LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration makes the decision on June 13, 2013, to supply arms to Syrian opposition forces to the Assad regime and enforce a limited no-fly zone inside Syria. The decision comes as forces of the Assad regime make gains over poorly armed opposition forces and threaten the Syrian opposition's base in the city of Aleppo.

LyrArc Article Gist
Fomer Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says America needs to take up a vigorous foreign policy in his book "Worthy Fights." Both Panetta and Hillary Clinton, and Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus of the CIA, supported U.S. taking a strong stand in Syria by supporting Syrian opposition forces in the summer of 2011 and were overruled by president Obama and his election advisers because of the approaching 2012 election. Here Mark Landler provides more insights into Hillary Clinton's deeply held belief shared with Panetta that the U.S. had to take strong action where necessary to deter foes, to get into the ring to use Panetta's expression. The U.S. support for action in Libya to support Britain and France comes from the efforts of Clinton, and any lack of followup one of president Obama's errors in foreign policy. In April 2016 president Obama said that he considered his failure to followup in Libya to help the new Libyan government his biggest mistake in his presidency. Here Mark Landler looks at Hillary Clinton's entire career as showing a conviction and belief on the need for action where necessary in the U.S. global engagement. Compared to the bluster of the candidates Trump, Cruz and Sanders, with little experience to back this up in their careers in real estate, law or the Senate , Landler says Clinton is the last remaining hawk. Here he describes Hillary Clinton's contact and empathy for the troops from her trip to the American base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in March 1996. In fact many have forgotten that Yugoslavia is what it is today after the Milosevic years and the ethnic wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, members of the EU and Serbia negotiating to enter EU, because of the bombing campaign taken by Bill Clinton through NATO in 1999 to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and peacemaking following the Bosnian War using diplomat Holbrooke to negotiate the 1995 Dayton Accords. Here Landler describes the meetings with Gen. Keane who pushed for the troop surge that worked in Iraq under president George W. Bush. Clinton supported Keane's proposal made in April 2015, for a no-fly-zone in Syria that would help opposition forces till a settlement could be negotiated. Keane pointed out to Clinton that there was a flaw in Obama's policies- that negotiation would work only if the no-fly-zone was used to support opposition forces. By the end of 2015 Hillary Clinton publicly adopted this position. During a period when Americans are weary of foreign entanglements but understand the need to provide leadership where needed, Hillary Clinton, provides a balance between the pendulum swinging too sharply in one direction in the Bush years and in another direction in the Obama years, says Landler. A view also articulated by Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff for President Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and the Dayton Accords, where the U.S. showed strength of purpose in war and also in negotiating the peace without major entanglements....

LyrArc Article Gist
John Hills, a law professor at Indiana University and author of "The Political Centrist," says tough political exchanges are endemic to the American political system. Others say putting crosshairs on representatives in Congress like Giffords on websites or its equivalent wasn't the practice since the times of Jefferson and Adams. We looked at the letters of George Washington during the long struggle with the British and it showed composure and civility even in dire circumstances and difficulties. Criticism by Washington of the lack of help and risks he was exposed to throughout the war was worded carefully, with civility and yet conveys the great urgency. What about the letters of Jefferson and Adams who were on opposite sides of the debates of that time, a time more infused with momentous issues because of the French revolutionary tide in those years? A letter to Abigail Adams, from Washington, June 13, 1804, gives a glimpse of that relationship: "The friendship with which you honored me has ever been valued, and fully reciprocated, and altho' events have been passing which may be trying to some minds, I never believed yours to be of that kind, nor felt that my own was. Neither my estimate of your character, nor the esteem founded on that, have ever been lessened for a single moment, although doubts whether it would be acceptable may have forbidden manifestations of it. Mr Adams friendship and mine began at an earlier date. It accompanied us thro' long and important scenes. The different conclusions that we had drawn from our political reading and reflections were not permitted to lessen mutual esteem, each party being conscious they were the result of an honest conviction in the other. Like differences of opinion existing among our fellow citizens attached them to the one or the other of us, and produced a rivalship in their minds which did not exist in ours." Jefferson in this letter says that one act of Adam's gave him a moment of personal displeasure, the last appointments by Adams as President "from among my most ardent political enemies." This says Jefferson "laid me under the embarrassment of acting thro' men whose views were to defeat mine, or to encounter the odium of putting others in their places...If my respect for him did not permit me to ascribe the whole blame on the influence of others, it left something for friendship to forgive, and after brooding over it for some little time, and not alwasys resisting the expression of it, I forgave it cordially, and returned to the same state of esteem and respect for him which had long subsisted...I maintain for him and shall carry into private life an unform and high measure of respect and goodwill, and for yourself a sincere attachment."...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the prolific effort to collect donations for the Clinton Foundation that it says promotes crony politics and lobbying. It says that this happened after some of the ethical questions raised during Clinton's two terms as president. This has been a particular problem for Hillary Clinton during the primaries, something she could do without as she has a 40 year record of public service and exceptional work in support of children in the U.S.. And specific programs for infrastructure and other areas to strengthen the U.S. in which much needs to be done in the future. 

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Economist magazine says views in the Trump base of support in rural areas and among white working class voters are likely to persist for some time. One reason given is that many of these people live in isolation and little contact with the more educated urban voters in America. Another factor cited here is that only a fifth of voters follow politics closely, and of these voters only a small fraction have a good grasp of the positions of the two major parties. Most people follow the instincts and thinking of the groups they are with. As a result many of the issues covered in the media such as climate change and U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the Comey firing and the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the election, president Trump's Twitter comments, are not having much impact on the president's ratings among his support base at this early stage of the Trump presidency. Yet it is too early to tell only 6 months into the Trump term in office. After 8 years of president Obama's two terms in office voters who feel left out are not likely to change their views in so short a time. Republican voters as distinct from the core Trump base voter are also unlikely to change their views after 8 years of Democratic party administration. By staying close to traditional Republican party positions president Trump is likely to continue to have the support of the lifelong Republican party voters unless things change. Can a centrist position emerge after voter fatigue with excessive partisan opinion, as voters seek to make America a more quieter place and a consensus on working together to lift all boats emerges. This could be expected as time passes.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial in April 2013 supporting a cautious response in Syria as it reports the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.

LyrArc Article Gist
John Bolton looks at the continual dithering behaviour of the U.S. president in the Middle East- Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq in sequence- and provides some insights into the president's behaviour. He says it comes from Obama's distrust of the U.S. role in the world as a positive factor, and a deterministic view of the "arc of history" bending towards outcomes he finds ideologically acceptable. This coincides with a different public perception of America's role in the world, not so much of mistrust and skepticism, as of indifference and focus back on domestic issues following the event of the first war in Iraq and of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The two are different in nature as the public including women may not share the ideological frame of mind of the president that the U.S. is not overall a serious positive factor in the world through the presidencies of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, to Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton, from the Russo-Japanese war, through the First and Second World War, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War, to the Balkan conflict. Bolton writes at a time when the two perceptions are about to diverge as the U.S. returns to its normal role of positive and constructive engagement with the world....

LyrArc Article Gist
CNN reporter Cassie Spodak provides this exceptional report into the minds of New Hampshire Democratic voters who gave Bernie Sanders a 22 percent lead in the New Hampshire Democratic primary over Hillary Clinton. In October 2016 Hillary Clinton has the support of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election. She described it as "100 percent support" in television debate. Sanders has appeared with Clinton twice, and campaigned 4 times in New Hampshire, and continually across the country. Younger New Hampshire voters still long for Sanders as their favored candidate. Older voters and some who have been motivated by Sanders to run for local office see the shaping of the Democratic Party platform as a victory for Sanders. Key planks of Sanders, taxes on the wealthy and higher incomes to pay for student tuition, infrastructure, and helping working class families, are now key parts of the Democratic platform. These voters see this as a pragmatic step and are enthusiastic in their support for Hillary Clinton. Overall Clinton now has 87 percent of Democratic voter support in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/UNH poll in mid October 2016, and she is doing well with millenials and independents nationally, a critical bloc of voters for Clinton to show nationwide support. One member of the steering committee for Sanders in New Hampshire named Dudley Dudley, reflects the opinion that has shifted the party to emerge united during and even more so in the final months of the presidential campaign of 2016- she tells the CNN reporter Spodak that she supports Hillary because "of the way she has grown, and stretched," and the way Clinton and Sanders are now campaigning together and working together. Both Clinton and Sanders deserve credit for their extraordinary ability to grow during their campaigns and during the party's way to shape the way forward. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bruce Reidel, Obama administration advisor on the war in Afghanistan, conducted a policy review in 2009. He says a policy of engagement he advised in 2009 now needs reshaping. He points to recent events that show the Pakistani ISI and the military who run Pakistan are in direct conflict with U.S. policy in the region. Especially after the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and the killing of a former Afghan president who was expected to lead peace talks. Reidel says this requires a reshaping of U.S. policy and a policy of containment which would reduce military assistance to Pakistan, and at the same time shape policies that would help the people of Pakistan, such as reducing tariffs on textiles.

LyrArc Article Gist
A Syrian opposition group describes the mislabeling of opposition groups in Syria by the Obama administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says president Obama's inaction, including the smaller step of not putting in place a safe zone in Syria, comes at a price for Liberals. The recent action by Governors in Michigan and other states turning down Syrian refugees, it says is one of the moral consequences of Obama's policies. For Liberals it says a policy of inaction and turning America's back to the needs of ordinary Syrians during the Arab Spring is not neutral, it also has consequences. The consequences for Liberals is the steady stream of refugees to Europe, and the greater intolerance in western societies as the safe havens created by these policies in the Middle East lead to terrorist actions in Europe or the U.S. In short doing little or nothing carries risks for the kind of society liberals want to see. Through developing policy in response to the Bush Administration's policies the Obama administration makes a series of errors of its own that compromise liberal values, including the collapse of the Arab Spring without American and western support, and the creation of a huge refugee crisis in Syria, Iraq, with a spillover to Jordan and Turkey, and further spillover to Europe. Liberals in Europe also face a similiar situation, including Liberals in France....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in DW.com cites experts who point out that the Republican Party always had tensions within it because of the diverging interests of three groups that have allied together to form the party- Wealthy businessmen and corporate interests, evangelicals, and white working class people who have seen their incomes decline for several decades. The interests of each group have some overlap, are sometimes masked but frequently they diverge. Nigel Bowles, former director of the Rothermere Institute at Oxford University, says there is no particular reason that this coalition would hold together, that it was unstable to begin with, a wonder that it did not split up earlier. Scott Lucas, an expert on American Studies at the University of Birmingham, says that Reagan showed great skill in holding this coalition together, and Donald Trump has taken it apart by mobilizing only one constituency of white working class voters and leaving out others. The break between Republican party leaders Ryan, McCain, and state party leaders, with Trump is unprecedented in post war American politics, and putting it back together now looks like a lost cause in the medium term.  ...