"What are the priorities, guys? Do you want to have a war? We can probably have one. But is that what you really want? Is that really in our interest? Because I don't think so."
If this was a serious statement the man is a buffoon of the first order. No one WANTS war; but if the alternative is surrencer / appeasement what are you going to do?
Would Fallon sell out Taiwan? How about SKor or Japan or Siberia or India?
This pacific nonsense always seems to be predicated on a belief that all the world will act according to US desires and therefore if there is a war it is always our fault.
Tell me, how successful have all those years of EU diplomacy been in cooling down Iran, hmmmm?
In the spring of 1977, Menachem Begin was elected prime minister of Israel and surprised everyone by choosing as his foreign minister not someone from his own Likud Party, but a star of the opposing Labor Party, Moshe Dayan. It proved a brilliant choice, as Dayan helped direct the peace process with Egypt that culminated with the Camp David accords.
In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States, and rather than choose as his secretary of state someone from among his own supporters, he chose Henry Kissinger, a supporter of Nixons arch-rival, Nelson Rockefeller. Again, that proved a fortuitous choice, as Kissinger helped orchestrate a rapprochement with China, as well as accords in the Middle East and with the Soviet Union.
President-elect Barack Obama has now done something similar, picking a rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, to be his secretary of state, rather than someone from among his own supporters. It could also end up a fortuitous choice. Clinton may not be as steeped in foreign policy expertise as a Dayan or a Kissinger, but neither is she a neophyte. Moreover, she will build a strong team at State from among her own supporters, notably former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.
But the real reason that Obama and Clinton might enjoy success is something that goes barely mentioned in the media. Obama and Clinton are buying into a bottomed-out market vis-à-vis Americas position in the world. It is as if they will be buying stock after the market has crashed, and just at the point when a number of factors are already set in motion for a recovery. For President George W. Bush did not just damage Americas position in the world, he has also, over the past two years, quietly repositioned himself as a realist in foreign policy, and that, coupled with a bold new strategy in Iraq, known as the surge, has poised America for a diplomatic rebound, which the next administration will get the credit for carrying out.
Consider the following:
Iraq is on the mend, with local and national elections scheduled for 2009 and 2010 respectively, which could well solidify our withdrawal under better-than-previously-expected circumstances. Afghanistan is not on the mend, but Obama will have the benefit of moving more troops there from an improved Iraq, as well as putting into place the new strategy of Army Gen. David Petraeus, who has just taken over Central Command, giving Petraeus responsibility not just for Iraq, but for the Greater Middle East. Moreover, Al-Qaeda may be on the run, thanks to a quiet agreement that President Bush negotiated recently with Pakistan for aerial strikes against enemy targets inside Pakistani territory. Then there is Iran, perhaps about to become more reasonable, given the collapse in the price of oil. Syria has been subtly re-engaged by both America and Europe, and may be about to inch away from Irans orbit. And Arab-Israeli peace negotiations have been making a little headway over the course of 2008, even as there has been almost no coverage of it. Here, too, Team Obama is poised to get the credit for break-throughs.
Indeed, the Middle East may just possibly be on the brink of a positive rearranging of pieces over the next few years, thanks to a new American president with the clout derived from high approval ratings both domestically and internationally, that will, in turn, affect decision-making in places like Teheran and Damascus, whose citizenries likely have a higher opinion of Obama than they have of their own leaders. Do not underestimate the importance of a popular American president coupled with increased stability in Iraq, which will be progressing from one democratic election to another.
Then there's China, India, and Russia. China and the United States may be about to move closer together, thanks to the world economic crisis, which now increases the degree to which each of these two great powers will depend on the other. In India, Bush has left a legacy of improved relations, thanks in no small measure to the recently concluded nuclear pact. And Obamas promise to engage Russia, while perhaps calling a halt to NATO expansion - even as Russia is weakened by falling oil prices and a negative international reaction to its adventure in Georgia could signal improved ties on that score. And improved ties with Russia could mean more Russian pressure on Iran.
In South America, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has become measurably more unpopular according to recent polls, even as he, too, is weakened by falling oil prices. Obama can also look forward to the end of the Castro regime in Cuba and that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe over the next four years. Burma may be edging towards a transition away from its aging, implacable dictator, Than Shwe. North Korea is a dicey call, as Kim Jong Il continues to manipulate negotiations, but the overall trend there is in the direction of a comprehensive agreement.
So, yes, this may be a market where buyers are once again starting to trickle in, signifying that a bottom has been reached. Good timing for Hillary.
#2
Can Kaplan explain why this is the bottom? Seems to me, it could go either way. Is Hillary really that much more qualified for Secretary of state than Martha Stewart? Her 'experience' centered around hosting and toasting, not negotations. Unlike Hillary, Martha has actual business experience and real jail time in her resume.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/26/2008 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It proved a brilliant choice, as Dayan helped direct the peace process with Egypt that culminated with the Camp David accords.
#5
Would someone please tell this constitutional scholar (aka Obama) that Hillary cannot be SoS?
There's this little clause in the constitution, Article 1 section 6 paragraph 2, that makes her Thighness ILLEGAL!
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time;..."
The pay of the SoS and others was increased while Hillary has been a Senator, ergo she can't be SoS.
#7
GWB did not "damage America's position in the world". The world adopted a pose of antagonism toward America because GWB was not a socialist/pacifist. It's the same old story every time a Republican is President, except that most people aren't old enough to remember how it was with Reagan and Nixon. Now that O is President, America is wonderful.
#8
What BS. Dubya's failings have been only to achieve less than he might have, while still having achieved much. "Realism", like almost all words ending in "ism", is meaningless. Dubya has been utterly realistic, and has had the sense of responsibility (unlike almost all in the political class) to take short-term risks and abuse to enhance long-term prospects for security.
AQ has been severely battered and is under tremendous pressure, their primary failed state/sanctuary (Afghanistan) has been turned over, one of the most reckless likely facilitators/suppliers (Iraq) has been changed, their far-flung operations from the Philippines to the Horn to the tri-border region of South America have been attacked and pressured.
North Korea remains a dropped ball (after Dubya at first adopted a realistic policy), the Israel-Arab thing remains right where it was and will always be, and of course Iran clicks along towards fission. None of those things are new, and none of them are the fault of the current crew, though they coulda/should done more on all, esp. since they at some point took a realistic approach to them.
Kaplan's facts aren't (mostly) facts, his analysis is rubbish, and his metaphor is crappy, too. I see The Atlantic continues its decline.
Plenty of people on the left are unhappy about the idea of keeping Robert Gates on as defense secretary in the Obama administration. It's fair to wonder when the president-elect will find an important job for someone who opposed the Iraq war. But Gates represents the opposite of the type of thinking that got us into Iraq. And keeping him on may be the best way for Obama to keep his pledge to leave with all deliberate speed.
Gates is portrayed as a hawk because he's part of the Bush administration. But President Bush brought him on precisely because he needed a drastic change at the Pentagon from the gung-ho, cavalier approach of Donald Rumsfeld. People forget that Gates was a member of the 2006 Iraq Study Group, which endorsed negotiations with Syria and Iran and recommended steps that would end U.S. involvement.
In fact, had Gates had his way, we'd be well on our way out by now. "By the first quarter of 2008," said the report, "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." That would have cut U.S. forces in half.
So Gates should not be mistaken for an unrepentant supporter of the war. And because he has Republican credentials and presided over the surge, he has unique credibility in managing our departure from Iraq.
If he says conditions allow us to leave, it will be hard for Republicans in Congress to argue. And if he weren't ready to undertake the job of getting American forces out of Iraq, it's hard to to believe Obama would keep him on--or that he would want to stay.
#3
There is always more to the story. While Gates is not an Iraq hand, he will be a far better SecDef than some of the abject losers picked by previous Democrats, like draft dodger Harold Brown, wormy Senator Cohen under Clinton, and Robert MacNamara under Johnson, who thought he could treat the military like a business.
In September, General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot.
RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA
Tue Nov 25 2008 09:04:22 ET
A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.
When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."
When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."
Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
#1
Seems the Russian experts don't really understand the US. If we didnt break up prior to WW2 it seems unlikely we would now. Wishful thinking or just intended for an internal Russian audience.
#2
I predict one half of Russia will be speaking Chinese and the other half bowing to Mecca before any Russian fantasy come true.
Posted by: ed ||
11/26/2008 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You forget they get their 'info' from the MSM and Hollyweird. So, why shouldn't they come up with that impression. I recall the CIA was reading internal papers they got from the Soviet Union. They just didn't understand that the low and mid level bureaucrats were lying up the line telling the boss man what he wanted to hear. Soviet Union collapses and no one at the big intel op had any idea. Same here.
#4
To quote Mark Twain, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Same for the U.S. of A. We have survived many crises in the past; the Civil War was a traumatic as anything in our history or Russian history and we survived. We survived the Great Depression. We survived WWII. We survived Korea and Viet Nam. We have survived many other crises. I guess we will survive a bit longer.
#6
Nope. We is broke and getting broker.
US foreign debt is $14 trillion
US Public debt is $10.6 trillion.
Unfunded future federal obligations is another $50 trillion.
Posted by: ed ||
11/26/2008 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
BTW, foreigners hold $3 trillion of US T-bills. Think they will be eager to roll over or buy more when when they need cash at home and at the same time US debt skyrockets several trillion $ in a year.
Posted by: ed ||
11/26/2008 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Bambi will soon find out that when he gores someone's ox, the ox will turn on him and stomp him to death. Bambi doesn't run the gov't, he just imagines he does. Passing a budget eliminating someone's favorite subsidy will be tough. There's lots of agricultural representation, from Oregon and California all the way to Florida and the Carolinas. So having some boy genius saying we're going to eliminate all these programs from budgetary funding and really getting it done is a long, bumpy path. So, what's likely to happen? Same as always. Spend more and more while the party lasts. Party may be over though as it sounds like some sad economic news coming out of the China piggybank too.
#3
It was interesting to watch the ag subsidy grow from a few million to billions. There have to be a lot of hogs that have gotten fat at that trough. And most of them political donors.
#5
I have a soft spot for shameless hypocrites. Especially Chester Arthur-type hypocrites who do the right thing in the tight spot despite a life-time of Wrong.
So if Obama actually gets out the long knives for agricultural subsidies, despite the fact that it will probably wreck my company and kill my job, both of which are funded indirectly from the sea of bullshit government money sloshing about the agricultural business community, he'll have my respect.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/26/2008 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Just to remind people that UAW is not the only and probably not the main cause of Detroit's problems. Poor engineering, poor marketing (marketing is not about half nude girls in your advertisements but on knowing who will buy your product (1) and what will make them buy your product) and above all poor management since it is management who sets constrints and deadlines for engineers, managemnt who is able to tell: "Your design sucks, we are not going to sell it and BTW you are fired" and approves or vetoes an advertising campaign.
(1) A well known example is an American beer firm (Budweiser?) in the 5às who issued a series of advertisements with well dressed, obviously rich people drinking its beer. Problem is that the people who drank it were mostly blue collars. End result was that the white collars continued not drinking it since in their minds it was a blue collar thing they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole while for the blue collars it ceased being "our" beer and became "enemy's beer" so the sales between them took a hit. That is what happens when you don't know your market.
#4
The American auto industry is broken. It's not just one thing. But the UAW is in contention for #1. Not only as a symptom, but as a cause. I would rank dealers as problem #2. Then we could get to design and the rest of marketing. But no matter how well designed and marketed, products assembled by overpaid workers who don't build in quality and sold by sleazeballs who try to rip you off at service time aren't going to sell well.
#7
But no matter how well designed and marketed, products assembled by overpaid workers who don't build in quality and sold by sleazeballs who try to rip you off at service time aren't going to sell well.
If you check the list you will notice that most of the models listed had serious design flaws and had not been adequately tested before going into production. Quality in the manufacturing process was also an issue but here you must factor lousy work and use of substandard parts or materials and that is a managerial decision.
#8
The Japanese (particularly the automakers) learned quality from us. Post-war W. Edwards Deming went to Japan (after US manufacturers showed no interest) and taught statistical quality control. The US didn't adopt his methods until Japan started kicking Detroit's butt in quality and sales. Japan has a national quality award named after Deming.
#10
Um, Cornsilk, the purpose of a business is to sell product. To do that it has to meet the market's desires. The market has spoken and they WANT Bud.
Personally I think it resembles cold horse piss, but that's just me. It's not like there are only a small number of alternatives out there which is where you Obama analogy breaks down.
McCain v. Obama was the equivalent of Coors v. Bud. There were no Sam Adams, Wachusett, Anchor Steam, etc. in play.
#11
Damn, that picture of the Vega makes me wish I had one in my garage right now. Feed it a little E85 with 16 pounds of boost and enjoy life. Seriously, the Vega was what it was. A cheap car with very good mileage capability. It was excellent for those who wanted such a car. They experimented with aluminum blocks with no liners to reduce costs. They utilized high silicon load alloy to prevent cylinder wear. It did. Problem was, they were also using cheap, low carbon rings and cast pistons. Blocks endured..pistons and rings eroded. Replace them and quit squawking. Christ, I'm surprised they forgot the Covair. I had a couple in high school and I could out handle any car in the county. I loved them, except in winter. They wouldn't start due to long intake runners. And, they leaked oil like Harleys. But, what the hey, they were fun for me. I'm now collecting them. Got one with a 600hp small block and one with an aluminum big block both mid-engine mounted. Will out run any Corvette around. I don't think the Big 3 can continue on as they are. What comes next ? Who knows, maybe start-ups like Tesla. But he's way out of price range for commoners. I think we need simple, dependable autos for much less cost. How to do it ???
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/26/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The article left out #11, which is ResCap Mortgage.
The sad truth is GM has not been an auto company for ~10 years. It has been a mortgage banker and a benefits/pension fund manager. It was a major player in the sub-prime mortgage market.
Making autos became a sideline for them, and it showed on the showroom floor.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/26/2008 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I think we need simple, dependable autos for much less cost. How to do it ???
Economic justice can best be won by free men, through free enterprise.
The market has been killing them for years. Maybe it should finish the job?
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/26/2008 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Anybody out there happen to know what Cadillac's motto is was?
#17
All those Bud drinkers are stupid/nasty/nutty/ugly/etc. It's silly to argue about tastes.
One counterexample for GM. One of the best cars GM ever produced was the Geo Prizm. It consistently got & still gets rave reviews from users. Reasonably priced, needed few repairs, terrific gas mileage, unusual comfort for its size, durable, etc. etc. etc. Discontinued after just a 5-year production run. Nothing stylish, attractive, or hoo-ha about the model. Yes, it had Japanese tech in it, but it was not sold or warranted by them. I think if GM just started producing them again, they would have a winner. The fact that GM stopped producing it without developing a replacement is another black mark against GM.
#18
I remember reading the car mags and the cars that GM and Ford made for Europe were always better than the ones they made for the US. It didn't make a lick of sense to me. Basically there was too much crap here for too long. Detroit got a bad reputation and the market never forgot it. Funny how that happens.
These guys need to go under and be started over. Some (Chrysler and some GM brands) need to stay dead. Both management and the UAW need to be tossed. It is a harsh world out there. This is the only way they are going to get better.
#20
had my 1980 X car ( 6 cyl. Phoenix) for 14 years.bought it newand sold it at 200k, and only problen was i blew the tranny pulling a trailer. dealer service did suck how ever.
kept it long enough for #1 son to learn to drive ( and not have to worry about hurting it)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Plenty of people on the left are unhappy about the idea of keeping Robert Gates on as defense secretary in the Obama administration. It's fair to wonder when the president-elect will find an important job for someone who opposed the Iraq war. But Gates represents the opposite of the type of thinking that got us into Iraq. And keeping him on may be the best way for Obama to keep his pledge to leave with all deliberate speed.
