This is from The Economist, which is written by some very, very smart people across the pond. It has begun to dawn on them that all they've really got by way of security is Champ's word.
Champ has still made a difficult situation worse in two ways. First, he has broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: you must keep your word. In Syria he drew a red line: he would punish Bashar Assad if he used chemical weapons. The Syrian dictator did, and Champ did nothing. In response to Russias aggression, he threatened fierce sanctions, only to unveil underwhelming ones. The cumulative message is weakness. The article's title, "What Would America Fight For?" reminds me of the saying "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." What we're talking about is when Champ would order our soldiers, Marines. sailors and zoomies -- not one of whom he knows, understands, or cares for -- into battle. And I think the answer is fairly clear: he would do so as and when giving the order provides Champ with some personal or political advantage not outweighed by the flak he would get from his base. If a combat assault on Pago-Pago means one more Democratic senator, it's going to happen.
Second, Champ has been an inattentive friend. You're complaining? Trying being a Republican, or worse yet, an Israeli.
He has put his faith in diplomatic coalitions of willing, like-minded democracies to police the international system. That makes sense, but he has failed to build the coalitions. And using diplomacy to deal with the awkward squad, such as Iran and Russia, leads to concessions that worry Americas allies. Credibility is about reassurance as well as the use of force. I'm too stupid to understand that sentence. If I were European, another teleprompted speech would not reassure me. The airborne would.
Europeans think they can enjoy American security without paying for it. Duh. Ya think? At the rate things are going the British army will consist of some very brave people equipped with rocks and harsh language.
America is preoccupied with avoiding foreign entanglements. Champ began his presidency with the world wondering how to tame America. Answer: get Champ elected.
Both he and his country need to realise that the question has changed. Some of us are working on that, but in the meantime mind the Fulda Gap, there's a good fellow.
Posted by: Matt ||
05/04/2014 13:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Are you willing to die to keep these oligarchs in power? Let those with influence, money, and power, do the bleeding.
[I don't recall people willing to die to defend GE, Rutgers, NAACP, Soros, Moveon, et al]
#2
"First, he has broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: you must keep your word."
"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."
George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001
#10
HT Mike! They asked for something different. They got it. STFU
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/04/2014 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
See also WORLD NEWS > [Business Insider] WORLD OF PAIN: US IS NO LONGER ALARMING TO ITS FOES OR REASSURING TO ITS ALLIES.
* DRUDGEREPORT > [FT.com] UNCERTAINTY, NOT CHINA, REPLACING US POWER. AMERICA IS BEHAVING LIKE A DECLING HEGEMON UNWILLING TO SHARE POWER YET UNABLE TO IMPOSE.
ARTIC > America = Amerika is prob still safe from ambitious China's clutches for another ten years, i.e. until Year 2024.
* TOPIX > [Forbes] US ASIAN ALLIES WONDER: IS US READY TO FIGHT CHINA OVER ISLETS?
* SAME > [Freerepublic = Town Hall] TAIWAN: BEWARE!?
[DAWN] THE victors who climbed the heights of Kargil ... three months of unprovoked Pak aggression, over 4000 dead Paks, another victory for India ... and who gave Pakistain visions as divergent as those based on Islamisation and 'moderate enlightenment', are reduced to controlling the distribution of newspapers and cable channels in cantonments across Pakistain.
There was a time when many Paks shuddered at the name of military generals, at the ISI and other spy organizations. Yet today, there is open conflict and condemnation of such actors in the political field. The recent attacks on the military and its institutions have arisen not so much for what the military has achieved on the war front -- its glorious victories in 1965, 1971 or 1999 -- but for transgressing its role in the political sphere.
Some writers have called the changes brought about in Pakistain's political economy, where questions of power have been central and have undergone a shift, an "ornamental transition", perhaps not fully understanding the nature of transition, whether social, economic, institutional or political.
There would be few who do not see multiple transitions and structural transformation across Pakistain, where the hegemony of the military has been successfully questioned, if not threatened. This does not take away from the fact that the military still continues to be powerful, interventionist, and a veto player in many key decisions, but things need to be seen in their historical perspective.
Pakistain's main contradiction at the moment is over military and civilian supremacy. Issues of class, where the landed and propertied rule over and exploit the dispossessed and working people, or of real illusory sovereignty of the country, where Pakistain's elite acquire the vision and sense to confront imperial and global power, are more permanent evolving features of the nature of contradictions facing Pakistain.
Similarly, other more substantive longer-term social conflicts are also embedded in contested visions of cultural and social ideology, which one sees being played out in different spheres. While multiple contradictions exist in Pakistain, the immediate tussle over civilian rule free from the obtrusiveness of the military and its institutions, has been played out far more visibly and colourfully than the longer, more drawn-out, transitions.
The Abbottabad ... A pleasant city located only 30 convenient miles from Islamabad. The city is noted for its nice weather and good schools. It is the site of Pakistain's military academy, which was within comfortable walking distance of the residence of the late Osama bin Laden.... raid by the US, the outcome of the Asghar Khan case, or even the largely symbolic indictment of General Musharraf, have allowed public criticism of what Aasim Sajjad Akhtar in these columns has called 'sacred cows' to be voiced fairly belligerently.
As he argues, 'even a few years ago it was unthinkable that the ISI and its chief could be subject to such accusations' as it has recently. Clearly such a new-found voice by members of parliament or the media, is far more than 'ornamental', and must represent a greater shift.
This does not mean that the transition taking place in Pakistain is complete, for it remains partial, tentative and reversible. The possibility of military intervention politically may have decreased, but it still persists.
The imminent arrival of Tahirul Qadri next week and rent-a-crowd dubious organizations becoming active, suggests that this war by other means continues, and conditions will be created where military intervention gains further acceptance. Yet, all such possibilities must be resisted and countered by those who envisage a democratic future rather than one which always anticipates the impending interference of the military.
It is difficult to understand why people otherwise considered sensible, would support and defend an intelligence agency or military rule, but as one sees in Pakistain, they do exist and propagate pro-military and anti-democratic views -- how such an institution can be called a 'respected pillar of the state', is confounding. While many in the media do gain materially from siding with non-democratic forces, it is the two-facedness of many public performers which makes the political transition from military hegemony to civilian rule even more difficult.
Notwithstanding some diasporic academics or foreign journalists, it has taken two decades for scholars to grudgingly accept that feudalism is no longer a dominant social or political phenomenon in Pakistain. Some perhaps still see some remnants of what they would call feudalism, but feudal power as a social category has all but disappeared.
Similarly, one is beginning to see the power of the military in Pakistain also diminish as a different transition allows for alternate contenders of power. Like all transitions, this one will also be disruptive, contentious and long-winded, yet the direction may have been established. An injured animal bites hardest.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/04/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
its glorious victories in 1965, 1971 or 1999
Paki houmor?
#2
Let me get this straight...the Pakis lost HALF their country in 1971 ( the Eastern Half ) after they killed ( genocide?) 3 million Hindu civilians in just 8 months time ( you got to REALLY WORK to kill 3 million civilians in just 8 months ). And then they not only had 93,000 ( half their standing army ) of their soldiers taken prisoners and shipped by cattle car out into the Rann of Kutch ( a really FINE desert with 126* F temps ) and left to rot for 6 more years while India milked them for ransom ( or something ) and then dumped them on the streets of Karachi so their families could hang the PM a few months later.
That great victory?
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646 ||
05/04/2014 6:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That great victory?
Indeed. And the Egyptians celebrate their great victory in the Yom Kippur War. Of course, they did get peace with Israel and the Sinai out or it, instead of losing Cairo as originally feared, so they have some justification.
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.
