If the new president is serious about Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State as he follows Lincoln’s “team of rivals” approach, Barack Obama should consider John McCain as Secretary of Defense.

When the two meet on Monday, at Obama’s suggestion it turns out, “sitting down in a serious way” to “find common ground,” the discussion might include a role for McCain in the new administration.

McCain’s maverick history makes it unlikely that Senate Republicans will look to him for leadership. (One of them, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, is already accusing him of betraying Republican principles.)

Despite campaign differences over the past in Iraq, Obama and McCain, if they teamed up, would be faced with implementing an exit strategy being firmed up in the last days of the Bush Administration…

Read the rest of this entry.

On our Thursday radio show, we took a look at some of the speculation around President Elect Obama’s appointments for his cabinet and staff. I’d like to summarize some of our discussion and add to it with some suggestions and analysis of where we stand so far. The first choice, of course, was Barack’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. He’s certainly qualified, but he represents the sharp elbows of partisan division which have characterized Congress for far too long and stands in denial of Obama’s goals of a post-partisan administration. Someone with a greater history of reaching across the aisle would have been better, so we gave a partial thumbs-down to Rahm for this post.

The second, and much larger focus of our discussion was on the position of Secretary of State. There has been far too much discussion of John Kerry for that position. Mind you, this comes from somebody who was never one of the 2004 “John Kerry Hates America” contingent. Hell, as an opponent of the Iraq war, I actually voted for the guy, though I held my nose and thought he was a flawed candidate. But the fact is that Kerry’s military service, while admirable, did not rise the the expansive, diplomatic levels of people such as Colin Powell who commanded an entire theater, along with being head of the Joint Chiefs and a number of other positions of international responsibility. Nor does his domestic experience rise to the levels of Condi Rice or Madeline Allbright, with their backgrounds in international affairs. He has the same junkets that most Senators take, but that’s hardly a formula for a Secretary of State.

We had a radical and more mending suggestion, though I’m not sure if Obama would consider it. How about David Petraeus? He has not only a military record in warfare, but in managing a coalition of leaders from various countries and experience in dealing with problems specific to the Middle East. He is also wildly popular with the opposition party and would serve as a silent mea culpa regarding his success in Iraq, which only the most hard core partisans would deny. Petraeus was a success and likely deserves a career in the civilian sector. This would be a good start and would set your bona fides in terms of a post-partisan administration.

You have many other posts to fill, but here is one name to consider who might be good for any of several of them… Joe Lieberman. This could be an appointment where you reap multiple benefits. You have claimed to be someone who also crosses party lines and stands up to the party machine while you were out on the campaign trail. Right now the wolves are at the door and your party is getting ready to send Lieberman to the curb. But he is an experienced member of the party and quite popular with the opposition. Rather than allow him to be stripped of his party chairmanship and power positions, driving him into the arms of the Republicans, you could give him a prestigious position in the cabinet. Not only do you further your claim to leaving partisan bickering behind, but your party is mollified when a new Democrat takes his Senate seat. It’s something to think about.

If you go through and stock your appointments with nothing but Clinton-era leftovers and hard core Democratic Party warriors, one of the basic pillars of your campaign dissolves. Obviously you will need to name some trusted insiders who have worked hard for you and proven themselves over time, so I’m not saying you need an entire cabinet full of enemies. But if you take a few chances and really reach across the aisle, and you may find your road far easier in the years to come.

The tidal wave of global reaction to the election of President-elect Barack Obama is enough to make a foreign desk editor cry over what to do next. Coming later today will be articles from Russia and Iraq. Here are just a few of the many stories posted on WORLDMEETS.US in the past 24 hours:

24 Heures, Switzerland
A Man, a Destiny, a World: The Best of America

EXCERPT:

“The arrival today of the first man of color to the apex of power in the only global superpower testifies to the logic of this country and its evolution. Once again, America was ready. … Freedom is that which has allowed both slavery and its eradication; the assertion of civil rights and the existence of the Ku Klux Klan; the many ’success stories’ of ’self-made men,’ and the absence of the social state. Whoever is in power in America, this will remain at the heart of the country’s psyche.”

Nachrichten, Switzerland
Obama Embodies the Spirit of a New Age

EXCERPT:

“Economically, culturally and militarily, the notion that the strongest must stand alone has been shown to be absurd. Cooperation rather than confrontation and negotiation rather than dictation are the new and astounding ideas embodied by Obama. … Obama in no magician - and McCain would have been less so - but he has one great advantage: He can, since he isn’t committed to a rigid doctrine and doesn’t believe himself to be on a divine mission (like Bush has), act according to rational and pragmatic reasoning. He can finally reestablish a government based on reality - no matter how bleak that may be once initiated.”

Rue 89, France
Will Obama Deliver a New ‘Post-American’ World?

EXCERPT:

“”Let us not be stingy with our pleasure; good news is pretty rare these days. And when we use the word “us,” we mean the near-totality of the rest of the world, who were worried that we would not be seconded in our passion for Barack Obama by the American voters on Election Day.”

Excelsior, Mexico
Obama: The President the ‘Planet Requires’

EXCERPT:

“Obama is the President of the United States that the planet requires. Yet paradoxically, this doesn’t necessarily imply that an Obama presidency is the best thing for United States society. … one must wonder whether the society of that country, and above all, the United States Congress, will agree. Why? Because what Obama wants to do is make the United States somewhat similar to a European welfare state, and it’s likely, sooner or later, that United Statesiens [people of the United States] will turn their back on such a project. In fact, even though the country is one of the most advanced, it has the greatest inequality in terms of wealth distribution and has never had a viable and durable social-democratic party.”

The Tehran Times, Islamic Republic of Iran
The World’s Candidate Wins: A Man One ‘Can Talk To’

Is Barack Obama the antidote to eight years of George W. Bush? Anyone reading this editorial from Iran’s state-controlled Tehran Times would certainly get that impression. Unquestionably, Tehran is even more pleased than most Obama fans about the President-elect’s success. The editorial asks and answers: ‘And why was Obama the world’s candidate? Quite simply, because they feel they can talk to him.’ The winds of dialogue are surely blowing. Now to see what comes of it …

Christina Lamb, of The Times of London, has provided one of the best assessments of the ground realities in Afghanistan. She should know as she has been reporting from Afghanistan for 20 years. I strongly recommend that her present analysis should be carefully read.

One has to be patient as this is a longish report where she argues why the US and the NATO forces cannot beat the Taliban.

Here are the excerpts from Lamb’s report: “Most alarming is the way Kabul has been encircled by the Taliban, prompting a sense of being under siege both among Afghans and foreigners, behind their concrete blocks and armed guards.

“Of four highways into the capital from the south, east, west and north, built with hundreds of millions of foreign aid money, only the northern route is considered safe. Even that has become prone to rocket attacks.

“Complicating matters is the fact that the Taliban are not the only source of violence. Like a franchise of the disgruntled, there are also militants from the Hezb-i-Islami of the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Al-Qaeda militants from the Jala-luddin Haqqani network based in the Pakistani tribal area of Waziristan, drug networks, armed criminals and corrupt elements inside and outside the government.

“With most of the population unemployed, there are plenty of people who will happily fire a rocket for a few dollars. ‘It’s not the Taliban that are winning – it’s the government who are losing,’ says Haroun Mir, deputy director of the Afghan Centre for Research and Policy Studies.

“ ‘The Taliban are mining in a sea of acquiescence, a sullen, frightened acquiescence,’ agrees a western diplomat gloomily. ‘If you ask people, they don’t want Taliban; but if it’s a choice between them and corrupt, predatory government, they prefer Taliban’. If there is one positive to be found in the mess, it is that from London to Washington all agree that the situation is critical and things have to change.

“So bad is the situation that British and American forces are indirectly funding the Taliban as they get their own fuel and water supplies through. The private contractors they use estimate that 25% of the $4,000 per truck paid for security ends up with the Taliban. To read the complete report please click here...

Photo above courtesy The Times: British soldiers in Afghanistan - The Stress shows.

Elsewhere, Amy Goodman’s article is also worth reading…Please click here…

Is the ‘radical transformation’ of U.S. politics now underway a ‘tribute to American pragmatism’?

According to Pierre Rousselin, editorialist for France’s Le Figaro:

“In economics as in diplomacy, the most ideological administration in America’s modern history is about to end with a dramatic renunciation of the dogma it defended at its debut. … This is a tribute to American pragmatism, which remains their only true religion and allows them to burn the idols they worship before it’s too late.”

Read the rest of this entry »

As we wait for the bailout bill, sorry the rescue package, to be passed by our “country first” Congress, and as we wait for the low expectations debate tomorrow evening, one may wonder what is happening around the rest of our “interconnected” world.

Well, here is my quick perusal of headlines this morning:

First to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Los Angeles Times discusses how the insurgence in Afghanistan is escalating and how warlords now direct attacks against U.S. forces from havens in Pakistan, and how

Despite a flurry of U.S. airstrikes against their organizations and million-dollar bounties on their heads, the Pashtun chieftains have been able to operate, and even expand their networks, largely unmolested from bases spread along the border with Pakistan.

The New York Times reports that even General Petraeus admits to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in “Insurgents in Afghanistan Are Gaining, Petraeus Says”, “Certainly in Afghanistan, wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult.”

While the Washington Post reports the good news that “Violence Declines Further in Iraq,“ it does also have some caveats:

Security gains remain “reversible and uneven,” with the main threats coming from Iranian-backed militias and the Shiite-led Iraqi government’s slow integration of volunteer Sunni fighters, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday. Potential is growing, moreover, for politically driven violence as ethnic, tribal and religious groups vie for influence in advance of provincial elections planned in coming months, according to the congressionally mandated quarterly Pentagon report on security in Iraq.

And the Philadelphia Enquirer reports:

The number of Iraqi security forces killed in September rose by nearly a third, to 159, compared with the same period last year, Associated Press figures showed yesterday. U.S. troop deaths for the same period fell by nearly 40 percent, to 25. The figures are a sign that the U.S. military is increasingly relying on the Iraqis, including U.S.-allied Sunni fighters, to take the lead in operations so they can assume responsibility for their own security and let the Americans eventually withdraw.

While the “political” talk is all about troop reductions in Iraq, the Seattle Times reports

Six Army brigades, a National Guard unit and three military headquarters have been ordered to Iraq next summer in a move that would allow the U.S. to keep the number of troops largely steady there through much of next year.The planned deployments involve about 26,000 troops and would maintain 14 combat brigades in Iraq from about February to early fall. But the decisions do not rule out potential changes as military leaders assess the security there and eye more troop withdrawals.Even as violence in Iraq has plunged in the past year, cautious Pentagon leaders have resisted insistent public and congressional calls for more rapid and hefty troop pullouts. Instead, top commanders insist the security situation remains fragile, and the improvements reversible.

The Washington Times reports that,

The United States needs new weapon systems, including missile defenses and other advanced military capabilities, to deter and counter China’s steady buildup of nuclear and conventional arms, according to a draft internal report by a State Department advisory board. U.S. defense policy has stressed missile defenses against Iran and North Korea. The report, by the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), is the first to recommend such defenses against China, including technology in space.

Should China now be added to the Axis of Evil?

Talking about weapons systems, U.S. weapons exports rose about 45 percent to $33.7 billion in the just-ended fiscal year, the highest total since 1993, as the Defense Department increased sales in the Middle East to improve security in the region. This according to Bloomberg.com

One of the beneficiaries of such weapons systems sales is our ally, Israel.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Pentagon Aims to Sell Israel Fighter Jets,” as much as $15 billion worth of them:

The Defense Department formally notified Congress that it wants to sell Israel as many as 75 of the latest-model fighter jet, which is being developed under a contract led by #Lockheed Martin Corp. A sale could be worth as much as $15 billion. It would mark the first order from outside the original team of countries working on the jet, the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

On the continuing Somali Pirates Caper, the New York Times reports that the “Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re In It For The Money.”:

The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.
“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”
The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.

Perhaps unrelated to this, but potentially very applicable and ominous, the Navy Times reports in “AfriCom goes operational”:

After spending the past year under the wing of European Command, the fledgling U.S. Africa Command became fully operational Wednesday — even as it remains headquartered in the middle of Europe.
Stuttgart, Germany, is not the likeliest location for this hybrid military-civilian command that hopes to promote security ties between the U.S. and African nations, help build Africa’s ability to fight terrorism and piracy and focus on “war prevention rather than war fighting,” as AfriCom’s Web site proclaims.
But concerns among both U.S. and African officials about establishing a permanent American presence on the continent combined to block an effort to place even part of its headquarters in Africa.

Finally, talking about (Stuttgart) Europe, and recalling that Russia-Georgia conflict a long, long time ago, the New York Times reports that:

The European Union on Wednesday began deploying 200 civilian monitors across parts of Georgia, witnesses and officials said, despite earlier threats by the Russian military to bar them from buffer zones surrounding the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

A European Union official said that the unarmed monitors had been allowed through Russian checkpoints at several places to enter the buffer zone. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

If TMV readers express and interest for similar, albeit somewhat “militaristic”, summaries of what is happening in the world outside US, stay tuned.

After his fairly good performance in Iraq, General David Petraeus takes charge of his new post as the overall head of the U.S. forces in the Middle East (including Afghanistan) on October 31. But now General Petraeus needs to acquaint himself better with the history and ground realities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and the Central Asia.

History tells us that even the best foreign soldiers, and great conquerors and diplomats, in the world have met their nemesis in Afghanistan. So it would do no harm even if presidential hopefuls Obama/McCain too leaf through the past and recent history.

The intelligent US soldier Petraeus is likely to discover that Afghanistan has been a graveyard of the ambitions of the mighty empire builders — including Alexander the Great, the Great Mughals, the clever British colonialists, and the powerful Soviets. All of them failed to subdue its hardy and fiercely independent people inhabiting the toughest of mountainous terrain.

What have the US/NATO forces achieved in the past six years? Is there any other option to sort out the Afghanistan mess? General Petraeus has one month before he takes up the challenging Afghanistan assignment. I strongly recommend that he, or any other person interested in Afghanistan, should read at least three books to get an inkling of the enormous challenge ahead.

In Afghanistan the invading forces are fighting not just ‘militants/terrorists’ but a centuries old way of life and culture that have flourished to this day. So the biggest challenge before Petraeus/NATO forces is how to win the “War against Terror” without losing forever the goodwill of the people in Afghanistan/Pakistan. (In an interview this week General Petraeus expected the fight against the insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get worse before it got better).

General Petraeus must know that “low intensity war” is different from a full-fledged war and hence the strategy has to be different. In such long-lasting wars, the armed forces should play a stand-by role, leaving the civilians to tackle day-to-day exigencies. India learnt it the hard way. In fact, General Petraeus should seek active participation of seasoned Indian and Pakistani soldiers in his new enterprise.

Meanwhile to get a fascinating insight into the complex yet fascinating past (as well as present) of this part of the Indian subcontinent I recommend a newly-released book by a young British woman (Empires of the Indus — The Story of A River by Alice Albinia) that I read recently.

I quote from a review in the Financial Times: “Empires of the Indus is a magnificent book, a triumphant melding of travel and history into a compelling story of adventure and discovery. Alice Albinia has…a captivating account of her explorations through Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Tibet, taking us back in time to the earliest days. We have been drawn through an array of peoples, cultures, landscapes and stories.” More here…

Or the review by Nigel Collett (author of The Butcher of Amritsar: Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer). “She (Alice Albinia) traverses areas darkened by the fanatics of the Muslim world, areas from which the faint hearted of the west have been frightened by books such as Bernard-Henri Levy’s account of the murder of Daniel Pearl. Read the rest of this entry »