LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An overwhelming number of readers who commented on this article by October 27, 2009, were opposed to sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Looking at all comments in detail one finds that of the 64 readers commenting only a handful, about 8-9 supported sending these troops. Ninety percent of the comments to this editorial asking Obama to fight this war with conviction seriously questioned the wisdom of doing this. Many readers asked why aren't the Europeans putting thier lives at stake, and two asked how the Economist could with astraight face say that Britain's 500 troop increase was a welcome gesture. Readers questioned the assumptions and statements made by the Economist such as" letting the region "slip into amaelstrom of conflict," or "permanent cross-border instability," and "a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, " in many of the comments. Readers seem conscious of the fact that its not a precipitate withdrawal that is being discussed, its a war for the long haul that it inevitably becomes as the US forces get deeper into the conflict in the mountains of Afghanistan. The discussion is not about the next 6 months but of next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is also what General Colin Powell advised President Obama. He asked Obama to think clearly about the clear goals of this mission. See the link to Powell. The question arises is whether the Economist sensitive to its readers thoughts on this subject, and it is how does it account for such an absolute majority of sensible readers having serious questions, doubts, and outright opposition to a deeper conflict in Afghanistan?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Obama's comments during a visit to Greece about the challenges facing multiracial and multicultural societies such as the U.S. and the people left behind through globalization. He says "we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an "us" and a "them."  Obama also referred to a global elite "that seems to live by a different set of rules, such as being able to avoid taxes," which he said "fuels a feeling that globalization only benefits those at the top," and leads to a push back from people who feel they are losing control over their future." The problem for workers is that fewer and fewer workers are needed in todays advanced automated factories and manufacturing moves across borders leading to anxiety. The president may have realized the extent of the damage only in the closing days of the campaign in 2016, because of his support for trade agreements without talking in this manner about the lives of workers.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russian president Putin was hoping for an end to sanctions. The interference in the 2016 election was done with the hope that a Trump administration could make a difference in the sanctions after the deterioration of relations in the last year of president Obama.The U.S. Congress has moved to extend the sanctions, with Democrats and Republicans coming together on this issue. This means there is not much that president Trump can do to improve relations. This report in the NYT by David Sanger even goes as far as citing George Kennan from Foreign Affairs publication in 1947, that a "long term, patient but firm and vigilant, containment of Russian expansive tendencies," is likely to be U.S.policy.

LyrArc Article Gist
With small margins of 5-10% many Chinese producers in Shenzen see the loss of the American market after the American tariffs of 20%. US president DJT put a10% tariff on all products imported from China on Feb 4, 2025 Executive Order. Another Order on March 4 amended this for an additional 10% to total 20% in March 2025. The local Chinese market where consumption is low cannot make up for the American market. The market in Russia is smaller with its population of 145 million and smaller consumption level. The markets in South East Asia are highly fragmented, and Brazil's economy is weak. India has a large trade imbalance already and is unlikely to let this get worse. Russia is imposing some restrictions on imports to not get flooded with cheap Chinese imports that drive local makers out of business.

LyrArc Article Gist
Lakhdar Brahimi who was special representative of the UN secretary general for Afghainistan from October 2001 to December 2004 and was present when under UN auspices Afghan political representatives met to build anew after the US defeated the Taliban. He says it was a mistake then no to try to atract those in the Taliban movement and other political groups in Afhanistan that could have been brought into the new political setup and administration to build a broader base of support. And the Taliban did not surrender to anyone when it was defeated so the same mebers of that movement could simply resurface. Also no peace can be achieved in Afghanistan without the cooperation and support of Pakistan its neighbor and with tribes. sharing land on both sides of the border. Brahimi says he bitterly regrets not having advocated more strongly 2 suggestions made by the UN in early 2002. The first to reach out to those members of the Taliban who were willing to join the political process and second to deploy the ISAF outside of Kabul with increased strength. He also believes the war that happened in Iraq after the Afghan peace effort may have falso fundamentally altered the views of people in the countryside and in border areas of neigboring Pakistan about perceptions of the US and NATO....

LyrArc Article Gist
If John F. Kennedy were writing Profiles of Courage in 2024 he would have James Lankford as one of these Senators who showed courage to take the right stand in the face of opposition from his fellow Republican Congressmen and people in his state and the country who support loyalty to president Trump. Lankford says in this NYT interview that in December 2023 the immigration bill would have passed Congress into law. He has always seen that no one person is the boss. Trump is not the boss even as president. He is a co-equal branch, says Lankford. He sums it up saying- I work for the people of Oklahoma not the president.  Senator Lankford of Oklahoma is interviewed by Lulu Garcia Navarro of the NYT for his role in negotiating a immigration bill with Democrats in Congress and president Biden that would fix asylum policy and close the Border with Mexico. It is a tough bill says Lankford, and the Republicans held onto their position that there would be no citizenship for the immigrants who crossed the border illegally since 2024. If it came up in December 2023 it would have fixed the Border, says Lankford. It came up in February, and by this time the election nominee was Trump who decided not to support it, as it would take away the immigration issue that he hoped to run on against Democrats. It is still alive as Kamala Harris says it is her top priority to get the Lankford immigration bill passed into law. To know Lankford is to know that he ran the largest Baptist youth camp in the Nation at Fall Creek. He believes every person has value and worth and even if he disagreed with them that person has value and worth. His faith, he says, is something important for him, and not something you take off and put on.  The title should be The Men and Women who Solved Immigration for the Nation. This includes Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, Senator Krysten Sinema of Arizona, and Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Lankford for 22 years a youth Baptist minister from Oklahoma, Sinema immigration attorney from southern Arizona, and Murphy a lawyer from Connecticut. The man who selected Lankford to negotiate the immigration bill on behalf of the Republicans in Congress was Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. For the Democratic party Pat Schumer helped bring Democrats in Congress and president Biden behind a tough bill that reflected the consensus view that something serious had to be done about the US Border for a lasting solution. This opportunity may come again if Kamala Harris wins as she says it will be her top priority to get the Lankford -Sinema Bill passed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT deportation sweep in Chicago. DJT's model is Operation Wetback deportation of Eisenhower administration in 1954 after the Truman administration had appointed a commission in 1952 to investigate the issues from large scale illegal migration. Truman appointed the commission as he objected to racial quotas against Asians. The US Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, vetoed by Truman, the veto was overridden in the US Congress.  Operation Wetback of Eisenhower in 1954, conducted by Lt. Gen. Joseph Swing, and Attorney General Herbert Brownell, returned about 1.2 million migrants from Mexico who had crossed the US Border back to Mexico by ship or by road into the interior of Mexico. From 1942 for each year the immigration enforcement increased from 12000 in 1942 to 727,000 in 1952, the last year of the Truman administration. This is a pattern similar to what was seen in 2014-2024 under Obama-Trump-Biden. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Without the patience and skills of S. Jaishankar peace at the Indian border with China could not have been restored in 2022. Here he describes the challenge of border incursions when he still called on his counterpart Wang Yi and maintained friendly communications, asking Yi not to let China complicate matters so that solutions could be found and things did not deteriorate further. At the time of tense Ukraine dispute in Europe, Jaishankar who was earlier the Indian ambassador to China, navigated this period of tension with China using his knowledge of China and how best to continue the diplomatic communications.  Less well known is the work put in by Jaishakar to bring citizen to citizen contact between Indians and Chinese by setting up such intercultural and educational programs in several Chinese cities as Ambassador to India. Jaishankar had the foresight to know that this would be important for the future. Yet these contacts are only a small fraction of the potential contacts between India and China on a citizen to citizen direct basis that are needed. Never is that more true than today with the wars in Europe, and the need for peaceful development in Asia. China is still a middle income country and India modernizing to become a middle income country. Both Europe and the US are far ahead in development than China and India. Jaishankar was appointed the Foreign Secretary of India in 2015 and in 2019 Foreign Minister of India in the Modi administration. He was the longest serving Ambassador to China for about 5 years in 2009-2013. He is unique because of his having been a senior diplomat to China, Japan, Singapore and the US, and speaks Japanese and Chinese. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Attorney General Sessions says the driver of the car who drove into protesters could be prosecuted in a number of ways including for a hate crime. The protest was against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. A car driven by 20 year old James Alex Fields drove into protesters injuring 19 and killing one woman. The local charges being made are for hit and run, malicious wounding, and the Justice Department is conducting its own probe. The comments by Sessions contrasted with the statement blaming both sides by president Trump, which led to strong criticism in the media and by the business community.

LyrArc Article Gist
Russians vote in 2021 parliamentary elections. With 30% of votes cast the United Russia party of Mr. Putin wins 45% of votes cast, followed by the Communist party of the Russian Federation with 22%, and the Liberal Democratic party getting 8%. Russia has mixed voting system with half the seats directly elected from party lists, and the other half assigned to individual candidates. United Russia had 334 seats out of total 450 seats in the outgoing parliament. Putin will need over 300 seats in the new parliament to get the two thirds majority to enact changes to the constitution. Putin needs this to extend his current term which ends in 2024.  Putin draws most of his support from the older part of the population that has seen the hardships imposed following the collapse of Communism around 1990. This led to collapse of the ruble currency, increase in poverty, an effort by oligarchs to capture state enterprises, and a chaotic period for law and order. Shockingly during that period even life spans of Russians declined as reported in the WSJ. Liberals who supported the shift to democracy had not anticipated all the ill effects of introducing capitalist free market systems in such a sudden and free fall way. Such sudden shifts to free markets are now better understood and seen as the wrong way, as western capital markets fail without inbuilt protections, safety net for workers and retired people, and are subject to serious distortions if no vigilant authority exists. This is in reality not a free market but a market captured by the few, in the interests of the few. Once this was clear retired people, pensioners, military, law enforcement, and liberals realizing what had happened shifted support to United Russia founded by Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin faces the typical situation faced by incumbents over long periods where there is a sense of the need for change. Yet the pandemic and other economic crises that could happen in the event of mismanaged economy are never really too distant for countries such as Russia, China, India that are developed but yet have not the strong industrial base of US, Germany, France. Such economic crises including the ruble currency and Russian energy companies were better managed under Putin than under the chaotic period following the collapse of communism and the introduction of so called "free markets" that were anything but. During the recentfree fall in oil prices Putin was able to manage a transition period with the help of president Trump who negotiated a price for oil with the Saudis to protect US shale oil workers and companies, as well as Russian workers and oil companies. As a result Russians particularly young people look for alternative places to vote for opposition parties such as Liberals, Communist party, and other parties. But the majority of Russians including those working for state energy and other state companies tend to stay with Putin's choices for state, regional and federal administration and for parliament. Nationalist spirit also provides additional support as Putin has restored Russia's status as one of the important nations in the world. Some missteps such as interference in US elections have led to a loss of some of this international influence, yet even president Biden understands the situation in Russia and is willing to work with Putin with new rules of conduct Under the Russian system about 70% of the laws are not made by parliament but are done by the government and the administration of the president and then go through parliament. In addition to parliamentary vote there are 6 governor races and three races for heads of regional republics. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Nikki Haley is doing what has happened before, fighting for principles in her party and showing that a fully significant 40 percentage points of her party believe in the old conservative ideas, of the Republican party. That of the country club type, the everyman who happens to be conservative the core of the party, small and large business owners. The situation is analogous to the intraparty struggles that beset the Democratic party after the abrupt end after 1000 days of the John F. Kennedy presidency and administration. Since the 1920's and two periods of rising inequality accompanied by technological change from the 1870's that ended with the Great Depression, the US had experienced a great revival under Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Eisenhower. In 1960 a new future was articulated by Kennedy of the new world that lay ahead, one he had seen upfront in Asia before, during and after the war. How would we bring the post colonial world of billions of people into the modern world. Since then both a modern China and now modern India are part of this change. "Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do." Acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for President, July 15, 1960. It was interrupted after the intraparty disputes that began in 1968, Robert Kennedy challenging LBJ, leading to Richard Nixon, and Edward Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter leading to Ronald Reagan. John F. Kennedy had articulated a vision that still is alive today based on an understanding of how America's needs fit into all humanity's needs.  In some ways the situation after 2024 or 2028 still goes back to the vision of a new order of the world with emerging nations in Asia with 3 billion people, and additional billions of people in Africa, Latin America. The Arms buildup promised by Reagan in 1980 has yielded little about 50 years later, not even the fall of the Berlin Wall which today has been replaced by another struggle in Eastern Europe in 2024. Truman tackled the Berlin Blockade,  Eisenhower had faced upto Soviet tanks in Budapest, Kennedy had faced the Berlin crisis in 1963 his ich bin ein Berliner (I am Berliner). What purpose would an orbital weapons program serve- and could the US ever be or even want to be  "only one superpower in a safe world," with an orbital weapons program as Reagan and Weinberger went out to do and failed completely. America faces a situation analogous to 1920's with increasing inequality and weakness in the social fabric, as a result of four decades of rising inequality accompanied by technological changes, and misguided Reagan programs that diverted from John Kennedy's vision that the "old era is ending, the old ways will not do."  The vision put forward by John F. Kennedy has more relevance today for the future. That vision he articulated in the First Inaugural Address in which he also said that this work may not be accomplished "in our lifetime on the planet." It is important to remember that John F. Kennedy connected his vision to FDR when he said in his State of the Union Address to Congress in Jan. 1961- In the name of a great President whose birthday we honor today, closing his final State of the Union Message sixteen years ago. "We pray that we may be worthy of the unlimited opportunities that God has given us." This is the vision that stands before America even today in 2024.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The final settlement of the conflict in Georgia takes the lines of Russia pulling out of Georgia proper, and Russia in return making independent states with Russian assistance out of Abhkazia and South Ossetia. The border between these states and Georgia would be patrolled by 200 EU military personnel. And Georgia would sign an agreement not to use force against Abhkazia. And the EU takes over responsibility with Russia for seeing all this fall into place, the US leaving all this upto the EU. Interestingly Putin is not heard much from in the media and Medvedev and Sarkozy work out the details basically setting the Russian inhabited regions of South Ossetia and Abhkazia on their own course as independent states with Russian assistance. Considering the tensions and conflict and bitterness between the people in these small states after Georgian nationalism took root after the Soviet collapse the lives of people there would be more peaceful and secure except that a price is paid in terms of South Ossetian Georgian villages where the people were uprooted. But tensions there had reached a churning point and leaders there inflamed passions so that at some point something like this would happen. This puts this chapter behind and Russia can be glad that it got out of all this without sanctions from western countries and the EU can go out of this with the assurance that Russia would not interfere in Georgia proper. Over time Georgians themselves may have to ask whether their leaders acted responsibly by inflaming Georgian nationalism upto a point of damaging relations with ethnic minorities. Angela Merkel who has experienced life under Soviet dominated governments still thinks according to media reports that the Georgian leader Sashkavili can inflame tensions with his statements and style of operating. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This essay in WSJ is from Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida, and now Secretary of State in the second term DJT administration. Here Rubio points to his first visit as a return to focus on the American continent, on Central America and South America, which was neglected since the Kennedy administration in 1961 when JFK launched the Alliance for Progress (Allianza para Progreso). Like JFK Rubio visited Central American countries the source in the last decade in addition to Venezuela of much of the illegal migration north to the US. After support for failed dictatorships under the Eisenhower administration, JFK made Latin America a priority. This can be seen in the JFK Nixon debates. 64 Years after the conference in Uruguay's Punta del Este in 1961, America is back to square one with the failed Central American countries from gangs plus crime and from Venezuela's economy collapsing from inflation plus mismanagement with a socialist experiment. Kennedy said-"To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge – to convert our good words into good deeds – in a new alliance for progress – to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty." -- John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961 Kennedy said of the Alliance for Progress "a vast cooperative effort, unparalleled in magnitude and nobility of purpose to satisfy the basic needs of the [Latin] American people for homes, work and land, health and schools – techo, trabajo y tierra, salud y escuela." Speaking in the White House on March 13, 1961, JFK said to more than two hundred Latin American diplomats,  "Let me be the first to admit that we North Americans have not always grasped the significance of this common mission." Yet at the same time, "many in your own countries have not fully understood the urgency of the need to lift people from poverty and ignorance and despair." ...