections.
So if Treasury has given more time before a debt crisis appears and the big health care decisions are put off until 2013, what will Congress do between now and August to fill up the time, a la Parkinson's Law? Right now it appears that it will be a period for both Republicans and Democrats to set out some political markers that will please their political bases. The GOP House is already moving fast with its appeal-to-the-base priorities.
After the January 19th House vote to repeal the President's health care reform died in the Democratic Senate, the GOP House last week voted to cut off funding for specific parts of the reform law. Like the January repeal vote, these funding cut off are dead on arrival (DOA) in the Senate. In an appeal to its big business constituency, two bills last week cleared GOP-controlled House committees: one was to delay for 18 months putting provisions of last year's financial reform law into effect to regulate Wall Street manipulation of the securities markets; the second was to weaken the key consumer protection provisions of the legislation. Both are likely to pass the House and be DOA in the Senate. Waiting in the House wings are some anti-abortion proposals favored by the Republicans and their right wing political base.
The House Democrats will make a futile attempt to gain passage of provisions to end some of the tax advantages given to the highly profitable oil industry. There is some support within the GOP to take a look at such tax reforms but the Democratic effort to have these actually passed is likely to fail. A similar effort is likely at some point in the Senate where it will face the 60-vote block to floor consideration; if passed, the cuts would be DOA in the House.
The Senate may use the pre-recess period to begin consideration of an immigration reform plan, a topic being discussed increasingly by Obama. A Senate Democratic effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill is likely to run up against the 60-vote obstacle for floor consideration, but the Democrats hope the effort will send a signal to Hispanic voters about who their congressional friends and opponents are. But the GOP may find it necessary to support or appear to support some form of immigration reform legislation to avoid the appearance of simply ignoring Hispanic demands and votes.
So Congress will fill up the expanded time it has before the debt deadline with partisan bills designed to appeal to their respective political bases or, in the case of the Hispanics, would-be recruits to the political base. Some other things such as action on various trade bills may get done but gone are such issues as stimulus spending, job-creation legislation, expiration of extensions of unemployment insurance, etc. The bulk of the time both before and after the August vacation will be filled with DOA political legislative proposals. Parkinson didn't say that the expanded time allowed would be filled with meaningful work, just time filling make-work. In the case of Congress, it will be make-work to serve obvious political agendas.
Thanks to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, that seems to be what's going on in Washington right now. For months the Obama administration had talked about the U.S. running out of money this spring unless the debt limit was raised above the current legal level of $14.3 trillion. Failure to act in a timely way could mean the U.S. defaulting on its financial obligations, bringing on bankruptcy which in turn would lead to an international financial meltdown. Then it was said the spring deadline could be stretched a bit by various methods of juggling of the books. Then last week the Treasury Department reported a greater than expected increase in revenues, extending the debt ceiling deadline to early August. A timely extension since Congress begins a one-month recess/vacation on August 8.
Here is where Parkinson's Law begins to enter the picture. If the spring debt deadline had held, Congress would now be engaged in a bitter partisan dispute about using the debt ceiling issue as a vehicle for forcing more spending cuts on the administration. Within that context extension of the deadline until August has given the administration and Congress time needed to work out an acceptable agreement on the debt-spending issue. Reports are circulating that Vice President Biden, working with a bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers, is cobbling together an agreement that combines raising the debt ceiling with near-term spending cuts and a longer term plan for controlling deficits.
What is important to note is that the Biden group is not dealing with the really contentious issues of reducing the costs of medicare and medicaid, two big drivers of deficit spending. Presumably these would be dealt with in the normal budget process, if there is such a thing anymore. That would put the so-called Ryan budget to end medicare as it has operated for the past 45 years and greatly reducing and restructuring medicaid spending up against the far less drastic budget plan of President Obama. But the reality is that making such big decisions will probably be treated in the normal political way -- put off such contentious decisions until after next year's presidential/congressional elections.
So if Treasury has given more time before a debt crisis appears and the big health care decisions are put off until 2013, what will Congress do between now and August to fill up the time, a la Parkinson's Law? Right now it appears that it will be a period for both Republicans and Democrats to set out some political markers that will please their political bases. The GOP House is already moving fast with its appeal-to-the-base priorities.
After the January 19th House vote to repeal the President's health care reform died in the Democratic Senate, the GOP House last week voted to cut off funding for specific parts of the reform law. Like the January repeal vote, these funding cut off are dead on arrival (DOA) in the Senate. In an appeal to its big business constituency, two bills last week cleared GOP-controlled House committees: one was to delay for 18 months putting provisions of last year's financial reform law into effect to regulate Wall Street manipulation of the securities markets; the second was to weaken the key consumer protection provisions of the legislation. Both are likely to pass the House and be DOA in the Senate. Waiting in the House wings are some anti-abortion proposals favored by the Republicans and their right wing political base.
The House Democrats will make a futile attempt to gain passage of provisions to end some of the tax advantages given to the highly profitable oil industry. There is some support within the GOP to take a look at such tax reforms but the Democratic effort to have these actually passed is likely to fail. A similar effort is likely at some point in the Senate where it will face the 60-vote block to floor consideration; if passed, the cuts would be DOA in the House.
The Senate may use the pre-recess period to begin consideration of an immigration reform plan, a topic being discussed increasingly by Obama. A Senate Democratic effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill is likely to run up against the 60-vote obstacle for floor consideration, but the Democrats hope the effort will send a signal to Hispanic voters about who their congressional friends and opponents are. But the GOP may find it necessary to support or appear to support some form of immigration reform legislation to avoid the appearance of simply ignoring Hispanic demands and votes.
So Congress will fill up the expanded time it has before the debt deadline with partisan bills designed to appeal to their respective political bases or, in the case of the Hispanics, would-be recruits to the political base. Some other things such as action on various trade bills may get done but gone are such issues as stimulus spending, job-creation legislation, expiration of extensions of unemployment insurance, etc. The bulk of the time both before and after the August vacation will be filled with DOA political legislative proposals. Parkinson didn't say that the expanded time allowed would be filled with meaningful work, just time filling make-work. In the case of Congress, it will be make-work to serve obvious political agendas.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
THE POLITICS OF KILLING BIN LADEN; SIPPING MIDEAST KOOL AID
Osama is dead! Long live Obama! That ought to be good for about a week before returning to "Down with Obama" and all his works as we get one week closer to the next presidential election. Meanwhile, what political advantages can be squeezed from the death of the man responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the killing of almost 3,000 people nearly a decade ago?
While commending Obama for the daring mission that ended with the killing of bin Laden, some Republicans were quick to point out, correctly or incorrectly, that the trail that led to bin Laden began with information about couriers who were especially close to the al Qaeda leader. Find the courier, follow the courier, and he will lead you to bin Laden's secret lair. But, as some Republicans have claimed, the trail to that courier was discovered through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the Bush administration to extract intelligence from al Qaeda and al Qaeda-linked captives. Put another way, "you may object to such techniques as water boarding, but they paid off by leading us to bin Laden."
That may be a bit of near term political payoff for those attacking President Obama's anti-water boarding policy, but there may be an important longer term benefit to the President. We have gone nearly 10 years without a second 9/11-scale terrorist attack which persons like former Vice President Dick Cheney attributes to the anti-terrorist policies and programs put into place by former President Bush. That assertion is a corollary to criticism of Obama as being soft on national security/anti-terrorism, thus making the U.S. more vulnerable to another massive terrorist attack. If such an attack had occurred before bin Laden was killed, the cry against Obama would have been "we told you so". Now perhaps the dynamic has changed a bit.
If another terrorist attack on the U.S. does occur, it can be viewed within the context that the attack was in revenge for the killing of bin Laden, the goal devoutly wished for by the American public. That may play politically different with the public than the Cheney soft on terrorism argument. While any such attack would work against the President, the revenge scenario may diminish the political damage.
As a facetious add on. Will Donald the Trumpet now launch an investigation into whether bin Laden is really dead, DNA evidence, like a birth certificate, notwithstanding?
0-0-0-0-0
The previous posting was about the early implications for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with the overthrow of Egyptian President Mubarak, the former regional spear carrier for both the U.S. and Israel. Among the early changes cited was Egypt's brokering a reconciliation between Hamas, labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel, and Fatah on the West Bank which is the organizational base of support for the Palestinian Authority (PA), the western accepted bargaining agent for all Palestinians. The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation was to be formalized this week with a signing of the agreement in Cairo. Upon formalization the next question concerns the ability for the two sides to come to agreement and remain in agreement on some sticky issues that have divided them.
Israel lost no time in showing its opposition to the agreement and its continued hostility to Hamas which is equally hostile toward Israel in calling for the latter's destruction. Israel sees the Hamas-Fatah patching up as an obstacle to any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israel government backed up this displeasure by announcing it was withholding $100 million in revenues it collects on various taxes and custom duties for the Palestinians which, when turned over to the PA, is used to pay the tens of thousands of Palestinian public employees. No turn over of the money, no pay day for the PA workers. That is, unless Israel relents under international pressure.
Meanwhile, Hamas has taken a different tack toward Israel, saying it would honor an unofficial truce with Israel, the central feature of that truce being no launching of missles from Gaza into Israel. Such truces have been declared before but have not lasted, often because the Palestinians governing Gaza do not control all of the various anti-Israel militants located there who launch missiles into Israel.
From time to time I depart from my basic cynicism and take a pollyanna view of a cassandra reality. Perhaps it would be too much to hope that the Israelis, meaning Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme right wing coalition partners, would view the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as a starting point for a confidence building strategy between Israel and the Palestinians as a prelude to some real negotiations on creation of an independent Palestinian state. On the Israeli side confidence building would require policies to end or substantially reduce the economic isolation and discrimination imposed on Palestinians both in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. And, of course, Israel giving the PA the money it owes it. On the Hamas side, confidence building would require a final end to rocket launching from Gaza and for Hamas to back away from its call for the extinction of the Jewish state. So much for drinking the kool aid or chewing khat.
While commending Obama for the daring mission that ended with the killing of bin Laden, some Republicans were quick to point out, correctly or incorrectly, that the trail that led to bin Laden began with information about couriers who were especially close to the al Qaeda leader. Find the courier, follow the courier, and he will lead you to bin Laden's secret lair. But, as some Republicans have claimed, the trail to that courier was discovered through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the Bush administration to extract intelligence from al Qaeda and al Qaeda-linked captives. Put another way, "you may object to such techniques as water boarding, but they paid off by leading us to bin Laden."
That may be a bit of near term political payoff for those attacking President Obama's anti-water boarding policy, but there may be an important longer term benefit to the President. We have gone nearly 10 years without a second 9/11-scale terrorist attack which persons like former Vice President Dick Cheney attributes to the anti-terrorist policies and programs put into place by former President Bush. That assertion is a corollary to criticism of Obama as being soft on national security/anti-terrorism, thus making the U.S. more vulnerable to another massive terrorist attack. If such an attack had occurred before bin Laden was killed, the cry against Obama would have been "we told you so". Now perhaps the dynamic has changed a bit.
If another terrorist attack on the U.S. does occur, it can be viewed within the context that the attack was in revenge for the killing of bin Laden, the goal devoutly wished for by the American public. That may play politically different with the public than the Cheney soft on terrorism argument. While any such attack would work against the President, the revenge scenario may diminish the political damage.
As a facetious add on. Will Donald the Trumpet now launch an investigation into whether bin Laden is really dead, DNA evidence, like a birth certificate, notwithstanding?
0-0-0-0-0
The previous posting was about the early implications for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with the overthrow of Egyptian President Mubarak, the former regional spear carrier for both the U.S. and Israel. Among the early changes cited was Egypt's brokering a reconciliation between Hamas, labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel, and Fatah on the West Bank which is the organizational base of support for the Palestinian Authority (PA), the western accepted bargaining agent for all Palestinians. The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation was to be formalized this week with a signing of the agreement in Cairo. Upon formalization the next question concerns the ability for the two sides to come to agreement and remain in agreement on some sticky issues that have divided them.
Israel lost no time in showing its opposition to the agreement and its continued hostility to Hamas which is equally hostile toward Israel in calling for the latter's destruction. Israel sees the Hamas-Fatah patching up as an obstacle to any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israel government backed up this displeasure by announcing it was withholding $100 million in revenues it collects on various taxes and custom duties for the Palestinians which, when turned over to the PA, is used to pay the tens of thousands of Palestinian public employees. No turn over of the money, no pay day for the PA workers. That is, unless Israel relents under international pressure.
Meanwhile, Hamas has taken a different tack toward Israel, saying it would honor an unofficial truce with Israel, the central feature of that truce being no launching of missles from Gaza into Israel. Such truces have been declared before but have not lasted, often because the Palestinians governing Gaza do not control all of the various anti-Israel militants located there who launch missiles into Israel.
From time to time I depart from my basic cynicism and take a pollyanna view of a cassandra reality. Perhaps it would be too much to hope that the Israelis, meaning Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme right wing coalition partners, would view the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as a starting point for a confidence building strategy between Israel and the Palestinians as a prelude to some real negotiations on creation of an independent Palestinian state. On the Israeli side confidence building would require policies to end or substantially reduce the economic isolation and discrimination imposed on Palestinians both in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. And, of course, Israel giving the PA the money it owes it. On the Hamas side, confidence building would require a final end to rocket launching from Gaza and for Hamas to back away from its call for the extinction of the Jewish state. So much for drinking the kool aid or chewing khat.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
EGYPT RE-EMERGES AS KEY MIDEAST PLAYER, BUT . . . .
The first indications of the impact on U.S. policy from the upheaval in the Arab world are beginning to appear. For Washington the news is not good. The most notable point so far is the re-emergence of Egypt as a vital player in regional politics. This time, however, Egypt is not playing the role of enlarging U.S. power and influence in the Mideast, but rather marginalizing it.
Last week Egypt brokered a deal to repair, at least for now, the split in the Palestinians between Hamas in the Gaza strip and Fatah which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA) on the West Bank. The PA under President Mahmoud Abbas receives about $400 million a year in U.S. aid. By contrast, the U.S. has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization.
In previous posts I have said that re-unification of the two Palestinian factions was a necessary condition if there was to be any restarting of meaningful peace talks with Israel to create an independent Palestinian state. In the past, any previous concessions by the PA to Israel for the creation of that state were labeled a sell out by Hamas, thus handicapping the possibility of progress. Any progress in creation of an independent Palestine was already jeopardized by PA demands that Israel cease construction of new settlements on lands in the West Bank envisioned to be included in the new state. Israel, on the other hand, continued and continues to approve such construction. While the patching of the Hamas-Fatah split strengthens the hand of the Palestinians as a negotiating partner with Israel, the Israelis, already very cool to independence, are now even less likely to negotiate with a Palestinian body that includes Hamas which has called for the destruction of Israel.
All of this leaves the U.S. as an outside spectator looking in on events over which it has no control. The Obama administration had tried unsuccessfully to get the peace talks restarted last September and had been pressuring Israel to halt new settlements, an effort ignored by Prime Minister Netanyahu whose cool attitude toward an independent Palestine has been reinforced by the extreme right wing of his coalition which is unalterably opposed to independence. To make matters worse, the PA may now proceed with its tentative plan to go to the U.N. General Assembly to seek international recognition of an independent Palestine, a move the U.S. has sought to discourage. If it goes to the General Assembly, there are good prospects it will get recognition.
But that's not the end of Egypt's renewed demonstration that it is a key player in the region. While it appears for now that Egypt will abide by it's peace treaty with Israel, it is also preparing to reopen Egypt's border with Gaza. That border had been closed by outsted President Mubarak, one of the ways he showed support of both Israeli and U.S. policy. An open border, opposed by Israel who seeks to isolate Hamas in Gaza, will permit a freer flow of arms and economic goods into Gaza.
And that is still not the end of the new Egyptian role in Middle East politics. Sunni Egypt says it will also normalize its relations with Shia Iran who considers the U.S. as its arch enemy. One of the major reasons for major military assistance to Egypt in the past was to have it act as a counterbalance to Iran's growing power and influence in the region. Egypt had broken diplomatic relations with Iran after the overthrow of the Shah in l979. In 1991, Egypt reopened relations with Tehran but at a level below a full embassy. In Egypt's restoring full diplomatic relations with Iran, that will leave only Israel and the United States without such relations.
There has been considerable speculation about Egypt and its regional role after the overthrow of Mubarak, a major U.S. spear carrier in the Mideast. Now the U.S. is getting the first indications of the direction of post-Mubarak Egyptian foreign policy and the most significant thing to be noted is that Cairo is operating independently of U.S. and thus marginalizing U.S. influence. This is even before the coming Egyptian elections which means a shakeout of Egypt's domestic
politics with possible further implications for its foreign policy.
Last week Egypt brokered a deal to repair, at least for now, the split in the Palestinians between Hamas in the Gaza strip and Fatah which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA) on the West Bank. The PA under President Mahmoud Abbas receives about $400 million a year in U.S. aid. By contrast, the U.S. has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization.
In previous posts I have said that re-unification of the two Palestinian factions was a necessary condition if there was to be any restarting of meaningful peace talks with Israel to create an independent Palestinian state. In the past, any previous concessions by the PA to Israel for the creation of that state were labeled a sell out by Hamas, thus handicapping the possibility of progress. Any progress in creation of an independent Palestine was already jeopardized by PA demands that Israel cease construction of new settlements on lands in the West Bank envisioned to be included in the new state. Israel, on the other hand, continued and continues to approve such construction. While the patching of the Hamas-Fatah split strengthens the hand of the Palestinians as a negotiating partner with Israel, the Israelis, already very cool to independence, are now even less likely to negotiate with a Palestinian body that includes Hamas which has called for the destruction of Israel.
All of this leaves the U.S. as an outside spectator looking in on events over which it has no control. The Obama administration had tried unsuccessfully to get the peace talks restarted last September and had been pressuring Israel to halt new settlements, an effort ignored by Prime Minister Netanyahu whose cool attitude toward an independent Palestine has been reinforced by the extreme right wing of his coalition which is unalterably opposed to independence. To make matters worse, the PA may now proceed with its tentative plan to go to the U.N. General Assembly to seek international recognition of an independent Palestine, a move the U.S. has sought to discourage. If it goes to the General Assembly, there are good prospects it will get recognition.
But that's not the end of Egypt's renewed demonstration that it is a key player in the region. While it appears for now that Egypt will abide by it's peace treaty with Israel, it is also preparing to reopen Egypt's border with Gaza. That border had been closed by outsted President Mubarak, one of the ways he showed support of both Israeli and U.S. policy. An open border, opposed by Israel who seeks to isolate Hamas in Gaza, will permit a freer flow of arms and economic goods into Gaza.
And that is still not the end of the new Egyptian role in Middle East politics. Sunni Egypt says it will also normalize its relations with Shia Iran who considers the U.S. as its arch enemy. One of the major reasons for major military assistance to Egypt in the past was to have it act as a counterbalance to Iran's growing power and influence in the region. Egypt had broken diplomatic relations with Iran after the overthrow of the Shah in l979. In 1991, Egypt reopened relations with Tehran but at a level below a full embassy. In Egypt's restoring full diplomatic relations with Iran, that will leave only Israel and the United States without such relations.
There has been considerable speculation about Egypt and its regional role after the overthrow of Mubarak, a major U.S. spear carrier in the Mideast. Now the U.S. is getting the first indications of the direction of post-Mubarak Egyptian foreign policy and the most significant thing to be noted is that Cairo is operating independently of U.S. and thus marginalizing U.S. influence. This is even before the coming Egyptian elections which means a shakeout of Egypt's domestic
politics with possible further implications for its foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)