LyrArc Article Gist
Anton Harder in this Wilson Center publication of research uses correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and his sister Vijaylakshmi Pandit ambassador to the US in 1950, to show that the US made an offer for India to take a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. India had supported two resolutions on June 25, and June 27, first condemning the invasion by North Korea and second the organizing of a UN force of 29 countries to push back the North Korean invasion. Even though the US is not seen as actively engaging with India during that period and seeing through British eyes the colonial policies of encouraging  different powers in South Asia, that may not be true.  Who was India's foreign minister in 1950? Jawaharlal Nehru was both prime minister and foreign minister till 1964, which means there was less discussion of foreign policy than happens today during the Ukraine invasion with Jaishankar a career diplomat with 30 years experience, Rajnath Singh, and Mr. Modi, in talks with president Biden recently, and in further discussions Modi had with EU's Von der Leyen and UK's Boris Johnson, Kishida of Japan. Who was India's defense minister in 1950? Baldev Singh, a Sikh independence struggle leader was Minister of Defense for 1947-52 and tackled partition of Punjab and Kashmir issues. The rest of the years to 1957 when India faced the Chinese invasion of Tibet India's defense minister was also for most of the period Mr. Nehru, except Ayynagar in 1953, and Kailash Katju in 1955 and 1956. The controversial V.K. Krishna Menon was Defense Minister from 1957 to 1962, when Indian defenses were further neglected leading to the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, and his replacement by Yashwantrao Chavan. The purpose of this is to look back at what happened in earlier periods to understand where India stands today- and what choices it makes today. Clearly the US was looking for allies then and now. Nehru saw things from his own reading of history seeing China and India as both suffering from western invasion, not realizing that China's experience under Mao was different- that of Japanese invasion and bombing of China's major cities not just colonization of Hong Kong and other ports for trade under British trade based policies in 1850-1900. Thus a Communist Chinese version of China's defense involved taking over border regions such as Tibet putting China in direct and open opposition to India. Nehru never really grasped what was happening in Tibet and the war China fought against the Nationalists. American general Stilwell loved China deeply and had an understanding of its people as shown in Tuchman's account in her book Stilwell and the American Experience in China 1911-1945. Stilwell during that war had a better understanding of China, the strengths and weaknesses of Mao's China and of the Nationalists under Chiang, than Nehru. Some of these errors post 1950's and a concentration of foreign, defense and embassy positions in the person of Mr. Nehru and of Nehru family member such as Mrs. Pandit led to the Indian failure to act on Tibet and see it as see it for what it was -facing a Communist Mao led China that had fought the Japanese invasion as different from Bodhidharma's China of the history books. Bodhidharma's China will outlast Mao's China, yet it is Mao's China that India faces today. This also tells us that India has to think in new ways- as Lincoln said during a period when America was also making its own progress as an industrial nation in the 1860's. "The dogmas of the quiet past are not adequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew, we must act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country." India's values are values of democracy heightened not just by Mohandas Gandhi's ideas with Hind Swaraj written in 1910 just as powerful in 2022, but also by the heights of Ladakh where elections are held in remote regions of the Himalayas. India's values are values that are also shared in the best that America has in its values and culture and in the defense of freedom.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article by Gerald Seib in the WSJ says not enough was done to attract white working class voters- critical for Trump in industrial swing states- at the Democratic National Convention. He says only on the last night of the convention did a factory worker, a home care provider and a laid off restaurant worker, appear on the stage. These are the voters who have drifted away from the Democratic Party. The convention draws ironically on Republican themes, defense foreign policy as in the speeches by Leon Panetta and retired General Allen, and in efforts to portray Hillary as more human with frailties but a 40 year public service record that includes exceptional work for children. Actually the appeal to traditional Democratic white working class voters was there always in the background with most of the speakers, as it colored most speakers comments including Biden and Kane, who have the colloquial language and style to appeal to this group. The appeal to traditionally white working class voters is in the party platform with the $15 minimum wage for service industry workers, and in the promise to provide college free tution for people making less than $125,000. The Democrats simply painted this with a different brush. Contrasting the callous attitude to the poor and struggling of billionaires like Trump with those who have fought for pushing people up the ladder since FDR- with the lapses in recent years from the tech boom which left some workers short now being addressed. This was expressed by Hillary Clinton saying to Bernie Sanders voters- "your cause is our cause." For Democrats it was more effective to tackle the traditionally Democratic working class voters first, before shifting to working class voters who are border line Republican because of social issues or those who are so disaffected so as to be beyond reach. ...

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
The New York Times editorial on the violent military action against Morsi protest camps near Cairo University on August 14. NYT calls for cutting off the $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt. Baradei, Morsi, and the moderates are seen as complicit in letting the military take advantage of the split in the political parties through their failure to reach a compromise on constitutional and other issues. NYT calls it a foreign policy disaster for the U.S. and a tragedy for Egypt to return to military rule. U.S. president Obama is seen as having shown lack of leadership for both Egypt and Syria. The likely conclusion being that the low key approach has failed and the opportunity for a more peaceful Middle East focussed on improving the living conditions of the people in the region has been lost through inaction.

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Gerson was there in June 2005, with then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and nine Egyptian opposition figures, including presidential candidate Ayman Nour, in a shabby Cairo conference room. Rice was in that room to call on President Mubarak to allow free elections. Nour was skeptical about the result. The Mubarak legacy was to undermine all legitimate opposition to thirty years of rule. Gerson makes a remarkable statement when he says that the universal desire for self-government is rooted in the natural human resentment of humiliation. A 26 year old fruit vendor in Tunisia is humiliated and set himself on fire in protest, setting off protests against servility, oppression and silence. He calls the lack of faith in American ideals a pervasive failure of foreign policy elites. Someday he says, Americans are likely to say the same for China, with the complete absence of a policy for anticipating a democratic transition.

LyrArc Article Gist
Helene Cooper and Worth point to the vacillating response to the Arab Spring and movement for democracy and freedom in the Middle East of the Obama administration and President Obama. The dangerous overtones of this lack of U.S. leadership in the region as the U.S. completes a withdrawal from Iraq without an agreement for a residual presence, sees diplomacy reaching an impasse with Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and the Syrian civil war drawing in Turkey with its long border with Syria, and drawing in Saudi Arabia as a defendor of Sunnis in Syria. The stakes for Russia in Syria were minimal compared to that of people in the Middle East and the U.S., yet it had an outsized influence with its early military assistance to the Assad regime and the lack of U.S. leadership to resolve the situation in Syria in favor of the democracy movement.

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Journal provides reflections on U.S. foreign policy in the Obama years and advice for U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney before the third presidential debate on foreign policy on Oct. 22, 2012. It says the U.S. has always done better from a position of economic strength and defense preparedness in addressing foreign policy issues. It also points to the failure of president Obama to support the freedom struggle of the peoples of the Middle East, and a withdrawal from Iraq without securing an agreement that failed to consolidate the gains of the long conflict and resources spent in that region.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta describes plans to support forces of the Free Syrian Army during the summer of 2012. The efforts had the backing of key members of the National Security team and Secretary of State Clinton. The plans were rebuffed by president Obama and the election campaign team because of the approaching November 2012 election and the president's hesitation to get involved in the Syrian war. Plans were developed by CIA director Petraeus, supported by General Demsey of the Joint Chiefs, and Leon Panetta. Plans were to vet forces in the Syrian resistance, to provide training and arms. After Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Clinton had a concussion, these plans were not taken up again. This shows that by summer 2011 the consensus was for supporting Syrian democracy forces in the Obama administration, only to be held back by president Obama. This is likely to be a question for future generations of Americans as they assess the record of the U.S. in the Middle East and the missed opportunity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.

LyrArc Article Gist
Former U.S. president Bush says the U.S. has an important role as a beacon of freedom, human rights and democracy in the world. The U.S. should not shrink from the challenges in the name of a false and temporary stability, and flexibility should not mean ambiguity, difficulties should not mean shrugging away from America's role. Patience, creativity and active American leadership are needed. The Bush administration supported the struggles of people in central Europe and in other countries. This is from a speech Bush gave at the Bush Institute, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, a year into the Arab Spring. A speech that was giving voice to the aspirations of people in the Arab world.