“Osama bin Laden has never lived in the Americas, but thanks to the slaughter he directed on September 11, 2001, he became the most important U.S. elector by triggering Bush’s rise in the polls. … The greatest vote-getter that McCain could hope for would be if bin Laden would allow himself to be captured or if he carried out another massive attack.”
“Osama, however, must be wondering whether a victory for Obama would be more dangerous to him than one by McCain, since the African-American will give the United States a new image and get the U.S. out of Iraq to concentrate on hunting down and capturing him.”
Despite at times being disappointed that our nation isn’t living up to its promise, most Americans - left, right and center - regard this country as the greatest in the world. But how often do we hear such sentiments from the foreign press, let alone the Middle East or even Israel?
“Many believe that today, as a new global system forms, China, Brazil, India, Russia and China have an undeniable role to play. … The tremendous economic growth of these powers does come along with political influence. … But can we expect these countries to exercise the role that the United States plays at the global level, or in clearer words: Do these countries possess the audacity to forcefully intrude on international affairs, like the United States does?”
“America’s great generosity and sacrifice, both in money and in lives, is well-known. No nation in history has offered its sons to death and drained its coffers for the sake of others the way the United States of America has. ‘Courageous intrusion’ requires a spirit that stands apart from industrial growth or agricultural development. Today’s newly-industrial states don’t presently have this spirit, nor will they have it in the future. Because such a spirit requires so much money and so many souls that if any of these nations had such courage, its coffers would quickly be emptied and its economy would collapse, never to rise again.”
It seems that Europeans are starting to get the jitters over the likelihood that their preferred American presidential candidate could once again be defeated.
“In France, the matter is settled: Barack Obama, our idol, the candidate of us all, in the strange political unanimity that we secretly adhere to when we look beyond our borders, will win triumphantly in November. In fact, we show almost no interest at all in John McCain, that old white-haired reactionary.”
“Remember the 2004 election and … what was his name? Ah, yes, John Kerry! He made headlines in Courrier International, Télérama and Nouvel Observateur. He was supposed to make us love a new America. He spoke French, too. We even went as far as reviving, politically and in the media, his cousin Brice Lalonde, to get him to tell us about his teenage vacations with him in Brittany. A whack in the face! George W. Bush was triumphantly re-elected. No need to recount the votes from Florida this time, the Republicans had thrashed the Democratic Party. Few people in France ever wondered why our desires and predictions were such a long way from American political reality.”
“Let’s hope that in future, we will look a little more lucidly at these realities. We shouldn’t be disappointed if a President Obama isn’t thinking about us while shaving in the White House, let alone have a falling out with John McCain, who may very well prevail.”
“There was no mistaking the power and symbolism of the opening ceremonies for the Beijing Olympic Games on August 8. That multimedia spectacular did far more than trace China’s 5,000-year history; it was a statement that China is a major civilization that demands and deserves its rightful place in the global hierarchy.
There was also no mistaking the symbolism of seeing President George W. Bush, waving cheerfully from his spot in the bleachers while Chinese President Hu Jintao sat behind what looked like a throne. It’s hard to imagine that China’s government, which obsesses over every minute issue of diplomatic protocol, had not orchestrated this stark image of America’s decline relative to the country to which it owes $1.4 trillion. It would be hard to imagine Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan accepting a similar relative position.”
“The world is not ready for the post-American era … until it is, the world needs a new kind of American leader - a leader able to inspire Americans to fix their problems at home and work with partners across the globe in promoting a common agenda as bold and progressive as the order built from the ashes of World War II 60 years ago.”
One of the little side-stories to the selection of Senator Joe Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate is that of his son Beau. I often am in disagreement with Senator Biden on issues and I suspect the same would be true of his son. But there is an aspect of his life for which I have the greatest respect, though it also raises some serious questions.
Beau Biden is 37 years old and, since 2007, he has served as Attorney General of Delaware. It is widely expected that, if his dad is elected Vice-President, he will be appointed to fill the vacancy. But Beau is also a Captain in the Delaware Army National Guard and, as such, he is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in October as a JAG officer.
When he was going as the son of a prominent United States Senator, there were some questions raised about his safety and the safety of his fellow soldiers. But other Senators have children or other relatives serving and it was considered to be acceptable for him to go ahead and serve.
But now he would be going as the son of the Vice President (or potential Vice President) of the United States. This raises things to a whole new level and merits serious discussion. Terrorists would love to target such an opportunity to either kill or kidnap such a high-profile figure. Just as the British faced the question when it came to Prince Harry we must consider this dilemma right now.
It is not simply a matter of Captain Biden’s personal safety (though obviously the safety of any soldier is important). It is a matter of the risk to those around him, those who would be potential collateral damage in an attack on Biden. The JAG Corps does not often face serious threats from outside attack but, with Biden there, it would be a real possibility.
I honor Captain Biden for his service and consider pride in his defense of our country to be a non-partisan issue. Should he serve, then we should all take pride in his doing so, should it be decided that it is too dangerous, nobody should offer a word of disdain.
I am no military expert and I will leave the ultimate decision to those who are better suited to decide. I simply think that there needs to be a discussion and there needs to be a decision.
August 23rd, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Pakistan’s democratically-elected government, despite the dire predictions/propaganda in the western world, is functioning no better or worse than under the military dictator Pervez Musharraf’s regime. However, a democratically-elected government has a moral and popular platform to wage a war on terror.
“The Election Commission on Friday set September 6 as the date lawmakers will elect a new president, after the resignation earlier this week of President Pervez Musharraf,” reports NYT.
“The senior party in Pakistan’s governing coalition on Friday nominated Asif Ali Zardari, widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, as its candidate in elections for president. The announcement of the election date came a day after twin suicide attacks outside the country’s biggest weapons factory complex, in Wah, 20 miles north of the capital, Islamabad.”
(What does the powerful coalition leader Nawaz Sharif think about Zardari’s nomination? See here…)
No one denies that the going is tough. The Australian has an interesting story under the heading “Pakistan Turns Table On Militants”. “He has one of the world’s most dangerous jobs — turning back the seemingly unstoppable tide of al-Qa’ida and Taliban-linked jihadi militancy sweeping across nuclear-armed Pakistan.
“And Rehman Malik (photo above), as we talk in his Islamabad office, makes it clear that the days of pussyfooting in Pakistan’s fight against the militants are over. ‘Look, we’ve got two choices,’ says Malik, formerly one of Benazir Bhutto’s closest aides and now Pakistan’s security supremo who heads the Interior Ministry.
” ‘Either we can hand this country over to the Taliban, or we can fight. I am going to fight’. Under Malik, Pakistan’s policy has been transformed from one of retreat to pursuit of al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. But his tough rhetoric has also him a target of Islamic militants.
“The suave, 57-year-old one-time boss of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency, the equivalent of the Australian Federal Police, is an increasingly controversial figure as he takes Pakistan’s war into areas it has previously avoided.
“In the few short weeks since Malik and (prime minister) Gilani returned from the White House, Pakistan’s much-vaunted role in the war against terrorism has been transformed. For the first time in many months, the country is on the offensive, forcefully seeking to reassert the Government’s writ while also pursuing dialogue with the militants and a path to peace.
“Suddenly and with little fanfare, Islamabad’s security forces are aggressively on the offensive in key areas where for months, if not years, the Government had virtually given up, leaving the militants to set up Sharia courts.” More here…
And here are more juicy bits about Rehman Malik in Wikipedia: “Benazir Bhutto appointed Rehman Malik as chief of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) which then launched a secret war against the Taliban supporters in Pakistan, which amounted to a direct attack on the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
“The Pakistani military was equally dismayed by reports of FIA contacts with the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, which had been cooperating with Indian secret service RAW to investigate Taliban supporters…On 5 November 1996 Ghulam Asghar, head of FIA, and Rehman Malik, the Additional Director General FIA, were arrested. More here.
Another important development is that General David Petraeus would soon take over as head of U.S. Central Command, the army command that includes Pakistan (as well as the Middle East). Can he pull off another miracle, helping Pakistan’s General Ashfaq Kayani to train Pakistani units to fight jihadis?More here…
August 21st, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Nepal and Pakistan provide good lessons in foreign policy to both Barack Obama and John McCain. The democratically-elected new Prime Minister of Nepal, Prachanda (photo above) who led a 10-year guerrilla war, now professes that his country’s era of “capitalist democracy” has begun. He was sworn in by Nepal’s first president, Ram Baran Yadav.
Lesson No. 1: The president or prime minister of any country must not be sponsored/pushed by the USA to remain friendly. Good diplomacy is making friends out of enemies.
Lesson No. 2: If the USA looks for, and sponsors, loyal and subservient leaders in the world, the public in that country would rise against their own subservient/sponsored leaders and the USA.
Lesson No. 3: It is a dangerous foreign policy to bribe foreign leaders/dictators and tempt them to follow the US policy. Only myopic policy needs to find supporters abroad with the help of bribery. Corruption would ultimately corrode the democratic functioning in the USA itself. Unaccounted billions of dollars went to the Musharraf regime from the US administration. In the end the USA has become a staunch enemy of both militants and the Pakistan public.
Lesson No. 4: To turn an enemy into a friend needs patience and sincere efforts. In other words SINCERITY and PERSEVERANCE. The BUSH and MUSHARRAF strategy of BLUFF and BLUSTER ultimately boomerangs. It also empowers/strengthens terrorism.
Lesson No. 5: NEVER take foreign policy decisions/actions unilaterally. There is the United Nations. Only dictators act unilaterally. The USA has lost much credibility with its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in Afghanistan there should be UN troops, if at all. The US will never be able to justify (or get results) by only taking NATO forces. The Musharraf tangle was solved when the US involved Britain, Saudi Arabia and other countries for parleys.
Lesson No. 6: If my neighbour has begun to treat his family violently, I can only call the police. I can’t force my way into my neighbour’s house and then tell him that I am going to stay there for years to prevent violence (as in Iraq).
Let’s come back to Nepal. After months of bickering among the political parties, a huge majority of the assembly has elected a former rebel as prime minister. The Economist notes many firsts. “(Prime Minister Prachanda) wore Western clothes (another first) but made a gesture to national custom by donning a traditional Nepali cap.
“It has been an astonishing transformation. For over a year the Maoists have been part of Nepal’s transitional government, heading ministries and becoming ambassadors. Many poor Nepalis will wonder whether, after ten years of war costing 13,000 lives, the Maoists will now sink into the comforts of power and prestige and forget them.
“The Maoists will have to prove them wrong. Their election manifesto called this the era of capitalist democracy in Nepal and stressed that the private sector is intrinsic to their plans. More immediately Prachanda must reassert the authority of the state, which has been badly eroded over the past two years as crime has spiralled and ethnic groups clamoured for their rights.”
Fedyashin reflects the Kremlin’s disdain for the Georgia president, and highlights the machinations that Russians believe are behind Georgia’s attempt to regain control of South Ossetia - particularly during the Olympic Games.
“It took the United States exactly a week to understand the damage that Mikheil Saakashvili’s ‘Ossetian blitzkrieg’ has caused him and his ‘Rose Democracy.’ Finally it seems, Washington has launched operation ‘Saakashvili’s Salvation’ in earnest.
“You don’t need to have the keenest insight to understand that the ‘humanitarian bridge’ being erected by the Pentagon has little to do with the humanitarian needs of Georgia. This is the first concrete step taken to support Saakashvili - steps that were not in evidence in the early days of his invasion of South Ossetia. … It’s telling that a week after the event, Washington has only now begun to lash out at the Kremlin.” And then later, “it’s hard to believe that a stateswoman as formidable as ‘Teflon Condi’ was unable to make it clear to Saakashvili what the White House wants or doesn’t want him to do.”
After deriding ‘teflon Condi’ and U.S. diplomacy in general, one-by-one, Fedyashin dismisses all of the likely sanctions that the West may impose on Russia for the way it has behaved.
In his much awaited Monday column in the New York Times, “Showdown at Saddleback,” Bill Kristol declares John McCain the winner at Saddleback’s Cone of Silence event.
In addition to his unbiased verdict on the Saddleback Church “debate,” made scrupulously fair because Obama went first and McCain second after having been “safely placed in a cone of silence,” Kristol tells us that the cone of silence event yielded three conclusions for him:
“First, Rick Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates.” Hopefully without cone of silence charades.
“Second, it was McCain’s night.” Wow, what an unexpected “conclusion,” cone of silence and all.
“Third, Obama and McCain really do have different ‘worldviews,’ to use Rick Warren’s term.”
For a change, Kristol is dead-right on this (third) one—cone of silence or not. Am I glad that Obama does have a different worldview than “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain.
For much of the rest of his enlightening revelations, Kristol fixates on the “evil” thing—remember, the “evil” that brought us Iraq and took our eye off the real evil in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and says:
It’s nice to see a liberal aware of the limits of good intentions — indeed, that the road to hell is paved with them. But here as elsewhere, Obama stayed at a high level of abstraction. It would have been interesting if Warren had asked a follow-up question: Where in particular has the United States in recent years — at home or especially abroad — perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil? Hasn’t the overwhelming problem been, rather, a reluctance to effectively confront evil — in Darfur, or Rwanda, or pre-9/11 Afghanistan?
As for how McCain would confront evil, Kristol says: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb evil.” No, not quite. According to Kristol:
McCain asserted that ‘of course evil must be defeated,’ and he put ‘radical Islamic extremism,’ Al Qaeda in particular, at the top of his to-defeat list.
I assume “radical Islamic extremism” and “Al Qaeda” must have been on top of McCain’s list when he gung-ho cheered-on the invasion of Iraq and we took our eye off the real radical Islamic extremism and off the real Al Qaeda.
Now I’m not entirely unbiased (!), so I don’t quite trust my initial judgment in such matters. But it was confirmed the next morning. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on “Meet the Press” that “the Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. … What they’re putting out privately is that McCain … may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.” There’s no evidence that McCain had any such advantage. But the fact that Obama’s people made this suggestion means they know McCain outperformed him.”
I am sure we’ll hear much more about the “cone of silence,” unless McCain and his crowd are able to put a bigger and better cone of silence over this leaky one–the one that McCain jokingly (?) said, he was able to hear through the wall.
As we’ve seen over recent days, there are two diametrically opposed positions within Europe about what has cause the Georgia crisis and what should be done about it.
The first, which has been perhaps best enunciated by the Polish, is that NATO must be strengthened and that the Alliance must stand up to Russia with ever-greater determination.
The other, well represented by this article from France’s Rue 89, argues that an ‘obsolete’ NATO’s ham-handed expansion eastward is at the root of the problem, and that eastward expansion should have taken place exclusively within the European Union - which is inherently less threatening to a badly-slighted Russia with decades of wounded pride to get out of its system.
“Many commentators of course condemn this drive into an independent country as a manifestation of resurgent Russian imperialism. This, first of all, is to somewhat ignore history; it also sets aside more than a few cases of wounded Russian pride, for the most part widely flouted before Putin; and incidentally, not to offend our new European Union partners from the East, it is a demonstration of the futility and even the toxicity of NATO.”
“Eastern Europe … with fear in the belly of the Russian bear, has never relied on European integration to ensure its security. In their view, only the United States could provide that. Hence their absurd following of the Americans into the Iraqi adventure. Hence their irrepressible desire to join NATO. … A grave error on their part, because the United States, entangled as it is in the Iraqi affair and with its allies in Afghanistan, won’t budge for a piece of the former empire’s confetti [Georgia] and perhaps not even in case of a more serious invasion. Especially since the new American leaders, starting in November, are likely to mobilize all their forces on domestic affairs.”
The Moderate Voice prides itself in “Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporting, and popular culture features from across the political spectrum.” A comment on my “Bill Kristol on Victory in Iraq and Impotence in Georgia,” certainly qualifies in each and all of these aspects. I do not know who “Spikester” is (perhaps I should), but he has written a most original, “irreverent,” superb, and–if it weren’t for the subject matter–entertaining comment on the Russia-Georgia conflict. I highly recommend it to TMV readers.
It is a l o n g comment, so please take your cup of coffee, or whatever liquid nourishment, with you and be prepared to stay a while. Whatever you think of the situation, you will find Spikester’s comments interesting–certainly irreverent–and worth your time. Scroll down in the comments section to my post until you come to Spikester’s comment.
August 13th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Six months ago I wrote about a brave Pakistani woman who has been relentlessly fighting the two arbiters of her country’s destiny, Pakistan’s army and the US administration. (See here…) When she was virtually hounded out of Pakistan, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa sought refuge in the world of US academia.
Here is Ayesha Siddiqua’s fresh salvo from the Stanford University as reported in the Chowk. “Ayesha Siddiqa said that behind the US support for certain elements of the Pakistani society was its specious perception of modernity. She noted that whenever the western media speaks of Pakistani politicians it inevitably looks for that person’s western educational credentials, for education from Harvard or Oxford. Similarly, the West considers army generals ‘modern.’
“She accused the US of strengthening the Pakistan military. ‘Military today is a giant which has strong political control, economic control, and a very dominant social presence; a military that has over 7% share of the GDP, which controls one-third of heavy manufacturing in the country, which controls 6-7% private sector assets. It has a huge economic presence. It is a constant story of uneven development, between different organizations and institutions.’
“Ayesha Siddiqa debunked the argument that Pakistan economy has always been in better health under military dictators. She explained how Pakistan had to pay a heavy price at the end of every military rule.
“That the ‘sham stability’ under General Ayub Khan in 1960s ended with the breaking up of Pakistan, Zia’s period of ‘stability’ gave Pakistan the Jihadi culture, and now the high economic performance era of Musharraf’s rule has given Pakistan gaping fault line in the society, between its secular and conservative elements.
“Ayesha Siddiqa rebuked ‘educated’ Pakistanis who look down upon the masses, call them illiterate and accuse them of being subservient to authority. She asserted that the real stability in Pakistan would come from its ordinary people and the latest elections had shown that these ‘illiterate’ people were quite capable of making intelligent decisions.
“Ayesha Siddiqa was still excited by the election results because ‘I as an ordinary Pakistani can say that we are not a failed state. The civil society is alive. These elections tell us that we are as ordinary or extraordinary as anybody else’.
“She impressed upon the audience that Pakistan was far from being a failed state—it had an active civil society. Analyzing the recent elections she said people did not just vote against Musharraf (through voting against PML-Q), Pakistanis also rejected other symbols of authoritarianism.
“She said the army can be kept out of politics if the civil governments negotiate with the army on military’s economic interests. Ayesha Siddiqa’s expectation from the Pakistan army was that of a professional force which would not interfere in politics. Just sit back, relax, play golf and not get into politics, was her advice to the Pakistan military.” More here…
“All people, especially in the Arab and Islamic world, long to see Democratic candidate Barack Hussein Obama win, occupy the chair of the American President and replace Republican Bush at the helm of the United States.”
“The way Obama absorbed the inside of America during the primaries is reflected in his compelling campaign slogan (change). In the same way, his intellectual assets and his Muslim origins have allowed him to absorb the thinking of many Arabs and Muslims, notwithstanding his subsequent assurances that he isn’t Muslim, which is a position taken for political purposes only … The entire world awaits Obama, considering him a good man to replace an “evil” one. It is Bush who has prepared the ground for Arab and Muslim religious and social support for Obama, a man who may find it possible to look at their problems differently than other presidents, especially Bush.”
“It is commonplace to have U.S. presidential candidates become the focus of world public opinion and controversy. It’s to be expected that they become the center of attention for newspapers, analysts and other politicians. But in Hussein Obama’s case, almost everyone has gathered around him and considers him a possible world savior.”
Barack Obama avoided going there and John McCain has trouble remembering where it is, but Pakistan is the hottest spot in the Mideast with today’s news that Islamabad’s intelligence agency, the ISI, helped plan last month’s bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul.
A senior US official tells the Washington Post about “significant” evidence that ISI members provided logistical support to the bombers as well as in an attempted assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
In this CIA leakfest, the New York Timesgets “new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.”
July 31st, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Let us compare two New York Times reports. First, October 2001 report: “Pakistan’s intelligence service has had a longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye to growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.” Second, August 2008: “American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service (ISI) helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.”
Two senior Indian diplomats were among 58 people killed in the July 7 attacks.
India has been pointing out the subversive role of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, for the past three decades and its active encouragement of terrorism. Periodically the US administration agrees about the nefarious role of the ISI. But then again goes off to sleep. And imagine that all this relates to America’s “closest ally in it’s fight against terrorism”!!! This is a theatre of the absurd, what else!!!
Interestingly, the NYT’s latest report about revelations regarding ISI came at a time when Pakistan prime minister was in Washington shaking hands with President George W. Bush. As a diplomatic move, Pakistan had announced on the eve of the prime minister’s visit to the US that the wings of the ISI have been clipped (see here…).
So while knowing all along that the ISI has played a tricky role with the blessings of the Pakistan presidents, why is it the US not prepared to call a spade a spade? Is it because the ISI knows too much about sensitive matters and the US administration is not ready to dismount the tiger? It seems that it is easier to remove a particular president or a leader in Pakistan but not tamper with the functioning of the ISI.
Let me quote two paras from the latest NYT report: “The conclusion (about ISI’s involvement) was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack (on Indian embassy in Kabul), the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.
“The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.” More here…
(Meanwhile Pakistan denies the NYT report.)
According to a report released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday it appears that the military ignored reports of dangerous conditions in the showers at a military facility in Iraq.
In February of 2007 the contracting firm of Kellogg, Brown and Root found “several safety issues concerning the improper grounding of electrical devices. In July of 2007 Sgt. Justin Hummer filled out a work order that reported “Pipes have voltage”. He told investigators that he sometimes had to use a wooden stick to turn off the water.
But nothing was done to repair the problem and in January 2008 Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year old Green Beret was electrocuted in the same showers.
As you might imagine we have had the predictable response with the Army blaming the contractors for failing to fix the problem and the contractors blaming the Army for not properly informing them of the problems.
According to Senator Robert Casey the problem persists in many Army bases in Iraq with soldiers being repeatedly shocked. It is hardly surprising that facilities in Iraq might have these problems, in many cases they are using facilities built during the Saddam Hussein era and it is possible they didn’t build them up to code.
In addition some of the newer complexes were built on the fly and in the midst of chaos so there could be problems with that as well. I won’t go into the many reports of outright incompetence on the part of some of these builders.
So there are plenty of possible reasons for the problem.
Frankly at this point I don’t give a (expletive deleted) who is to blame for the incident. That is something for the courts to figure out. But what we need now is for the problem to be solved and solved NOW.
Our troops are over there fighting in a war of dubious wisdom but I think everyone on both sides of that debate would agree that our men and women should not have to wear protective clothing to take a shower.
We need to have real leadership here to resolve this problem. We don’t need investigative committees, we don’t need partisan attacks, we don’t need people trying to score election year points.
We need to protect our troops and we need to protect them NOW.
If the military can’t manage that then it is time to bring everyone home where they can take a voltage free shower.
It seems - as we saw yesterday at WORLDMEETS.US with the editorial translations of a number of regional German newspapers - that after an orgy of Obama-mania in Berlin, Germans are having some second thoughts.
“Those who cheer Obama today may have to negotiate with him over Afghanistan tomorrow. … The United States will not accept an indefinite situation in which they wear themselves out fighting the Taliban, while the Germans offer friendly help with reconstruction.”
“While the government already knows what’s coming its way, the voters for the major parties could soon experience a rude awakening - when they find that Obama’s new America has the same old objectives. Up to now, Germans could refuse a more robust mandate for Afghanistan by quietly hinting that one really mustn’t follow the lead of George W. Bush. But it will be much harder after one has just applauded him, to reject the first urgent request from a President Obama.”
