The Moderate Voice » International

Amnesia and Arrogance On Display in U.S. Aid to Afghan Militias

KATHY KATTENBURG — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:21:34 +0000

Dexter Filkins provides a supportive, eager-to-please report about the U.S. military’s “new” plans to aid local militias in Afghanistan that are fighting the Taliban. Here are the first few paragraphs:

American and Afghan officials have begun helping a number of anti-Taliban militias that have independently taken up arms against insurgents in several parts of Afghanistan, prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban.

The emergence of the militias, which took some leaders in Kabul by surprise, has so encouraged the American and Afghan officials that they are planning to spur the growth of similar armed groups across the Taliban heartland in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

The American and Afghan officials say they are hoping the plan, called the Community Defense Initiative, will bring together thousands of gunmen to protect their neighborhoods from Taliban insurgents. Already there are hundreds of Afghans who are acting on their own against the Taliban, officials say.

Aside from those “American and Afghan officials,” the only apparent sources for this article are two tribal elders whose village fought off Taliban attempts to interfere with an infrastructure project in their province bordering Pakistan:

One of the most striking examples of a local militia rising up on its own is here in Achin, a predominantly Pashtun district in Nangarhar Province that straddles the border with Pakistan.

In July, a long-running dispute between local Taliban fighters and elders from the Shinwari tribe flared up. When a local Taliban warlord named Khona brought a more senior commander from Pakistan to help in the confrontation, the elders in the Shinwari tribe rallied villagers from up and down the valley where they live, killed the commander and chased Khona away.

The elders had insisted that the Taliban stay away from a group of Afghans building a dike in the valley. When Khona’s men kidnapped two Afghan engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough.

“The whole tribe was with me,” one of the elders said in an interview. “The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.”

It’s impossible to know, of course, how representative “one of the most striking examples” is — much less what the unwanted effects of building U.S. plans around such militias might be — but the point is to promote the policy, not examine it critically.

Jon Boone, in a more skeptical piece at The Guardian, suggests that U.S. officials have good reason to keep a lid on the Community Defense Initiative, which is what the program is called: experts are already warning it could be destabilizing, and NATO allies are unlikely to support it:

… The hope is that the militias supplement the Nato and Afghan forces fighting the Taliban. But the prospect of re-empowering militias after billions of international dollars were spent after the US-led invasion in 2001 to disarm illegally armed groups alarms many experts.Senior generals in the Afghan ministries of interior and defence are also worried about what they see as a return to the failed strategies of the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan.

Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, said the US risked losing control over groups which have in the past turned to looting shops and setting up illegal road checkpoints when they lose foreign support.

“It is not enough to talk to a few tribal elders and decide that you trust them,” Ruttig said. “No matter how well-trained and culturally aware the special forces are they will never be able to get to know enough about a local area to trust the people they are dealing with.”

Despite these concerns, and the fact that CDI has not even been publicly announced or discussed, operations have already been started “in 14 areas in the south, east and west” — although the program “is expected to extend far beyond that.”

Conservative and milblogger response to the Filkins article is typically starry-eyed. “Uncle Jimbo” at Blackfive calls it “good news,” and forecasts sunny skies and clear, uncluttered highways:

It will take something just like this across much of the country, but it is exactly what Gen. McChrystal’s plan calls for facilitating. What these tribes need now is our help ensuring they do not get rolled over by a Taliban push back. We need to give them air support, weapons, and yes satchels of cash to use as they see fit. We must tread lightly so as not to upset the local nature of these uprisings, but we must cover their backs. Then as we talk to tribal leaders in other areas we can point to these successes and give them some motivation.

It will be a delicate ballet as there are many different tribes who have as many beefs with each other as they do w/ the Talibs, but we can handle that. We need to take advantage of this and get the push back against the enemy going. Our troops deserve a decision. Make the call sir!

Joe Klein is positively rapturous:

Sunday morning brings a glimmer of good news from Afghanistan, courtesy of the amazing Dexter Filkins. The U.S. is beginning to support tribal militia fighting the Taliban. This is important because the weakest link in the military’s Afghan plan is the idea that we can train a 250,000 man Afghan army and 150,000 police officers. It’s important to train up some organized security forces, especially for the more urban areas. But Afghanistan is a land of a thousand remote valleys and those are best defended by their residents, as they always have been. If the U.S.–and, especially, the Kabul government–can establish credibility as a friendly force that will provide economic, humanitarian and some tactical support, without demanding payoffs in return, there is a very good chance that the local tribes will reject the Taliban. Ultimately, this is the only way the situation can be stabilized. Let’s hope it works as well as it did in Iraq. …

Neptunus Lex also sees this as good news, but one of his readers — “Filterman” — points to an article in the Washington Post about a resurging Al Qaeda in Iraq — a situation that argues against the supposed “success” of the surge in that country — and to an article in The Nation about the U.S. military funding the same Taliban insurgents that are killing American troops.

Ignoring Krauthammer or aiding Second Coming? Palin predicts Jewish “flocking” to Israel

JILL MILLER ZIMON — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:05:21 +0000

Somehow I missed Sarah Palin’s proclamation, in an interview with Barbara Walters last week, that Jews are flocking to Israel, right now. Here’s the transcript for the relevant section:

Barbara Walters: Governor, let’s talk about some issues. The Middle East. The Obama administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider “Palestinian territory.” What is your view on this?

Sarah Palin: I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish, uh, settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And, um, I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell, um, Israel that, that, uh, the Jewish settlements cannot expand.

Barbara Walters: Even if it’s Palestinian areas?

Sarah Palin:I believe that the Jewish settlement should be allowed to expand.

Why Walters didn’t do her journalistic best and follow up on Palin’s assertion (in bold above) about the flocking, if only to hear whether theories like this one are behind Palin’s ability to ignore the immigration statistics and trends in Israel, including the fact that immigration has hit all-time lows there, including a 3,000 person drop from 2007 to 2008, is beyond me.

In getting advice about serving on city council, I recently was advised that the response, “I don’t know,” is acceptable at times. Like, when, for example, you don’t actually know something. Palin’s response to Walters would have been completely adequate (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not), if she’d left out the section I’ve bolded.

It is this adding in of assertions that lack any basis in reality that sink Palin’s credibility as a person with the potential to lead a major super power. It’s one thing to swap Iraq for Iran and Iran for Iraq, like she did with Sean Hannity the other night (a forum topic on Hannity’s website on that very mix-up has been deleted). I recently wrote a column where I asserted something about abortion rights advocates when I meant abortion rights opponents (it’s since been corrected).

But in the case of Israel’s settlement policy, there was no need for Palin to fabricate, unless she’s truly pushing the theological notion of the Second Coming. I’m honestly not sure which upsets me more, as something being promoted by a person being taken this seriously by so many Americans – making stuff up to give a false sense that you know a few things, or believing, as supposedly 50-60 million Americans do, that Jews will indeed flock to Israel and be converted as part of the Second Coming of Jesus.

It’s also an indication that she hasn’t listened to Charles Krauthammer or anyone else who has said for more than a year that if she wants to be a contender (and maybe this is our answer – she doesn’t) for the U.S. presidency, she better bone up on some knowledge.

Obama’s China Trip Announces a ‘World Without Leadership’: Financial Times Deutschland, Germany

WILLIAM KERN — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:29:51 +0000

Now that we’ve gotten some of the Chinese reaction to president Obama’s trip, it’s time to start sampling the reaction of the rest of the world.

This article by the great Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland is not encouraging – and points out that without the U.S. able to exercise effective leadership, it’s time to grapple seriously with stronger global institutions.

According to Klau, President Obama’s China visit signals that a moment the Europeans have dreaded for hundreds of years has come when he writes:

“At least since the time of Napoleon, we Europeans have lived with a somewhat fearful suspicion that China will likely wake up one day as a giant of global politics. Now that time has come.”

As far as what the trip shows about the United States, Klau is even less sanguine, and more than a little “peeved” that Obama is treating Beijing better than he does the European Union:

“Obama’s China visit was more than a passing episode. It most likely documents the definitive end of a historic epoch, in which the foremost Western power was able to present itself internationally as the ultimate authority on good government and good business, without incurring more than the weak protestations of those who were comparatively unsuccessful. … the turnaround year of 1989 [year the Berlin Wall fell] marked the beginning of the end of a historic era – an era in which Western concepts of good governance and good business almost entirely dominated the global discourse. If things stay this way because China continues to do splits between free and un-free politics, the Tiananmen Square massacre will be, unfortunately, the 1989 event with the strongest influence on the future.”

“We are slowly beginning to get used to this new, post-American world. Peeved, we see that the globally more modest United States treats its coolly-controlling lender China with greater care than it does the European Union.”

By Thomas Klau*

Translated By Stephanie Martin

November 19, 2009

Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)

After the cool treatment of Europeans, now comes a soft stance toward China. During his first visit to Asia, U.S. President Barack Obama, sober as always in his approach to foreign policy, has drawn his conclusions about the reorganization of the global power arena. In accordance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership, human rights rhetoric was almost entirely missing from Obama’s public statements. Behind closed doors he may have made demands on some key issues like Iran; in public, however, anything that may have suggested America as school master and China as the one receiving instruction was avoided.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Key Senate Health Care Reform Vote Today: Did Reid Do His Homework?

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:24:12 +0000

Today the Senate is expected to hold a key health care reform vote. And if President Barack Obama has a bundle of political clout riding on this vote, so does Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, in an increasingly tough (some pundits suggest seemingly fruitless) battle for re-election who was never a darling of the Democratic party’s liberal wing, could be in a weakened position unless when the votes are counted it turns out that he had gathered the needed 60 votes on a cloture vote. Eyes will be on him and Democratic centrists and — as always — on Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Demmies. But the question is going to be: did Reid do his homework or will the day end with him and Obama looking further weakened? One key Republican sounds as if he is betting that Reid has lined up the votes:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will get exactly the 60 votes he needs to pass healthcare reform legislation through its first test [today], Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said Friday.

Reid on Thursday scheduled a cloture vote on a motion to proceed yesterday. The vote is the first crucial test the healthcare bill will face in the Senate.

“My guess, that’s all it is, is that it would be exactly 60 to exactly 40 but we’ll see,” Vitter said on MSNBC this morning. “I think he probably does [have enough votes] for this first pivotal vote.”

Reid has refused to predict whether or not he will get the necessary votes to pass the measure. “We’ll find out when the votes are taken,” he said when asked on Thursday about his chances of success.

Vitter is a staunch opponent of the bill.

But the Hill also notes this:

Two others Democrats potentially could be absent from the vote on Saturday night. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is currently in Montana tending to his ailing mother. Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) has experienced health problems all year.

The Politico also thinks that — from Reid and Obama’s point of view — it is looking good:

Two Saturdays ago, Pelosi passed health reform on a squeaker of a House vote. Today, Reid can’t spare a single Democrat as the Senate decides whether to start debate. If not, President Barack Obama’s reform hopes suffer immeasurable harm.

That said, things were looking good at daybreak, as Reid can be reasonably confident of 59 votes, with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) a yes vote and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) leaning yes. The holdout: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who has been a fan of reform generally but faces a tough 2010 re-election fight.

In theory, Reid’s job should actually be easier than Pelosi’s. The House voted on final passage. Reid is just asking the Senate to begin debate. But the vote is more than that – it’s a test lab for the ideas, arguments and battle tactics that both sides will carry into an epic showdown over health reform next month.

The debate runs all day with the vote scheduled for 8 p.m.

So is it a slam dunk? Hardly:

Democratic leaders are optimistic of success, but they need every Democrat and both independents to vote “yes,” and two moderates remained uncommitted ahead of the roll call, which is expected around 8 p.m. EST. The vote will determine whether debate can go forward on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 2,074-page bill to dramatically remake the U.S. health care system over the next decade.

…..The two Democratic holdouts are Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. A third centrist, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, announced Friday that he’d be supporting his party on the test vote, while cautioning that it didn’t mean he’d be with them on the final vote.

“It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill,” Nelson said. “It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don’t like a bill, why block your own opportunity to amend it?”

The Republicans are expected to vote as a solid block. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls it a “monstrosity of a bill.” Reid insists everything is full paid for.

Ezra Klein sees an irony in this debate:

Little will illustrate the absurdity of the filibuster as neatly as tomorrow’s vote. This is not the vote to pass the bill. It’s the vote to begin considering the bill. Changing the bill. Amending the bill. Recall that the purpose of the filibuster is to protect debate and ensure that members can make their opinions heard and ensure they have an opportunity to add their ideas to the legislation. Tomorrow, however, 40 Republicans are expected to use the filibuster to close off debate and ensure that no more opinions are heard nor changes considered. The right to unlimited debate has become a tool for cutting it off.

ABC NEWS points to these five questions that will determine the ultimate fate of this bill.

The Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt argues that passing health care reform is not only vital to health care but to the overall success of the Obama administration — including how it is perceived by other countries abroad. Some excerpts:

Is American democracy in paralysis? That question emerged at a conference of big thinkers and experts in various fields organized last week by Foreign Policy magazine, our sister publication.

To an extent, the question reflects an America-in-decline-ism that becomes fashionable from time to time, especially when the U.S. economy is dragging. The United States always has turned out to be more resilient than the pessimists expect, while the supposed advantages of less democratic rivals (the Soviet Union in the 1960s, Japan in the 1980s) have been trumped by the rigidities of one-party rule. This decade’s juggernaut — communist China — also faces challenges that may become more evident with time.

Yet as health-care reform sputters and lurches toward an uncertain finish line, the question is understandable. Foreigners see a Democratic Party that supposedly is alarmed by climate change, that decisively captured the White House and both houses of Congress a year ago — and yet that will send an administration to a crucial conference in Copenhagen next month with little but hopes and promises. Now there is talk that cap-and-trade legislation will wait until not just next year but the next Congress.

He rattles off other problem areas: Obama has been unable to fill most judicial posts and has not even submitted names for many of them; labor law reform is on hold; immigration reform is in limbo; and Afghanistan policy awaits an official…policy:

Meanwhile, American power seems powerless to bend events in Iran, North Korea, the Middle East, Sudan, Congo or even tiny Honduras to our south.

Underlying all is the nation’s growing debt — to other countries and to future generations. The retirement system (Social Security) and health insurance for the elderly (Medicare) are headed for bankruptcy, with state and local pension funds and the federal pension insurance fund not far behind. Pretty much everyone understands that the government must spend less and tax more, but the system seems incapable of taking a first step in either direction.

And didn’t candidate Obama promise to fix the college football Bowl Championship Series?

He goes through a bunch of institutional, political and 21st century media reasons that might partially explain all of the above, then argues:

Whichever explanation appeals to you — and no doubt they all contain some truth — the perception of paralysis increases the urgency of passing health-care reform. Failure would damage the Obama presidency, and it would also deepen the fear, here and abroad, that America is stuck.

Paradoxically, though, it also increases the urgency of doing health-care reform right. If Congress and the administration manage only to extend expensive new benefits, without improving the health-care system or controlling rising costs, it will be an achievement — but not one that will long reassure anyone concerned about the U.S. ability to get things done.

Which means a lot of people are watching to see if Harry Reid did his homework. If he hasn’t then he and Obama could face political detention..

The cartoon by RJ Matson, Roll Call, is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited. All rights reseserved,

Hezbollah’s Man in Iran Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour Has Enemies In Iran

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:32:49 +0000

By most measures, Hezbollah’s Man in Iran Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour should be a hero — yet he now faces some severe critics and staunch enemies there. Why?

In a must-read piece on RealClearWorld, Meir Javedanfar, RCW’s Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and a regular contributor to RealClearWorld and co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran, says its due to a factor that underscores the complexities of modern Iran:

Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour is, after all, the Iranian who established Hezbollah in Lebanon. The first man who tried and failed was Mostafa Chamran…..In 1982, Mohtashamipour succeeded where Chamran had failed by convincing the new Hezbollah movement to accept Ayatollah Khomeini’s religious authority. The rest, as they say, is history.

You would be forgiven for thinking that Mohtashamipour is treated like a hero in Iran, but the reality is quite different. Many conservatives hate him; despite the fact that he created what many believe is Islamic Iran’s most successful political and military ally in the Middle East. The reason is simple: he is a reformist.

On many occasions, security guards have had to ward off physical attacks against him by neo-conservative students and Basijis who have no problem declaring their undying love and appreciation for Hezbollah. Yet they can’t stand Mohtashamipour, because he wants reform within the system. On one occasion in the mid-90’s, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the governor of the Ardebil province, Mohtashamipour had to be pulled away from a mob of ultra-religious students by the the future Iranian president. Mohtashamipour took refuge at Ahmadinejad’s house until the next day, when he was able to return to Tehran.

The recent unrest in Iran has made life more difficult for Mohtashamipour. During a recent visit to Damascus, he was shadowed and harassed. Not by the Mossad or the CIA, but by allies of Ahmadinejad. He was not left alone, even when he visited the Sayyida Zeinab shrine. At one point he was even told “you wouldn’t dare return to Iran” by the operatives shadowing him around the city.

The treatment of Mohtashamipour provides the West with a strong indication of the roots of Iran’s current erratic behavior. When the Iranian founder of Hezbollah is treated this way because he disagrees with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, others who stand in their way have much more to worry about.

There’s a lot more, so read it in full.

The Hidden ‘Arrogance’ Behind Obama’s Royal Bow: Global Geographic Times, China

WILLIAM KERN — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:39:42 +0000

What is the significance of President Obama’s habit of bowing to foreign royalty? Continuing with our coverage of China’s reaction to president Obama’s Asia tour, Diguo Zhunjiang for China’s state-controlled Global Geographic Times asserts that while this results in a great loss of face for the United States, he warns his readers not to be lulled into a sense of complacency by Obama’s apparent shows of respect.

For China’s Global Geographic Times, Diguo Zhunjiang writes in part:

“I regard this as a performance. If we say that his bow upon meeting the Saudi king was a genuine expression of traditional royal awe by the newly-elected Obama, then we can also say that this time, his bow was a way of getting back at domestic critics. His intentions are quite obvious: he wants a change from the cowboy-style arrogance of his predecessor Bush in order to re-establish the United States as a model of civility, but on a deeper level, repair the damage that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have done to America’s image.

“Regardless of how humble it is in appearance, arrogant strategic thinking is in America’s bones and will continue to be so. So we shouldn’t place any hope in this false smile that has been grafted onto the United States. Rather, we should be more vigilant.”

By Diguo Zhunjiang

Translated By Mark Klingman

November 15, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

While in Tokyo, at noon on November 14, U.S. President Barack Obama met the Japanese emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Upon meeting him at the door of the royal residence, the tall Mr. Obama made an almost 90-degree bow and shook the Emperor’s hand. Obama stopped just shy of a deep bow, and shook hands warmly with the emperor and empress, saying, “it’s really an honor to meet you, your majesty.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

The Stakes in Afghanistan

Guest Voice — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:13:15 +0000

Guest post by J.F. Murphy

J.F. Murphy is a former Marine infantry officer and Iraq veteran who graduated from the U.S. Navy’s SERE program. He is a fellow of the Truman National Security Project.

After nearly two months of deliberation, some have criticized the Obama Administration of foot-dragging a decision on Afghanistan. As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, I could not disagree more. If the previous administration had put such care into its approach toward Iraq and Afghanistan, we might not be facing the difficulties we face today.

An informed decision is not the same as indecision. Given the complexities of securing Afghanistan and turning the tide against the insurgency, it is critical that our commander-in-chief understand the nature of the challenge, and I applaud the president for taking the time to acquire that understanding.

But to succeed in Afghanistan, we need more than a president who understands what we’re up against. We need the American people to understand. To achieve this understanding, I would suggest that there are two major trends in our favor that the American people ought to know.

First, Pakistan has finally recognized the need to confront al Qaeda and the Taliban within its own country, conducting significant operations over the last year to retake Taliban controlled territory.

This is a tremendous shift by Pakistan, which has historically funded terrorist organizations aimed at attacking India. They are in the fight against terrorism now. This gives us the opportunity to crush al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region, with Pakistan attacking them from its own territory in the east, while U.S. and allied forces attack from the West in Afghanistan. This is a vice we should tighten.

Second, America now “does” counter-insurgency. The attitude, tactical skills, and operational ability needed to defeat an insurgency are very different from the conventional warfare abilities that have guided our military thinking since World War II.

Leaders such as Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have recognized this fact and begun to conduct military operations accordingly. The Army and Marine Corps also gained counter-insurgency skills the hard way, during the Iraqi crucible, learning that the key to defeating insurgents lies in protecting the population.

Success in Afghanistan will only come if the Afghan people see the U.S.-led mission in a positive light, which requires the military to put a premium on protecting people. With a counter-insurgency strategy firmly in place, securing this long-term support has now become a possibility.

Of course, these developments alone do not guarantee easy success in Afghanistan. There are, however, no real alternatives. The two most popular suggestions – walking away from Afghanistan or returning to a failed “counter-terror” strategy – carry far too much risk.

Walking away from Afghanistan would be a disaster. We did that once before, after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in the 1980s. The result? Without an American hand in the region, Afghanistan disintegrated into chaos. Pakistan supported the least bad path toward stability, the Taliban. The Taliban eventually gave legal sanctuary to al Qaeda, which used Afghan territory to prepare the 9/11 attacks.

Were we to leave Afghanistan now, the region would spiral out of control once again. Except this time, Pakistan is a nuclear nation. Getting out of the game now would allow extremists to get closer to nuclear weapons, a decidedly unacceptable situation.

Similarly, a counter-terrorism approach to Afghanistan is no real solution. We have been trying that for eight years, with large unit operations to hunt bandits, and drones to kill Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Though we have eliminated a significant number of bad guys, we have also alienated a lot of fence-sitters, and the insurgency has grown stronger. Clearly, we need a new approach.

So what should that approach look like? First, the U.S. must commit to defeating the elements of the Taliban who would either challenge the legitimate governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, or harbor members of trans-national terrorist organizations.

Then we need to follow up these commitments with troops and time. Give General McChrystal what he needs to get the situation under control, and the time he needs to train more Afghan forces. The sooner the Afghans can protect themselves, the sooner we can bring our troops home.

There won’t be a Victory-Afghanistan day that we will all be able to look back on thirty years from now. We live in a different world that includes a different kind of war and a different kind of victory. But the path to that 21st century victory is on the table right now. A steadfast commitment from the United States will ultimately help the Afghan people to pursue a better future for themselves and bolster our security by denying safe haven to terrorists and extremists.

Addiction to Growth is China’s ‘Berlin Wall’: Global Geographic Times, People’s Republic of China

WILLIAM KERN — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:57:48 +0000

Can President Obama persuade China not to be so dependent on growth, particularly trade-dependent growth? Likening Beijing’s obsession with growth to a Chinese version of the ‘Berlin Wall,’ Feng Mengyun of China’s state-run Global Geographic Times expresses his hope that President Obama can do something to talk the Beijing leadership into turning over a new leaf.

With some surprising criticism of the regime, Feng Mengyun writes for the Global Geographic Times in part:

“Prior to thirty years ago, the old Chinese model caused tremendous suffering. But an even graver sin would have been to stick with the system that caused such suffering.

“While [Chinese] exports stand at $1.7 trillion, domestic sales are only $860 billion. China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $300 billion. This seems like a huge trade surplus, not to mention a contradiction. More difficult to fathom is how much foreign exports are responsible for China’s rise. Today, even with 20 percent of the world’s doors closed to trade, China unceasingly opposes trade protection and domestic unemployment is rising by the million. Is China capable of dealing with this?

“The unpredictable issue is China itself. Because rising growth has become China’s ‘Berlin Wall.’

“Obama’s ‘mutually beneficial’ thinking has already received widespread support in liberal countries, which is why the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize went to the first Black U.S. president. Since he arranged to visit China before going to Norway to collect his Prize, I hope while visiting China, Obama declares: ‘Mr. Hu Jintao, tear down this wall!’

By Feng Mengyun [???]

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 16, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

U.S. President Barack Obama, “Ambassador of Peace,” has finally set foot in Beijing. Ahead of his visit, North Korea fired missiles, there was a sea battle between North and South Korea, and Somali pirates took 28 Chinese sailors hostage. What do these events tell Chinese who their enemies and friends are!

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Diplomacy

CAGLE CARTOONS — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:59:23 +0000

Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

This cartoon is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.

U.S. and Beijing Disagree on Obama’s Chinese Name: Global Geographic Times, China

WILLIAM KERN — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:32:41 +0000

According to this blog entry from the Web site of China’s Global Geographic Times, a U.S. Embassy request that China use a new spelling of Obama’s Chinese name has been met with suspicion among that nation’s ‘Netizens.’

So what’s in a name, one might ask?

For the Global Geographic Times, Scholar Jiang Huai writes in part:

“On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like ‘Oubama’ (???) rather than ‘Aobama’ (???)).”

Puzzling over the explanation for this, Jiang Huai writes:

“When people translate Chinese, they often fail to pay close attention to the sound of Chinese characters. The U.S. suspects that the original name ‘Aobama’ contains the Chinese characters for ‘Australia’ and ‘fawn over.’ Now that China and Australia are increasingly close, the U.S. will of course be concerned about this. ‘Oubama,’ on the other hand, includes the Chinese characters for ‘Europe’ and ‘fawn over,’ within which may be hidden America’s great ambition to have Europeans once again pledge their allegiance to it.”

By Scholar Jiang Huai (????)

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 13, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (Chinese)

What’s the best name???

On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like “Oubama” (???) instead of “Aobama” (???)). Embassy officials explained that this transliteration was closer to the English. Is this just about an American word, or is there something else going on here?

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Healing Power Of Indian Curries

SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:15:52 +0000

On my trips abroad, I have rarely found an Indian restaurant that would satisfy my native taste buds. In the West, there has been a “curry” revolution and its impact has been the most in Britain. However, there is a growing realization that Indian cooking is not just meant to set your tongue on fire or titillate the palate, it actually mixes common sense with the ancient science of Ayurveda, gaining popularity as alternative medicine.

“Ever since the first British curry house opened its doors (the country now has an estimated 9,000 Indian restaurants) Indian food has become synonymous, in many minds, with the macho pursuit of tongue-bothering spice and fattening takeaway blowouts washed down with gallons of beer,” reports The Independent.

“Of course, there is another side to Indian food, and in recent years a small but determined group of cooks have sought to break through the stereotype.

“Monisha Bharadwaj is one of Britain’s top Indian cooks and an award-winning writer. Her latest book, Healthy Indian in Minutes, is mouth-watering collection of dishes… ‘The majority of British takeaways do not offer the best example of good Indian cooking,’ Bharadwaj says. ‘But you have to think about what they are. When they first opened, curry houses were catering to people who were used to eating heavy food with all its gravy, cream and stodginess. Takeaways offered something similar but with added spice.’

“But Bharadwaj says there is a growing demand for something different. I meet her in Hounslow, where she moved from her native Mumbai 22 years ago. As well as writing she now runs a cookery school in her kitchen. ‘More and more people want to cook home-cooked Indian food that’s fresh and healthy,’ she says. ‘They know that it is something different but they don’t know what it is because you can’t get it in restaurants.’

“Bharadwaj’s courses are proving a hit with everyone from housewives and husbands short of inspiration to top chefs looking to expand their repertoires.

“Bharadwaj is particular in the kitchen but that’s just how she learned to cook. Indian home cooking is governed by rules, some of them common sense but others more complex and founded on the ancient Indian science of Ayurveda. First recorded more than 5,000 years ago, the world’s oldest known system of medicine casts the kitchen as an apothecary in which herbs have healing powers.” More here…

Amazon website has this to say about Bharadwaj’s book: “People often see Indian food as greasy, fatty and labour-intensive, but everyday Indian home cooking is neither unhealthy nor difficult to prepare. Monisha Bharadwaj will prove that it is in fact a highly nutritious, gentle cuisine that has always included natural and whole foods such as whole wheat flour, raw cane sugar, lots of vegetables, beans, lentils and any number of healing spices.

“Indian eating is based on the ancient science of Ayurveda, a system of holistic living that is the oldest form of medicine known to man. Broken down into straightforward chapters – curries, dry dishes, light one-pot meals, salads and raitas, chutneys and relishes, drinks and sweets – ‘Healthy Indian in Minutes’ will give readers the tips and strategies they need to cook healthy home-style food in a matter of minutes.” More here…

ABC Reports C.I.A. “Black Site” Found in Lithuania

KATHY KATTENBURG — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:10:52 +0000

This is just incredible:

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time. …

[...]

Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the “black site” in 2004.

Lithuania — where all but about 15,000 of that country’s pre-World War II Jewish population of 210,000 were murdered by the Nazis. It’s not that the C.IA. torture program is equivalent to the Nazi extermination of European Jewry, but that’s not the point for me. It’s the moral symbolism — and I’m not sure that’s the correct word that expresses how this makes me feel. It’s the profound disrespect for the memory of those tortured and murdered souls, to set up a secret torture site in the heart of where that horror took place. This is my country that did this. I really feel betrayed.

I suppose that decades from now, visitors will be touring these former torture centers just as visitors tour places like Dachau and Auschwitz today.

When Bush dithered on Iraq

DAVID ADESNIK — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:10:45 +0000

Jackson Diehl:

[After months of deliberation in 2006], no one accused George W. Bush of dithering. So why does Barack Obama keep hearing the taunt as he deliberates about Afghanistan — and why do even some who sympathize with his dilemma find it hard to shake the feeling that this commander in chief lacks resolve?

One part of the answer is easy: Bush was renowned for summoning plenty of resolve, and not enough critical thinking. No one questioned that Bush’s heart was in his bid for “victory” in Iraq. Not a few wondered whether he had weighed carefully enough whether dispatching 20,000 more American troops in early 2007 was a reasoned strategy or a reckless gamble…

Obama’s prolonged deliberation would be understandable if he were choosing between escalating or ending the war, as Bush was. Yet he narrowed his options many weeks ago — and still has been unable to come to closure…

In the end, it’s not enough for a president to be seen as having thought through a decision to send more troops to war. Enemies, allies and the country also need to be convinced that he believes in it.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

Quote of the Day: On Barack Obama’s Bow

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:50:41 +0000

Our political/diplomatic Quote of the Day comes via Professor John Brown’s must-read Public Diplomacy and Press Blog – where he points us to a post by Steven W. Lewis on the Baker Institute Blog dealing with President Barack Obama’s bow to the Japanese Emperor.

This bow became the target of (what else?) a political controversy in the United States where Obama’s critics accused him of displaying weakness, deferring too much to an Emperor, displaying incompetent diplomacy. Etc. Lewis adds this:

Obama’s bow to the Japanese emperor, his handshake with Myanmar’s prime minister at the APEC conclave in Singapore, and his town hall meeting with university students in Shanghai are exhibits A, B and C, according to this analysis.

A bow and a handshake are unlikely to inspire either the Japanese or Myanmar military to invade the U.S. anytime in the foreseeable future. But by focusing on President Obama’s town hall in Shanghai, American hawks may have, inadvertently, stumbled upon what is in truth a serious concern: Chinese students. They may sport trendy eyeglasses, wear day-glo sweaters and carry Hello Kitty notebooks, but in fact they constitute one of the most destructive political forces in recent history. … Nobody today can say exactly how the American and the Chinese people may come to trust each other such that they both cut back on the ways they waste energy and foul the environment. But it is clear that such trust will require a sustained conversation between Americans and Chinese, something a 48-year-old American president is both capable of initiating and maintaining: The young Chinese in the room must have known this intuitively. And it is also clear that such a conversation should begin with a smile, and that smile should not be met with derisive laughter. So far, so good. “

We’re Restored! The World Likes Us Again!

POLIMOM — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:29:23 +0000

This has been bugging me all day.

“I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world, and that’s confirmed by polls,” [Obama] told CNN’s Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.

“I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people — maybe less than 40 percent of the people — thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it’s up to 75 percent.”

He may be right that 75% of the world’s population count on us to “do the right thing”. I haven’t a clue since I haven’t seen such a poll.

I do think, though, that the way this is phrased comes off as pretty darned arrogant.

Not only that, but after only 11 months in office, I think it’s possibly premature as well. In fact, I’m strongly reminded of another president and a certain “Mission Accomplished” sign…

Clinton: “No long-term stake in Afghanistan”

DAVID ADESNIK — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:18:43 +0000

Monday NY Times, Page 1:

Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.

It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to fuel this concern on Sunday in her comments on the ABC program “This Week,” saying: “We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear.”

I was listening to the program and I was pretty surprised when Hillary said that. It sounded more like an improvisation than a well-prepped talking point. But it illustrates the confusion at the heart of Obama’s policy. The White House wants to demonstrate resolve while being sure it has an “off-ramp” for its commitment. When delivering that kind of confused message, even the best talkers will slip up.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

Barack Obama’s ‘Umbrella Moment’ In China

SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:16:20 +0000

The media will continue to speculate about the outcome of President Barack Obama’s visit to China. However, small gestures matter. The Times of London observes that Obama carrying his own umbrella while alighting from the Air Force One “may be just the right stick for China”.

“Perhaps that simple umbrella moment really mattered. It showed China’s people that the arrogant America of their perceptions can also show humility, and that their own leaders risk becoming just as haughty as the world’s lone superpower.

“President Obama did not come to China carrying a big stick, but he did carry his own umbrella. It was a gesture that impressed ordinary Chinese accustomed to seeing aides shielding their own leaders from the rain. Just what kind of impression Mr Obama made on China’s rulers was harder to gauge…” More here…

Meanwhile India seems to have been irked by Obama’s visit to China. “Angered by US President Barack Obama’s attempt to envisage a role for China in South Asia, India on Wednesday made it clear that it objects any move to give a wider footprint to China in the region,” reports an Indian news channel.

“The Ministry of External Affairs said that it had objections to Obama giving China a greater role in South Asian affairs, adding a third country’s role cannot be envisaged in the bilateral relationships between countries of the region.” More here…

Has Obama agreed that Beijing would monitor Indo-Pak ties? asks The Times of India. More here…

The statement by U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, issued on Tuesday in Beijing, supports the “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”

It says “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.” More here…

According to the BBC: “Before Wednesday’s meeting with the Chinese prime minister, Mr Obama said the Washington-Beijing relationship was now about more than trade and economics.” Read here…

The Lesson of Fort Hood: ‘Muslims Cannot Be Trusted’: Al Watan Voice, Palestinian Territories

WILLIAM KERN — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:27:45 +0000

In the years that we have pursued this project, today’s posting is one of the strangest international press articles I can recall. And while it indicates that Hamas may be allowing more press freedom than we thought – the conclusions of the author are anything but comforting.

Keeping in mind that the accused killer is of Palestinian origin, the author of this article from the Al Watan Voice, a newspaper published in Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory, while blaming the Fort Hood shootings on a conspiracy of either Zionism or Freemasonry [not unusual for the Arab press], agrees with the reasoning of the conspirators he seeks to expose.

And what is this reasoning? That President Obama, in showing humility and forgiveness toward Arab and Muslim states, is regarded by them as weak, and that the only way to deal with such states is the way George W. Bush did.

For the Al Watan Voice, columnist Hameed Al Wasity writes in part:

“Barack Obama has shown and continues to show inappropriate weakness and unjustified humility. This has been taken advantage of by Arab and Muslim governments.

“The Fort Hood shooting was organized by the hidden world government, international Zionism or Freemasonry (who nominated Obama for a presidential run), and was designed to push an Arab-Muslim officer – and a doctor with the rank of Major – to teach Obama and others a primary lesson: when an American doctor and officer would betray and kill in an instant, one cannot so easily trust Arabs and Muslims – and he [Hasan] was an Arab and a Muslim!!

“Unless Obama changes his policies and begins following in the footsteps of those who preceded him by bringing back American prestige, then there’ll be yet another lesson and another opportunity!! …”

By Hameed Al Wasity

Translated By Nicolas Dagher

November 12, 2009

Palestinian Territories [Gaza] – Al Watan Voice – Original Article (Arabic)

CNN has carried a report of an Arab officer who killed 13 American soldiers and wounded dozens at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.

And the officer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a psychiatrist responsible for treating American soldiers. There are so many colorful stories about his nationality. Some of his colleagues say he’s Jordanian, while certain news outlets report he’s of Palestinian origin.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

China Keeps Tight Rein on Obama During Visit

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:20:30 +0000

He came. He saw. His charisma was controlled.

That in a nutshell seems to be the emerging verdict on President Barack Obama’s trip to China: China kept the famous Obama charisma in check in a visit that won’t be seen as a turning point. AFP paints a portrait of a visit that was more zzzz than pizazz:

Something got lost in transit in US President Barack Obama’s visit to China — the charismatic rhetoric and dominance of mass communication that took him from nowhere to the White House.

Obama built his political persona with soaring speeches on a grand stage and by reaching out to a vast grassroots network on the Internet.

But in China, Obama’s hosts successfully stifled those prodigious public talents, keeping his message from the people with media censorship and smothering it in staid diplo-speak.

On previous foreign trips in his taxing first year in office, the president sent inspiring words winging to millions of satellite dishes in the Muslim world and sparked Obama mania in Europe.

But in China, it has been tougher to reach out to ordinary citizens. His best attempt, a town hall meeting streamed on the White House website, suffered from what was largely a nationwide media blackout.

And Obama’s talks on Tuesday with President Hu Jintao were followed by a dull public appearance, with both leaders reading out statements to the media stuffed with diplomatic code words.

The US president shuffled his papers on the lectern, scratched an eyebrow and looked across at Hu, as his host read out a long speech. The arid diplomatic translations made the occasion seem even more sterile.

And then there was the context for this meeting that by most accounts did not contain major dramatic developments: the U.S. seems on the financial descent while China is on the financial ascent. The Christian Science Monitor:

President Obama stood side by side with China’s President Hu Jintao Tuesday, but they weren’t seeing eye to eye on economics any more than on Afghanistan or Tibet.

Both the US and Chinese economies felt the squeeze of recession. Yet neither of the world’s most powerful economies seems to have changed their ways.

The US is still running a huge trade deficit and borrowing lots of money from China.

China is still racing to expand its high-tech manufacturing exports, and as part of its strategy is fixing its currency at what many economists believe is an artificially low level. A cheap yuan can help to make Chinese products more attractive on world markets.

One sign of the times: America’s industrial capacity – the nation’s ability to produce goods – has been falling for 10 straight months, says Charles McMillion, chief economist at MBG Information Services in Washington. China isn’t the only reason for the trend. But he notes that from 1948 to 2001, American industrial capacity never had a single month of decline – even though factory output would slump during recessions. That string was broken in 2002, the year after China won membership in the World Trade Organization.

Now, as China makes more of what Americans buy, Mr. McMillion says there’s a real chance that US businesses will continue to close factories – cutting US jobs even as the economy recovers.

The numbers he cites were reported by the Federal Reserve Tuesday, even as Mr. Obama was wrapping up his first presidential visit in Beijing.

The Wall Street Journal says the “awkward” meeting produced some results but much unfinished business:

President Barack Obama was set to leave China on Wednesday after an awkward summit with some achievements but a long list of unfinished business — a result that suggests challenges ahead for the U.S. as it struggles to come to terms with Asia’s increasingly assertive superpower.

The president secured a far-ranging framework for cooperation Tuesday with Beijing. But that deal was announced as frictions between the two nations appeared to increase over human rights and economic policy.

President Obama and Chinese leader Hu Jintao issued their ambitious statement on cooperation in a clumsy fashion — at a media “availability” where they took no questions, didn’t address each other and exhibited body language that seemed to say they had been frustrated by the entire exercise.

But the Washington Post saw some progress — on climate change:

Buried in the text of Tuesday’s joint declaration between President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao was a hopeful clause on climate talks: The Obama administration is likely to offer emission-reduction targets at next month’s climate summit, as long as the Chinese offer a proposal of their own.

U.S. reluctance to set a short-term emissions goal has been a sticking point in the United Nations-sponsored talks for nearly a year. Almost all industrialized nations, and many developing countries, have announced plans to curb their greenhouse-gas output by 2020. Neither the United States nor China — which is not obligated to do so under the U.N. framework, even though it ranks as the world’s biggest emitter — has done so, thereby hampering the prospects of an agreement.

A senior Obama administration official said that any U.S. target would still be contingent on congressional action. The House-passed climate bill includes a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 compared with 2005 levels; the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee backed a 20 percent cut, but key senators have vowed to make that less ambitious.

Just this weekend the Obama administration endorsed a Danish proposal to settle for a political accord on global warming in Copenhagen next month, while deferring to 2010 the codification of a legally binding international treaty. According to the joint declaration, “an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should . . . include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.”

The cartoon by Paresh Nath, The Khaleej Times, UAE, is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.

John Yoo Slimes Up the WSJ’s Op-Ed Page Again

KATHY KATTENBURG — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:36:31 +0000

I’m sure we’re all very shocked to hear that the man who subverted and perverted the law to give his masters the pseudo-legal cover to run a torture program against Arab and Muslim detainees doesn’t want the methods used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be revealed in open court.

Marcy Wheeler deconstructs (emphasis is Marcy’s):

Of course, what John Yoo is really worried about are precisely those sources and methods: that is, torture. He’s worried that prosecutors may have to reveal the details of the torture they did to KSM.

[...]

… Yoo’s concerns about the exposure of torture-related information–to the extent that they might be valid–are all premised on the notion that the only information we got is so secret that introducing it at trial would violate sources and methods. Aside from the issue of competency hearings (which I think does risk exposing details on torture), torture (and illegal wiretapping–but it wouldn’t be illegal against any of these terrorists) would only be exposed if that’s the only kind of evidence the government has.

And Eric Holder is convinced there’s plenty that comes from clean sources.

John Yoo pretends he knows the universe of information on KSM. His argument suggests that the only evidence came from illegal or highly sensitive means.

What the trial will likely show, instead, is that there was a great deal of information already available before they started torturing KSM. It’ll show that the KSM expert in FBI–who we know was never allowed to get close to the Yoo-sanctioned torture sessions–knew much if not all of the stuff that KSM was blabbing away after being waterboarded the 183rd time.

That’s the real risk for Yoo: not the illegal actions that the trial will expose. But how much evidence there was independent of Yoo’s little torture shop.