LyrArc Article Gist
US differences with Pakistan are based on two different perspectves that are not reconcilable. Recent events and the relationship between the US and Pakistan's army chief have confirmed that this is not going to change. US sees militants and Taliban inside Pakistan as havens for the short term as the US disengages from Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan's army sees them as useful elements in Pakistan's security interests in relation to India for the long term. Whe Kayani met with Obama in Washington, he handed Obama a 13 page document showing Pakistan's strategic perspective and emphasizing the gap between short term US interests and Pakistan's long term interests. The Wikileaks cables show Kayani discussing with US officials a possible removal of President Zardari and his preferred replacement. This made Kayani, normally reticent, to rant for hours on the irreconciliable differences between the US and Pakistan with a group of Pakistani journalists. He described Pakistan as the US's "most bullied ally," and said the frames of reference of the US and Pakistan regarding regional ssecurity "can never be the same," according to news accounts. And added that "the real aim of US strategy is to de-nuclearize Pakistan." Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen had hoped to reverse "a trust deficit" between the two sides. But this has not happened. General Petraeus is taking a tougher attitude and patience is thin on both sides. According to a Kayani friend, air marshal Chaudhry, Kayani is always asking Petraeus what the strategic objectives are in Afghanistan. US officials say they have given up on changing Kayani's thinking and that Kayani has told them: "I don't trust you." Kayani's position makes sense when one looks at the strongly anti-American public in Pakistan. Pakistani military and intelligence officials say a campaign against militants inside Pakistan incites domestic terrorism and uproots local communities. And by following Pakistan's own interests and frames of reference Kayani sends signals that win esteem among the Pakistani public. Opinion polls now show the military held in higher esteem than the Zardari administration. This puts the US in a no-win situation in Afghanistan with no clear objectives for the long term. This leaves the US in a time of tight budgets stretched thin to meet the needs in other defence areas that need attention, such as modernization of forces, trouble spots such as Korea, Iran and elsewhere, and resources needed for modernization of US infrastructure and supporting new technologies and industries. The lasting solutions that will take time, careful thought and preparation would be to integrate South Asia as a whole into an economic zone, extensive infrastructure building, and bring India and Pakistan closer through diplomacy and negotiations. See the articles by Richard Haas and others on the need to redirect resources. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post's editorial board offers insights on how the situation in Syria and Iraq deteriorated under the Obama administration's policies.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ros Douthat sees the crisis only putting things more in the hands of the same elites that got us into the mess in the first place. The mess with an out of control financial sector which began under Treasury Secretary Rubin, is now being handled by his proteges Summers and Geithner. The lack of any new solutions and the continuation of the "too big to fail" era, says Douthat.

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum describes how Obama as president took action on the stimulus after the 2008 financial crisis, but did not take the necessary action to stem foreclosures and aid a recovery in housing. This now appears to be one of the critical failures of his presidency.

LyrArc Article Gist
A CBS/New York times poll shows that 63% of the American people approve Obama's performance as President. And 77% are optimistic about him being the President for the next 4 years. 55% of Americans are just making ends meet, and more than 6 out of 10 fear that someone in their household may lose their job. Most say it will be years before any significant improvement. Over 53% feel the stimulus plan will improve things, half of them say it is not likely to shorten the recession, and two thirds expect more money will be needed. Nearly all Americans are concerned that the cost of the economic programs will have significant long term effects on future generations, with 65% being very concerned. Yet about 75% say they are more concerned about the economic crisis. On the partisan politics, of those polled 63% say Republicans opposed the legislation for political reasons, not policy ones. 79% want Republicans to work in a bipartisan manner. And 56% surveyed want Obama to folow the policies he proposed during the campaign, rather than working with Republicans, and to make this his priority. All this suggests that a large number of Republicans are supporting the President, even though both Republicans and Democrats are concerned about the cost of programs, because a large majority of those polled are more concerned about the effects of this crisis on jobs and the economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman calls for the President to make the tough decisions whether it is the nationalizing of banks or enlarging the stimulus. He calls for the President not to be afraid of risking his Presidency and his credibility on some tough issues, as this is what may be required by the tough issues of the banks, the toxic assets, decisions on nationalization or the stimulus expansion, and also by the task of winniing the trust of ordinary people suffering from this crisis. Even if this means howls of protest from some quarters as long as the people are basically behind the actions and the strategy.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Timiraos in WSJ describes the tussle between supply siders led by Mike Pence and David Malpass with the zero sum advisors who advised Trump on trade during the campaign. The zero sum advisors are focussed only on how to turn trade to improve the U.S. position and cut trade deficits. The supply siders are trying to show that trade can benefit the U.S. only that it needs to be adjusted so that it works better for the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Obama's vision of a nuclear weapons free world going back to his days at Columbia University. There as a senior he took Prof. Michael Baron's seminar on international politics and American policy. In a paper for that course Mr Obama analyzed how a President might go about negotiating nuclear arms reductions with Russia. Baron says Obama has been thinking about these issues for a long time. About this time Obama wrote an essay in the Columbia Sundial student newspaper. This was the time when the Greens movement for a nuclear weapons free world was strong in Germany, and Reagan was pushing for a nuclear arms development race with Russia. The article was titled "Breaking the War Mentality." As a senator Obama joined Senator Dick Lugar -who has worked hard for non-proliferation- on a trip to Russia to monitor efforts by Ruusia to scrap nuclear arms and secure atomic materials from theft or diversion. He allied himself with four Reagan period veterans Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Sam Nunn, who in a 2007 WSJ op-ed article, argued that it was time- as the headline for the article said -to work for "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons." The steps in practice Obama plans to take are the following. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would bar all nations signing it from making fuel for their atomic bombs. Rewriting crucial provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, strengthening inspection provisions and closing loopholes that let N. Korea drop out in 2003. Countries would have to give up the freedom to make fuel for reactors and instead buy it from an international fuel bank. Global consensus and prevention when it comes to deviant states hoping to enhance their own security, or regimes or terrorist groups, will be crucial in setting up a new system for a nuclear weapons free world....

LyrArc Article Gist
Drew Western, a professor of psychology at Emory University, asks the question about Obama that is on many people's minds- who is this man who wrote the book "Dreams of My Father." And what happened to him? It is as if he is asking did they conjure up something that didn't exist, was there really too little about the man in a book written when the young Obama was still in law school- about his experience growing up between two races, except a remarkable effort to grapple with that experience. It would say little about the man himself, the choices he would make, the decisions he would face as he entered his thirties, and forties, a period that provides the crucible and the formative experiences in the development of character. It is as if readers had appended their own chapter at the end of the book and conjured up many things that really did not exist. And which would serve as a kind of Rorschach test experience where readers were free to read into the picture whatever they wished to see- and something Obama could use to be all things to all people. Drew Western draws from his knowledge of psychology and his direct or virtual conversations with about 50,000 people to reflect and make some hypotheses about what has happened to Obama, or what Obama was always about. He starts by pointing out what was missing in the inauguration speech and has been missing ever since- a clear sense of narrative and a vision, a story about what had happened and how it could be made different in the midst of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Western provides several hypotheses for what has happened. Obama simply lacks the experience to handle the presidency -having been merely a community activist and not run a city, a state or a business, and had accomplished little before becoming president, and had an unremarkable career as a law professor having published nothing during his 12 years at the University of Chicago except an autobiography. And remarkably says Western voted 130 times in the Senate as "present" instead of "yea" or "nay," suggesting a tendency not to take a stand on difficult issues. The auto fuel efficiency standards issue may be the singular exception. The challenges of a presidency are much larger, and the challenges in 2009 were even greater. Obama could not measure upto the task. A related hypothesis is that given the lack of experience and the inability to make the narrative because of an unresolved identity, Obama is willing to do whatever it takes to dial for dollars and get re-elected. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order of 2012, a group of immigrants brought to the country as children can have temporary status to stay and work in the U.S. In 2012 this was restricted to children brought in under the age of 16, with a maximum age of 30. The program was called "Dreamers." Under president Obama's executive order this will be changed to children brought in under the age of 18, with no maximum age. The number of immigrants goes up from 1.2 million in 2012 to 1.9 million with this particular change in 2014. A new group of parents of children who are citizens or legal residents residing in the U.S. for more than 5 years adds another 3.3 million to this number, with an additional 100,000 for parents of Dreamers. The total 1.9 million children and 3.4 million parents would be 5.3 million given new status to stay and work in the U.S. The 5.3 million will not be eligible for subsidies and for the Affordable Healthcare Act assistance. All will be required to pass security checks. This leaves about 6 million, including farm workers and other undocumented or illegal immigrants not touched by the new executive order. President Obama is expected to make the announcement of the executive order on Nov. 20, 2014, in Nevada, a state with a large Hispanic population. On the question of legal authority for the executive order, Prof. Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert on immigration law at Cornell says the U.S. president does have broad authority to decide which group should get a reprieve from deportations. The decision to exclude benefits of government subsidies and subsidized healthcare was made to appeal to increased support of the American public for the executive order. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Julia Preston of the NYT looks at Mr. Trump's speech on August 31, 2016 in Pheonix, Arizona, and compares what one can discern about the Trump policies on immigration with that of president Obama. She points out that it is similar to the deportation that was conducted under president Obama in some ways, but is more extensive in its dimensions. It includes sanctioning sanctuary cities, expanding the deportation law enforcement personnel, and deporting about 2 million people with criminal backgrounds. The estimate under the Obama administration is for about 176,000 people with such backgrounds. The Trump estimate appears to include people with minor offenses says Preston, because it is so much higher. As a result this could also include people who have no criminal background and disrupt families on a large scale, with hundreds of thousands of longtime residents and families deported. Under the sanctuary example of Trump, Denver, New York and counties in California would be places where Trump would cut off federal funding. On the wall itself, Mexico's president Nieto says he told Trump Mexico would not pay for the wall, and Trump says exactly the opposite that Mexico would pay for the wall in his speech to supporters.  A Gallup poll shows that 76% of Republicans, 91% of Democrats favor a path to citizenship for those here in the U.S. illegally. For the whole population only 15% oppose giving illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and 84% support doing this. Which suggests that Trump is only appealing to his base of support, not adding to it, as Cillizza points out in the WP fact check.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Home Affordable Refinance Program's (HARP) gradual success in 2012-2013 in reducing foreclosures, after struggling in 2010-2011. From about cumulative 1 million who refinanced loans under HARP for relief in home payments the numbers went up to close to 3 million by the end of 2013, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Of this a major proportion were people who owed less than 105% of their home's value. The performance of the program improved with a revamp of HARP at the end of 2011.