World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The former editor of Britain's Daily Telegraph says that there is no coherent political strategy in Afghanistan, and that Obama's support for troop "surge" in Afghanistan is more a gesture to the generals than a convicing path to success. He says the 30,000 troop surge makes headlnes but shrinks small in the vast mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The Pakistani people are increasingly more so than 2001 and 2006, hostile to Americans in the region. And hard core security forces in Pakistan also are against increases in US troops. And because of the Karzai regime's failure the Taliban have real if limited support. And Britain he says is turning irrevocably against the war.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Agency of International Development's road building program shows how a lot of the money was misspent in Afghanistan. $400 million was assigned for 1200 miles of roads to be built in remote parts of Afghanistan over a 3 year period. Now after the three years, $270 million was spent, yet only 100 miles of gravel road have been built. 125 people were killed and 250 injured by insurgent attacks on the project. The project was closed in December 2011.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The first budget of the Obama government makes a sharp swing away from decades of earlier policy, and puts America on a new direction focussed on priorities in education, health care for all, and energy. The 134 page doocument on the budget defines the governing principles and priorities of the new government. "This is the legacy that we inherit- a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities, of missed opportunities and of deep, strutural problems ignored for too long," the document says. It declares that "government must lead" in contrast to Reagan's "government is not the solution, government is the problem." In contrast to "trickle down" policies of Reagan it proposes "trickle up" policies- shifting income from rich to the poor. It creates a $630 billion fund towards a national health insurance program built with the help of savings and cuts elsewhere. Government takes over most student lending, and dramatically expands Pell grants for poor college bound strudents, transforming it into something like Medicare that is automatic rather than approved each year by Congress. Businesses that emit carbon and heat trapping gases will have to purchase permits to do so starting in 2012. Hundreds of billions of dollars from these permits will pay for clean-energy technology and for tax credits for working couples. Income tax rates will rise for couples earning more than $250,000 beginning in 2011 and will have lower personal exemptions, lower itemized deductions, and higher capital gains tax rates. The estate tax will be preserved. Hedge fund and private equity managers wil have to pay income tax rates for that compensation as high as 39.6% after 2010, not the low 15% capital gains rate they pay now. The Defense Department would see a $20.4 billion boost or a 4% increase in 2010 over 2009, it will request an additional $75.5 billion in 2009 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an additional $130 billion for 2010. The budget is for $3.6 trillion for 2009, and projects a deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of GDP- a level see in 1942 when the US entered World War II. Under optimistic White House assumptions for a strong economic rebound, the deficit would drop to $533 billion by 2013....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Landers and Gale of the WSJ show how undersupplied conscript soldiers, high inflation and industrial breakdowns during wartime have led to major upheavals in Russia. Three conflicts led to such changes in Russia's domestic situation. The Russo-Japanese war in 1905 led to Russia seeing one fourth of 340,000 Russian troops killed in a battle near the Chinese city of Shenyang, and loss of most of its Baltic fleet in a Japanese attack on Port Arthur. The war ended with a peace treaty arranged by president Theodore Roosevelt of the United States. The Russian czar gave up most of his absolute powers in 1905.  In 1914 Ukraine was involved in regime change as the Germans fought to take Ukraine. The czar wanted to keep Russia's expansive sphere of influence. Without Ukraine's agriculture and industry and its population Russia would not be a great power, says an expert on Czarist Russia. At the time the Russian military was ill prepared in motorized vehicles and communications equipment, and industry lacked the ability to resupply the military. Inflation jumped leading to unrest and protests. Fighting in the First World War led to millions of refugees. In 2022 experts see the same old problem of seeking spheres of influence leading to wars, and the lack of sufficient ability to cope with prolonged wars when short wars were expected by the regimes in power in Russia. Dissent inside Russia and protests led to the abdication of Czar Nicholas in March 2017, and Bolsheviks led by Lenin seizing power in November of 2017. By 1979 Ukrainian leader Leonid Brezhnev was leader of the Soviet Union as Russia's economy could not keep up with modernization. Seeking spheres of influence Brezhnev pushed into a long war in Afghanistan in the mistaken idea that a quick strike on Kabul with a change in government would achieve Soviet goals in central Asia. By 1989 the Russian army withdrew from Afghanistan and in 1990 the protests led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of Russia as a separate country. Landers and Gale of the WSJ see these events in Russian history showing how wars have led to domestic changes and upheavals in Russia when leaders projected power beyond Russia's capacity to handle the results of conflict. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy or Britain say experts and its industry much smaller than the European Union economies and the US, Japan combined.  ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tom Brokaw is perplexed by the absence of the war in Afghanistan as a campaign issue in 2010 US elections. Especially because the war is in its 9th year, has caused 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and cost over $1 trillion dollars. He reasons that this is because the vast majority of Americans can opt out of fighting the war on the ground. The all volunteer service draws from 1% of the population, with the majority from working class or middle class backgrounds. This has an unintended effect in making the costs of the war less visible, when actually it is taking a toll in other ways. The US is short of funds to build much needed infrastructure or update infrastructure. States and local governments are laying off teachers because of budget shortfalls, and the national budget deficit makes less money available for solving pressing problems in carbon emissions, energy, and infrastructure. Only recently New Jersey Governor Christie put on hold a new tunnel into New York City because of a lack funds. Pressing infrastructure issues elsewhere will be postponed in this manner. And the outlook for the next 20 years, according to Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, is not going to be better with slower growth at an average of 1.5%, leaving less money for the kinds of projects that defined America from the Erie canal to interstate highways. Brokaw says, the country would benefit from an effort to discuss what happens next, in the continued expenditure of blood and treasure. A discussion of what happens next in this effort to deal with Islamic rage....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Changes at USAID headed by Rajiv Shah as it makes more room for private initiative of local groups and funding of local groups in countries being helped, and shifting away from handing whole projects to U.S. government contractors. Another change is the harnessing of the efforts of U.S. corporations interested in emerging market countries for introducing their products as part of an aid effort. An example is GE for medical equipment at Nelson Mandela Children's Hospital opening in South Africa in 2016. In countries where corruption is widespread such as Afghanistan, giving money to government ministry creates risks of waste and corruption, a problem which is however part of larger problem of wasted resources in that country. The basic concept of using private initiative and getting the involvement of local groups, U.S. corporations interested in emerging markets at the aid level for their products, taken up by Shah is sound and was overdue. It is already the practice as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing much of the heavy lifting and large scale aid effort in poor countries of Africa and Asia. Shah worked at that the Gates Foundation before USAID. An example is the Grand Challenges for Development program to get innovators to help tackle problems in poor countries- the Pratt Pouch a small pouch with anti-AIDS drugs not requiring refrigeration was developed at Duke University and could potentially prevent transmission of HIV to 400,000 babies a year. Shah's own background of immigrant parents coming from India gives him a unique insight into how to combine the involvement of the creative abilities of well intentioned Americans at universities and private companies and local groups in poor countries, to leverage the results. He has a medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Afghan School in Kabul run by former Taliban officials for girls and boys is one of the best schools in Kabul. Boys and girls attend chemistry classes together. Taliban officials see the schools as a bridge between madrassas and modern schools, and now accept the idea that as long as Islamic ideals are respected girls should go to school like boys. A former Taliban foreign minister- of the government the U.S. ousted under president Bush- now helps his daughter with homework. The changes in neighboring Pakistan where the government of Nawaz Sharif is pushing modern ideas and technological development are likely to push progress in Afghanistan as well- this happens as the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan. The U.S. leaves a region hungry for progress as new governments pushing technological development supported by business emerge in Pakistan and India in 2013-2014. Unfulfilled promises of economic development are at the forefront of people's minds. A transformation as large as the shift from communism in China to state run market economy and the technological and economic transformation that followed is now at its early beginnings in the region. This shift would be from religious strife and socialist structures to a market economy....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ford. will still make $8 billion to $11 billion this year even after losses of $3 billion in electric cars. By 2026 Ford says it will earn 8 to 9 percentage points in profit from EV's. Ford is basically investing in the EV industry now for the long run. It is also part of the effort to move away from fossil fuels. Government incentives and subsidies will help companies and buyers of vehicles make the transition to EV's to fight climate change.  Companies that have not invested in EV's such as Toyota risk falling behind in EV's at a time when climate change is a major priority for buyers and governments around the world. Toyota is moving to a new CEO who can better take up the challenge of EV's. Under the previous CEO Mr. Toyoda Toyota clung to a mistaken belief that hybrid cars were all that is needed to reduce use of fossil fuels. German, Chinese and US manufacturers are taking the lead in EV's and Japan has fallen behind.  WSJ has never favored government subsidies and is critical for this reason. Yet it is clear that in some situations such as fighting climate change, building infrastructure, and redesigning the supply chain, government has to take the lead. Eisenhower in the 1950's with a government led effort helped build the national highway system, the first in the world. Biden is making a similar effort on multiple fronts. The redesign of the supply chain comes after private industry without proper direction from the government over concentrated manufacturing in China with Japan as a supplier into China. Presidents Bush and Obama wasted time and resources better devoted to national priorities at home on wars in remote places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. President Biden wrapped up the war in Afghanistan and completely disengaged from an area that is of no constructive interest to America. Resources are now concentrated in the right way on real national priorities from manufacturing at home to fighting climate change, fighting the cost of living crisis and building better infrastructure for workers and families. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jose de Cordoba of the WSJ provides this excellent story on the nature of the migration crisis in the U.S. that is creating political divisions in the U.S. What is causing this surge in migration to the U.S.? Cordoba provides some useful insights to understand the nature of this problem. Nine out of ten migrants in Guatemala which sends most of the migrants from Central America are moving north from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. for financial reasons, it points out. Only 10% are because of violence in the region, the rest for financial reasons according to the United Nations International Organization for Migration The jump in apprehension of Guatemalans at the American border shows a surge from 15,000 in 2007 to 236,000 in 9 months of 2019, according to U.S. government data. The surge began in 2008 and jumped in 2014 after U.S. court rulings that first required migrant children to be allowed to join relatives in the U.S. followed by a ruling in 2015 that allowed a parent to join the children and allowed court proceedings to take place that takes years. The result was that smugglers advertised on radio and families sold small plots of land to join relatives in the U.S. who had gone before them. The migration is also specific to certain areas hit by damage to crops, including coffee crop from drought, or certain towns that simply sent more people simply for financial reasons advertised openly.  For 8 hours of work a migrant could make at $12 per hour amount of $96 per day, in Guatemala the daily wage would be about $5.  Overwhelmingly it is financial reasons or economic opportunity that sends migrants north. After it became known that kids could help migration the people in family groups apprehended at the border jumped from about 40,000 in 2015 to 390,000 in fiscal 2019. Smugglers charge $8600 per adult and half that for a child and an adult that can be dropped off at a checkpoint. The efforts of president Trump to close the border to this migration include having Mexico sign an agreement to police its southern border with Guatemala using its newly setup National Guard. As a result the migration has actually surged in 2019 with migrants seeing this as their one last opportunity to join relatives in the U.S. or to migrate to the U.S. The Trump administration tried separating families because of the loophole in the law that allows children to be not deported and parents to join their children. But this created a public outcry and the effort now is to close the loophole in the law. It is also strange that as many migrants are coming from one town Joyabaj  with population 100,000 as from Guatemala City the capital population 2.5 million. In fact the economy has grown by 3.4 % a year in Guatemala and efforts have been made to improve conditions with the help of donor countries in the West for several years, though the drought conditions exist. The situation is similar to that in Europe. If one looks at the violence by gangs in central American region after the end of the guerilla wars and compares it to the wars in Syria and Iraq, one can see how humanitarian concerns preceded what eventually turned out tobe a full blown migration for economic reasons. Initially chancellor Merkel adopted a humanitarian stance but failed to recognize that there was another side to his situation that would attract a wave of economic migrants from places as far apart as North Africa to Afghanistan. Poverty has existed in these regions for many many years before the current migration, with drought and lack of economic opportunity going far back in time. Merkel only recently recognized this problem and the new CDU leader Kambrauer has clearly recognized this. CDU policy shifted in 2018-2019 with curbs on economic migration that has reduced it to a trickle. This process is underway in the U.S. at its border with Mexico and for Mexico with its border with Guatemala. In the short run Europe and the U.S. are paying a price. Not just in the way it has divided each country with a far left and a far right eroding the centrist parties that existed before. In some cases centrist parties that were popular on the right and the left now hve leaders from a far right or a far left faction within the centrist ruling parties. Boris Johnson in Britain, Trump in the U.S., leaders in Italy, Austria and Hungary. Or as in Germany and Spain new far left or far right parties causing the centrist parties to dwindle in influence or as in Germany this combined with a shift to the Green Party in Germany and Liberals Party in Britain as a show of disapproval for how the migration issue has been tackled.  The Economist in a July 2019 issue also points out that the country's own citizens have fared worse with migration. It shows how the Conservative Party's austerity cuts for welfare budgets was popular in Britain as long as eastern European migration at high levels in Britain were allowed starting with the Labour party under Blair. This disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor after the hit already taken from the faulty banking caused recession. With the drop in migration it is now felt by a majority in Britain that the austerity cuts have just gone too far and a mood is set in to restore many of the cuts and fund public services. Meantime some of the damage has been done and will take a decade to correct as the issues that mangled the centrist parties and led to fragmentation on views of what society should look like have taken place with Brexit and high levels of poverty, income inequality in Britain, lack of investment in infrastructure with overallocation to tech with declining productive benefit for every additional dollar spent. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Defense Department biannual report that is mandated by Congress points to little improvement in the last 6 months in Afghanistan. In 92 districts studied for the their support of the Afghan government or opposition to it, not one supported the government. In 44 districts the people were neutral in this evaluation. The number of districts sympathetic to the insurgency increased to 48 in March 2010 from 33 in December 2009. Clearly the Afghan government of Karzai has little support in the country and this remains the major question: whether this war can be successful in the face of this fact and its continuance, and whether the merits of expenditure of time, effort, resources and lives to keep a government like this in power makes sense for America's security interests. About $6.6 billion is allocated by Congress for the training of Afghan security forces. But the Afghan police force consists of mostly illiterate and poorly trained persons and virtually nonexistent judicial system. Combine this with corruption, incompetence and threats and this force is really ineffective. Overall the Afghan security forces once trained don't appear from this report to be able to sustain themselves in the face of an insurgency whose "operational capabilities and organizational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding", and with "strength and ability of the shadow governance to discredit the authority of the Karzai government increasing."...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Making some territorial concessions appears to be the only way for peace talks to succeed. For a long time there was insistence on territorial sovereignty of Ukraine by EU and NATO leaders. This appears to have prolonged the war- with needless loss of life on both sides, and costly damage to Ukraine infrastructure, a population that had to face additional winters and hardship in war ravaged areas. NATO's Stoltenberg from Norway, leaders of northern Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK, could take that position without having to face the hardship of the war. NATO had to be re-formed under a new name and new structure  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with wariness about the possibility of centuries old since 1700 UK and Nordic historical adversarial relationship with Russia casting a shadow over that organization, and embroiling the US in conflicts not of its own choice or of wise leadership. This is the root cause of the Ukraine war. It would have been best to completely restructure NATO and give it a new name without Northern European nations leading it. Principles matter once soviet communism was no longer there NATO formed for its expansionism in 1950's had served it's purpose. Rasmussen from Denmark and Stoltenberg from Norway led the organization for the last decade and half from 2009-2014 and 2014 to 2025, with backing from Obama/Merkel for most of the period of the war in Ukraine. Also most of the period NATO expanded to Russian borders happened under Northern European leaders from Spain, Britain and Nordics (Solana, Robertson, Scheffer, Rasmussen and Stoltenberg) and the organization NATO getting the northern European slant based on historical adversarial relationship of Britain and Russia since 1700- for no other reason than the British wanting to protect its large Empire and commerce in India which in the 18th and 19th century included most of Asia. Under Robertson the UK Defense Secretary much of this transformation into turning NATO into something anti-Russian happened which was primarily because of British and Nordic perceptions of Russia as an adversary. Robertson added the following countries at the Prague Summit in 2002 to NATO- the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russia faced internal upheaval in those years and Yeltsin in resigned in 1999, Putin was elected in 2000. It is clear that Russia had suffered severe economic hardship in that period and Putin's first goal in 2002 was to stabilize the economy.  It could be said that this turning NATO over to UK and Nordics was a huge mistake considering that Russia was still the largest nuclear power after the US, and British policy was now determining US policy. And Britain's Robertson/NATO should not have involved itself in the Afghanistan war using Article 5, as the US could have handled this alone and limited that engagement. It got US involved in another conflict, conflict with Russia that was to come in Ukraine on the side of the Baltics and Ukraine, without US clearly understanding what the roots of that war was about and implied confrontation with Russia 20 years after the Prague Summit in 2002 under George Bush junior. The incompetence of Bush and Obama/Merkel laid the seeds of the Ukraine war in 2022 following Robertson, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, small Nordic nations and Britain creating a conflict that did not need to happen, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian speaking fraternal peoples of both Russia and Ukraine. The Republican sentiment under DJT of the tragedy of such huge losses of young people, and desire to end this loss of life, can nowhere be seen in bellicose talk in northern European nations, that take the US for granted to fight their wars.  The wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and TR/FDR clearly caution in getting involved in European centuries old animosities. For the US it meant in practical terms that it could no longer carry out the Monroe Doctrine essential for peace and good governance in the western hemisphere as only a Russia desperate to make its views known about NATO would interfere in the western hemisphere against US assertion of the Monroe Doctrine with the US Navy. Instead drug trafficking gangs took over Latin American countries and created a flow of fentanyl and millions of people through migrant traffickers across the US southern border. As America has expressed its concern for loss of Russian and Ukrainian men in the war for the first time under DJT Russia has distanced itself from Venezuela, Mexico and Latin America. The loss of hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fentanyl is a shared tragedy with the loss of hundreds of thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians in the last decade. How reliable are Northern European countries when it comes to protecting the eastern seaboard of the US with the acquisition of Greenland? It is a policy pursued by presidents since the Alaska Acquisition from Russia. By Seward, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and DJT. Denmark the land where NATO secretary general Rasmussen was from followed by Stoltenberg from Norway  (for 15 of the years of the war in Ukraine 2010-2025) the US efforts to protect its eastern seaboard are rebuffed by both Denmark and Norway, and the US presented in a negative light as an imperialist power in the face of Danish East India Company's  colonial attitude since 1700 clearly imitating the colonial British East India company.  It shows Northern European nations looking out for themselves not for the US, and embroiling the US in their wars at the cost of the entire western hemisphere being destabilized. The population of UK, Denmark and Norway, Baltics is far less than the Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo , Berlin and Tokyo regions. Should the views of a small population in northern Europe of 2% of the total determine the future of US, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and other parts of the world with 5 billion people the 98%, when issues of war and nuclear conflict, nuclear buildup, the western hemisphere destabilized with drug trafficking gangs running rampant in countries, divide the world in opposing blocs, when the wellbeing of most of the world's people in Asia and Latin America, Africa is at stake by establishing a essential degree of cooperation by all sides. The US under DJT has chosen a wise policy of cooperation over conflict -with China, with Russia, with all the major powers, and with smaller powers. Reading the wisdom contained in the writings of Washington, Lincoln, TR/FDR confirms it is clearly the wise choice. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Dutch model for counterinsurgency which intertwines the civilian efforts with aid workers working inside the military, and military work focussing on security for the people so that economic development projects can go on, is an inspiration for the US effort. It has also reduced casualties for the Dutch. Only 19 deaths have occurred for the Dutch for 2000 personnel employed since they deployed in Uruzgan province in March 2006, where 350,000 Afghans live, according to icasualties.org. Sec of state Hillary Clinton describes this 3 D effort of defense, diplomacy, and development, as the model for her own efforts and that of the Obama administration. Dutch soldiers are ingrained in their training for this mission that their main work in Afghainstan will be economic development. The aid workers work closely with the soldiers and the commander Col. Gert-Jan Koolj says over time the focus has been on pure development. In fact diplomats from the Dutch foreigh ministry help to command the Dutch team in Uruzgan. One problem Clinton is facing is the shortage of civilian personnel to work in provincial reconstruction teams. About 500-600 more civilians are needed to complement the additional 21,000 troops that are to be added in 2009. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges is the U.S. Army Commander in Europe. He describes the threats facing the U.S. in an interview with Sohrab Ahmari of the WSJ. Hodges says Russians are preparing for a conflict five or six years down the road, and should have capabilities built up in 2 to 3 years. The U.S. military remains stretched with 9 of 10 division headquarters committed to some requirement, and new crises popping up unpredictably, such as Islamic State and Ukraine in 2014- a situation not faced even at the height of the engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget sequestration cuts continue to limit the army's capabilities just when additional resources are needed. Hodges calls for depth in resources as the only way for the army to be there to counteract bad actors in Europe or the Middle East, or some other place. With further budget cuts the army will have to drop down to 420,000 personnel from 500,000 today, just when the number of crisis areas are increasing, hurting preparedness and modernization....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points out that president Trump's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan to reduce the number of the 14000 troops there by half is an attempt by Mr. Trump to bring the number below the 8400 troops there that president Obama left there at the end of this term. In this way president Trump could show that he has not increased the presence there as he prepares for reelection, for a war that is not popular, and which Mr. Trump sees as a waste of national treasure. The U.S. had at one time 100,000 troops there. But at no time was the U.S. close to ending the war or the insurgency. Since 2014, 45,000 Afghan forces were killed in the war. 

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Defense secretary Gates supports a big expansion of the Afghanistan forces b doubling the Afghan army from 65,000 to 134,000 between 2010 and 2014.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greece's New Democracy party and Mr. Mitsotakis wins about 41% of the vote in Greece's elections. Syriza come is second with 21% and Pasok left party at 12%. Mitsotakis has increased Greece's growth to twice the eurozone rate, and cut migrants by 90% in line with EU policy. New Democracy party gets 145 seats in a 300 member parliament. The first round was conducted under proportional representation, only 60% of voters cast their vote. Mitsotakis will go for another election by July because in a second round the winner gets additional seats and this could let it form its own government. It sees this as needed to maintain policies of economic growth that have led to GDP growth at twice the rate of the eurozone. A surveillance scandal appears not to have affected the election results as Greeks opted for stability and growth. Mitsokatis himself put it this way- "This is not the time for experiments that lead nowhere." Greece was almost out of the eurozone when Syriza conducted referendums on the debt repayment that led to a chaotic situation, and then moved in the opposite direction in callous implementation when the Eurozone held firm. Mitsotakis said Greece needs to achieve an investment grade rating to lower borrowing costs. Worldwide the policy of delivering on growth is key to success in elections in democracies and in countries that are catching up after the colonialist phase. This is true for delivery of infrastructure and public services such as water and electricity, modern rail in India. It is true also for winning enough public support in countries like China that run parliamentary representation under one party the CCP. Strict immigration controls since 2015 reflect a similar policy pursued recently by Italy. Migrants have dropped by 90%. This is popular among Greeks. Looking back Merkel made a serious error in letting in migrants coming in from Hungary and Austria at the beginning of the migration inflows into the EU in 2015. Merkel came from former East Germany, the communist led GDR, and had no understanding of how harmful this would be for the European Union. In just one year by 2016 the misguided open migration policies of Merkel had led to her CDU party getting less votes than an anti immigration AfD party in her home state of Meckenburg. It led to anti-immigration movements in Europe that were used by parties in a self-serving way including in Britain that led to exit of Britain from the EU. It also led to a decade of austerity and a lost decade for the European Union as it permanently sidelined parties to the left such as Social Democrats that unknowingly or unwittingly ended up with the blame for the public's discomfort with lack of borders and migrants upsetting borders. In balance the right way to tackle this was to build stronger economies that supported workers and families in the EU, that then invested significantly in developing countries of Africa and Asia to help them catch up with modernization. Another failure in policy was the Bush-Obama Merkel policies in failed states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There it was fundamentally important not to get involved in any way that committed US or EU's precious resources.  ...
Economist Original article ›
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....
The New York Times Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Blake of the Washington Post says president Trump finds himself in the same situation as president Obama, who came into office wanting to scale down the effort in Afghanistan, and early in his presidency signed off on a troop surge under commander McChrystal. Trump in the election campaign expressed strong disapproval of interventionist policies. The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan makes it necessary to make an infustion of American troops- a policy being developed by Gen. Mattis. The change now is to insist vigorously on anti-corruption measures and good governance in return for aid. 

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The comparison by Goldsmith and Moyn has picked the wrong Roosevelt. Only Washington in the war of independence, Lincoln in the Civil War over slavery, and FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Great Depression and economic collapse, fall in that category and there is no one and nothing to compare with both the struggles they fought and the challenge to the survival of the US. On the next scale comes TR Teddy Roosevelt, and this is the Roosevelt to compare DJT with. TR was unconventional, TR spoke a different language and could be frank and outspoken. TR actions matched his words, as his days on the Indian frontier and with the Rough Riders. TR also had one term plus completing McKinley's term after his assasination. And TR like DJT did not like his successor and did everything to make the comeback denouncing the policies of his successor William Howard Taft in the 1912 election, which TR lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. All this is true for DJT in 2026. TR denounced the shift away from his "progressive policies" and the shift to corporate interests of Republican Taft. In this sense also DJT is similar as he denounced the shift to corporate interests of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama years. TR was no country club Republican and was willing to confront opponents in the politics to fight for the benefit of the working man, splitting the Republican party in the process. This is true of DJT. TR launched the rebuilding of the Navy, and announced he would reassert the Monroe Doctrine. DJT is doing the same and is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine. One could say that DJT feels the hidden TR in him and like Teddy Roosevelt is putting America in the place it once was. For TR the industrial revolution had distorted a country founded on the backs of settlers owning the land independent and rugged, as industry turned the country into corporate interests and workers in factories with few rights, and poor working conditions and wages. This TR even as a Republican fought to reverse. In DJT there is the Republican also of a different mould who fights to reverse the situation created by Bush/Clinton/Bush/ Obama over three decades since the 1990's when America has fallen to new lows when drug trafficking gangs in Mexico and Venezuela are able to run rampant over the western hemisphere, when elites in Canada and the US act impotent in the face of this, or living in their own world away from the streets and neighborhoods of America devastated by drug trafficking, towns and neighborhoods from Janesville to Flint economically deprived as elites shifted manufacturing overseas to China in complete indifference to the American worker and his family, and carried out wars in remote parts of the world such as hills of Afghanistan and deserts of Iraq no worker or farmer in America had even heard of or cared about since the American continent was settled in 1600. If there is a Woodrow Wilson around the corner who won in 1912, for the 2028 election, then it is someone who like Wilson will take policies to benefit the American worker and farmer and his family, and America as a Nation to a better place over the next decade. A passage from Teddy Roosevelt from his Autobiography about who TR was struggling against illustrates this point- "They favored Civil Service Reform; they favored copyright laws, and the removal of tariffs on works of art; they favored all the proper (and even more strongly the improper ) movements for international peace and arbitration; in short, they favored all good and many goody-goody, measures so long as they did not cut deep into social wrong or make demands on National and individual virility. They opposed, or were lukewarm, about efforts to build up the army and the navy, for they were not sensitive regarding National honor, and above all they opposed every non-milk-and-water effort, however sane to change our social and economic system in such a fashion as to substitute the ideal of justice towards all for the ideal of kindly charity from the favored few to the possibly grateful many." (Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, Chapter 5 title: Applied Idealism, 1913) ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Clandestine loans, bribes and other payoffs helped block inquiries into Kabul Bank. Kabul Bank, Afghanistan's largest bank has piled up losses of $900 million. The chairman of the bank has spent $150 million of the bank's money to buy Dubai villas in his and his wife's name. Among those receiving money are the Finance Minister, Education Minister and a former Interior Minister. The bank nearly collapsed in Sept 2010. The situation at Kabul Bank shows a lack of progress in anti-corruption efforts in Afghnistan.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Republican Senators Corker and Blount are confident that a solution can be devised for the sticking points on a deal between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans consider the savings in the Reid plan from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq a "gimmick," but essentially the Reid and Boehner plans say analysts are similiar in the inital cuts in spending. The sticking point for Democrats is on the whole process of the debt ceiling extension having to be redone in early 2012. For Republicans the sticking point is in in tax increases which the Reid plan leaves out in the initial period for debt limit extension into 2013 when a new president takes office. House majority leader Boehner is facing opposition within his party and this restricts his leeway for striking a deal- the Boehner plan passed in the House by a vote of 218 to 210 on July 29, 2011, with 20 Republicans voting no. It was voted down in the Senate that same evening with a vote of 59 to 41, with 6 Republican senators joining all 53 Democratic senators. As it stands now, the weekend before the August 2 deadline, President Obama concedes that there is "rough agreement" about the size of the first round of spending cuts, and the "next step" to rein in borrowing. He went on to say that "if we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I'll support that too, if it is done in a smart and balanced way." Its the design of this enforcement mechanism that is the main point in the remaining negotiation. The nature of the committee selected from both parties for the next phase of savings, its powers and the trigger in the sense of what it can ensure happening if no decisions are taken by both parties. ...
New York Times Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us