LyrArc Article Gist
The battle of Dien Bien Phu has another significance as looking back it was not the cold war conflict with the soviets but a struggle for freedom and independence from French colonial rule. The conflict cast a shadow over the Kennedy administration, and after John Kennedy lost his life in Dallas, led to a loss of Kennedy's vision of the New Frontier, ideas that were lost for 4 decades of mediocre or inexperienced leaders from Nixon to Clinton, Bush and Obama and Trump that embroiled America in distant wars and wasted resources needed at home for infrastructure and needs of the people. FR24 looks back at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu 1954, that gave Vietnam freedom from colonial rule and independence. The French ended their rule and Vietnam was divided into 2 states. The US was drawn into the struggle by support and advisers to the new government in the South. Just 6 months after Dien Bien Phu the French were faced with another conflict with the Algerian war of independence that went on till 1962. In the South Vietnam situation it happened in the backdrop of the struggle of the US with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic founded by Mao in 1949, called the Cold War. In 1956 Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush the Hungarian revolution. It is in this context that president Kennedy was pulled into the conflict of North and South Vietnam. Would Kennedy in a second term have handled it differently than Lyndon Johnson who with the Tonkin resolution had America drawn into the conflict left behind by the colonial French power. It is possible Kennedy would have handled it by consulting Congress and the people and looked for solutions outside Cold War conflict. The result and the end of Kennedy's term led to the vision of the New Frontier and Kennedy's imaginative leadership being forgotten with a series of mediocre presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump for three decades leaving America into expanded wars in Cambodia, Star Wars competition wit the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan and wasted America's resources, neglecting its infrastructure and needs of its people in health and education. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Paris based think tank International Council for Security and Development says in a report that the Taliban now have apermanent presence in 72% of the contry and are now encircling the capital Kabul, and attacking 4 roads leading to the capital. This will certainly make things difficult for Obama as he takes office in January as the economic crisis will take a lot of attention while at the same time additional troops and military support will come into an Afghanistan that is mostly in the hands of the Taliban and with Kabul region in danger.

LyrArc Article Gist
This account describes the events that preceded the raid on the compound in Abbottabad that housed Osam bin Laden. The first information came years earlier during interrogation of Al Quaeda suspects in Iraq, who referred to a courier carrying messages from senior leaders. One suspect Hasan Gul referred to an important courier in 1994, and tried to disclose as little as possible. Over several years the information was pieced together leading to the courier's location at the Abbotabad compound. There was another individual living there who rarely ventured out and a seven foot wall protected the terrace in that part of the compound, making it impossible for outsiders to see who he was. Garbage was burned at the compound, and the nature of the compound with high walls and security led the CIA to believe there was a high probability that senior Al Quaeda leaders were inside. In December the CIA asked Congressional lawmakers at a secret meeting for additional funds to finance the operation. Adm. McRaven was placed in charge of the operation. A mock compound was built in Afghanistan and the attack on the compound was practiced by Special Forces. In April, Leon Panetta, who had tracked the information about the compound as head of the CIA, held daily meetings. He told his team "we've got to find out what the hell is in that compound." On April 19, Panetta informed Mr Obama that the CIA believed Osama Bin Laden was there. The same day Obama gave the go ahead for a helicopter assault....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Pakistan army and its anti India mindset is at the root of the problem Pakistan faces. The army has factions that support the Taliban. Its intelligence agency, the ISI, helped create the Taliban as a way to get strategic depth (as they called it) in Afghanistan, for it sees as a necessary perpetual conflict with India. And the failure in Pakistan, the crisis of Pakistan, lies in the failure of elected politicians, the failure of the army, to provide responsible government and peaceful relations with India and with Afghanistan. By pursuing a Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and a anti-foreigner agenda for Afghanistan, Pakistan has ended up undermining its own government, institutions, and sovereignty over tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province. The US by getting involved in the Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and the anti-foreigner agenda during the Cold War, by supplying weapons and aid for this to successive Pakistani military governments, now finds itself as the foreigner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistan army's anti-foreigner agenda, now that the Americans are the foreigners, is not something that even the army or the civilian governments can control. The only thing the army knows, and its raison-de-etre, is the protection of the state of Pakistan and an antiIndian, Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda. After 60 years of doing this since its founding the Pakistan army knows no other way. Failure to do what it is doing would remove it from its critical role as the most important institution in Pakistan, and relegate its officers and the army to a smaller role, with smaller committments of resources, a smaller army, and the loss of its privileged role in Pakistani society. This is the answer to Holbrooke's question to Pakistani businessmen, and civilian leaders, in Lahore recently, what is the crisis of Pakistan? And these businessmen and civilian leaders also touched on the army's role. For America as it sees the need to build a new economic partnership with Asia that would help revive economic growth, there is the need for deep soul searching. The Pakistan military sucks up resources that are so badly needed elsewhere, for the kind of construction the Obama administration sees for America, of roads, bridges, schools, new energy infrastructure. How can what is good and planned for America not be whats good for South Asia, for India, Pakistan, SriLanka and the entire region? The resources that are sucked up by the Pakistan military and its actions to foster aconflict atmosphere merely adds to the way resources are sucked for the military in India, when they are badly needed for development, economic growth, and the same kind of infrastructure building and education that the Obama administration plans for the US. Without correcting this flaw in its policies in South Asia the Obama administration cannot create a partnership with Asian countries that could play a critical role in America's own economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
Osam Bin Laden is killed in a U.S. special forces attack on a compound 40 miles from Islamabad. The area known as Abbottabad is also the location of a Pakistani military academy. One Pakistani helicopter and 2 American helicopters were involved in the attack. Experts say this changes the dynamic of the war, with the U.S. keen on a disengagement in Afghanistan, and Pakistani concerns about the expanded U.S. footprint in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region working in the same direction. This also comes at a time when the Middle East is no longer what it looked like a decade ago. Democracy protests have changed the way ordinary Arabs look at the world. In recent months Pakistan's relationship with the U.S. has grown tense. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that top civilian and military leaders of Pakistan met with the Afghan government leaders in Kabul recently. At the meeting Pakistan's leaders suggested that it would be better for Afghanistan to move closer to Pakistan and China, and distance itself from the U.S. The Pakistani leadership must be aware of domestic politics in the U.S., the changes in the Arab world, the desire of Americans and the U.S. government to wind down America's military involvement, and decided that the removal of Osama would give give America less reason to continue its military presence....

LyrArc Article Gist
The decision to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal and to have Lt. Gen David Rodriguez as his deputy, was made by Defense Secretary Gates and Jt Chiefs chairman Mullen, after thinking about this during the transition to the new Obama administration. The failing war effort in Afghanistan with the Karzai government controlling only pockets of Afghanistan and Kabul and leaving the countryside to the Taliban has alot to do with this. Gates feeling is "we can and must do better." That it took so long, with the Taliban only 50 miles from Islamabad, Pakistan, and the question of Paksitan's nuclear weapons falling into thier hands vexing the adminstration, shows that things slowed down with the transition and the economic crisis. The decision was not adifficult one considering that McKiernan had little to show for his efforts, and the rapidly deteriorating situation by all accounts. McKiernan was a senior officer who spent his entire military career commanding conventional forces, serving in the Balkans and the Iraq war in 2003, and has the wrong midset and background for counterinsurgency warfare. McChrystal has experiences suited to counterinsurgency warfare, having commanded commando teams that took out leading insurgents. He is also director of the Joint chiefs of staff, so known to Mullen for his abilities. Rodriguez commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in eastern Afghanistan, is seen as aleading expert in counterinsurgency warfare. He is also Gates's senior military advisor so known to Gates for his abilities. The new strategy is to go with counterinsurgency warfare to turn this thing around. This puts 2 commanders with this kind of experience in Kabul, and close communication with Gates and Mullen because they worked together before. With additional troops, and shift in resource acquisition at the Pentagon that Gates is trying to secure for this kind of warfare, this creates the kind of combination that could help the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and achieve more modest goals. See the links to Gates's and Petraeus's more modest goals....

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. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is behind Pew Research Report finding showing an unacceptable concentration of wealth that endangers democracy. Higher income groups making $244,000 a year in 2024 gained 19 percentage points of the total US Household Income moving from 29% in 1970 to 48% in 2024. About 50% of the nation's income going to 20% of its people and most of that to 2%-5% of the people of the US. The gains meant loss of 17 of these percentage points for middle income households making $106,000 a year that went from 62% in 1970 to 43% in 2024. Another 2 percentage points was suffered by vulnerable Lower Income groups making $35,000 a year who owned 10% of US wealth in 1970 went down to 8%.  The problems of divisiveness in the Nation come from three distinct areas. First money for state financed education for all being put into wars in the Middle East from Reagan through Obama and Trump and some wasted through capital misallocation to low priority investment by faulty capital market allocation. Second the high cost of pharmaceuticals and healthcare putting a heavy burden on low income and middle income households making $35,000 or 106,000 a year. Third the neglect of manufacturing that cutoff the opportunities for middle and lower income households and their one chance to move up the ladder. And the parallel shift of resources to technology and financial sectors that created opportunities for a smaller group of immigrant and higher middle income households with these skills.  These are the sources of America's distress and each problem is being attacked at its source by president Biden- exit from Afghanistan, canceling student loans that are egregious and prevent the investment in education America needs, large sustained investment in manufacturing and new supply chains, antitrust action on tech monopolistic behaviour, redrawing the shape of America's pharmaceutical sector to provide access to medicine to all parts of the population.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The public health emergency announced for the pandemic ends on May 12. Title 42 is a law that uses the public health emergency and pandemic to turn people back from Mexico who cross the border illegally. Democrats and Mr. Biden were critical of the way people were treated at the border under the Trump administration. Yet when faced with higher numbers crossing illegally as Title 42 ends on May 12, Biden and Democrats see the need to replace Title 42 with rules that will tighten controls at the border. It is essential in several ways. It blunts the Republican message to voters that Democrats are not handling the border issue and uncontrolled immigration well. Mr. Obama did this for 8 years by continuing a high rate of deportation of illegal migrants before Mr. Trump.  What makes it possible for migrants crossing the US Mexico border illegally to seek to stay in the US, are US asylum laws that were passed after the refugee crisis during and following World War II. The next step is that the US will now end these asylum privileges as they are being used for economic reasons by huge numbers of migrants crossing from regions in Central America because of economic problems. When a coffee growing region in Guatemala was affected by a bad harvest there was a surge in migrants, with similar patterns repeating themselves over decades.  Just as Mr. Biden closed the Afghanistan war because he could see that it was the right thing to do and essential for the US to build abetter future for its people, Biden now sees the need to end rules and policies from a previous era that led to illegal immigration. Biden is also doing this by increasing legal pathways for immigration to the US where it is done officially and in a proper way. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken December 11-14, the results show how fast things have changed in one year for the Obama administration. Today less than half of the people approve of the job Obama has done as President. And among core constituencies which helped Obama win the election he is losing support. A third of voters 34 and under feel negative toward the Democratic party. When asked about their sentiment Mike Ashmore, a23 year old from Lansdale, Pa., an independent who supported Obama what bothered him most was the lack of action on jobs. With Hispanics those who are positive about Democrats has dropped steeply from 60% to 38%. And Mr. obama's personal popularity has dropped, now only 50% feel positive about him down from 68% in January. Overal 35% feel positive about the Democratic party in Dec 2009, compared to 49% in February 2009. Something serious is happening here. Because this does not translate into gains fro the Republicans who are where they were earleir in the year. Only 28% of voters expressed positive feelings for the Republican which is what it has been all through the summer and fall of 2009. On Afghanistan only 44% feel its the right approach to do atroop buildup, 41% oppose. So the President support especially in his own party is not much here. If 28% of voters feel positive about Republicans, and only a litle more 34% feel positive about Democrats, then how will voters make achoice between candidiates in elections? Would they go by the merit of the candidate regardless of party. Something else that Americans are beginning to sense is that the country's prospects look grim with the economy, jobs, and the national debt and deficits, as well as a sense of lacking much needed renewal. ...

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
As many as 2 million votes in the 2014 Afghanistan elections are called into question. This is 2 million out of a total of 8 million. In the last election it is estimated 1.3 million fradulent votes were made for Hamid Karzai. This time it is said security officials, government officials and others worked together to get as many as 2 million votes for Asraf Ghani, who Karzai supports. This is happening even as the Taliban are increasing attacks in the country and the Americans are withdrawing. It shows that instead of a withdrawal that the Obama administration promised their appears to be a situation that is no different from that of the Bush administration, where American lives were lost and sacrifices made without even the most basic results- no assurance that if the government collapses from strains within and outside, Taliban and terrorism could not happen again as is hapening in Iraq.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman draws attention to a very important thing that a perceptive eye like his has grasped, there is too much rhetoric on the democratic and Obama side about focussing on Afghanistan without knowledge of whats going on in the field and all the risks in haphazard involvement and expansion of the war, reminiscent of the small war that was going on in south east Asia when Kennedy assumed office. Another young and inexperienced President who needed to show that he could be tough and just as the cold war was taking shape with the Berlin airlift and other events in Europe. The early years of the Kennedy administration led to an haphazard expansion of the war without fully understanding the situation in the ground. Scweich and Rory's account and the cable by the British ambassador in Kabul and other links show that the war there has to be very carefully handled by the most capable people knowledgeable about what is happening in the ground.

LyrArc Article Gist
The French view of the DJT administration is that it is a rupture, an "historic rupture with immigration repression, aggressive trade policy, and undermining of federal and state institutions." This is far from the reality. In fact it is not a rupture, and far from that policy that DJT brought in the waning days of a tired cautious Obama administration that extended the war in Afghanistan long after it was clearly a failure from the Bush years. DJT called it common sense during his Inauguration speech waving his hands- so obvious, stay out of wars we have no purpose pursuing. Regain America's manufacturing base shipped out to China in the Clinton-Bush-Obama years 2000-2016 that helped the rise of China in phases of supply chain partner, competitor, adversary. French view Le Monde is that this is "aggressive trade policy," when in fact small towns across the US and France, and other industrialized EU nations, by losing their factory and industrial base to China have gone downhill losing jobs and standard of living. Tariffs and DJT policy was continued by Biden- there is no rupture. What French in Le Monde call "Immigration repression," is a policy of protecting border security including illegal drug and fentanyl flows and gang activity that was accepted by Biden and Biden-Republican Lankford legislation was agreed in 2024 to close the Border. There is no rupture from Biden on closing the Border.  With millions having crossed the Border illegally Republicans now have the support of Democratic Senators Gallego of Arizona and Fetterman of Pennsylvania in passing the Laken Riley Act in Congress to protect Americans and safeguard life in America.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Galbraith explaining the true reason for his firing by Eide and the UN Secretary General Moon. The statement announcing his dismissal to be accurate would have said that this was over differences whether the UN was going to remain silent over evidence of electoral fraud in the Afghan elections, and the issue of ghost polling stations. There is another angle of this which risks endangering the US trrops in the north of the country. Karzai's opponent in the elction is half Tajik and half Pashtun, fraud in the elections may turn the Tajik north against US and coaltion troops, further complicating life for the US, and this is on top of the loss of credibility with the Afghan people of the Karzai government. See the separate article on General Jones telling McChrystal who commands US forces in Afghnistan to cooperate with the strategic review now underway, by not making statements to the press. The other questions arise about the manner in which this dismissal ocurred. A few days before this Hillary Clinton, Eide, and other representatives from the coalition told the press that they think Karzai would win. Had Obama authorized this and what would be the point of such a statement, and at the same time trying to conduct an unbiased assessment of the war in Afghanistan. Here Galbraith comes across as one who had the courage to decide according to what he believed would be right for America and the values it represents. His point is that he could not tolerate the last act of dishonesty in the dispute that went on for months, because of the loss of credibility for the UN itself among the many Afghans who do not support Karzai. This would destroy also the credibility of the US in the country. Can any number of troops make up for this? Wars in Asia have proven that popular support decides the eventual fate of the mission. Only by standing up for its values can the US not undermine the very principles that the troops are fighting for and the people support. ...

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.

LyrArc Article Gist
White House counselor Steve Ricchetti says with the pace and activity and hours at the White House, Biden is outworking people around him. The special counsel Robert Hur's report on Biden's retention of classified documents has part of it on the president not remembering the date his son Beau Biden had died in 2015. The president was furious that special counsel Hur had raised that question, saying it was none of his damn business. The special counsel's report also says Biden had kept a memo in 2013 that he had handwritten and sent to then president Obama outlining his opposition to the surge of troops in Afghanistan. It was something Biden had kept with him as he understood the flaws of the Bush-Obama policies in Afghanistan. Where Republicans and some Democrats have seen a hasty withdrawal  from Afghanistan under Biden the nation sees the need to rededicate its resources to building a strong economy that meets the needs and aspirations of the American people. Even the British Empire in India for 200 years had wisely stayed away from Afghanistan for 200 years. It is the wisdom and experience, the ability to work with colleagues in Congress in the way Lyndon Johnson was able to do to pass his Great Society and Medicare initiatives, that benefits the nation, something that comes with age. It is this wisdom, composure and determination that has created the strongest American economy not seen in decades and a path to an even stronger economy in the future. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jodi Kantor provides insights into U.S. president Obama's thinking about the law, how it affects society, and the areas in which it falls short of what is intended. Obama is looking at a number of possible candidates to replace Judge Souter on the Supreme Court, including Elena Kagan at Harvard Law School. He is described by professors and students who know him as a minimalist who does not want to see the Court appointees to go ahead of their times. Minimalist refers to a view which is skeptical of court led change far out ahead of where society is. He is also described as a structuralist, referring to a view that seeks to learn how the law affects people in their real lives, aside from abstractions and theory.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US view of the response by India to a terrorist attack in Phalgam, Kashmir, Indian Union territory with strikes on terrorist camps. J.D. Vance US vice president says- “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict.” “And we hope, frankly, that Pakistan to the extent that they’re responsible, cooperates with India to make sure that the terrorists sometimes operating in their territory are hunted down and dealt with.” Vance was forced to cut short his visit to India after visiting Jaipur, Rajasthan in India when the terrorists with a history of aid from Pakistan killed 31 tourists in Phalgam, Kashmir. A long history of terrorist or militia trained in Pakistan has led to  terrorist incidents all over the world for the last three decades including the Kashmir and Afghanistan conflicts, the last having drawn Russia and the US into long wars which depleted their resources and led to loss of many lives. Yet much of the media remains oblivious of this in the US and Europe, and how it has led to the rise of China using this period of conflict under Bush and Obama since 2000, and the access to US, EU technologies and assistance. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krauthammer says he favors the Boehner Plan because the two stage debt ceiling hike will give time for negotiations and public scrutiny of plans for entitlement and tax reforms. He is critical of the Reid Plan because more than half of the $2 trillion deficit reduction under the plan comes from not continuing surge spending in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 10 years, which he calls outrageous and fictional savings. The lack of Obama's own plan even after setting up and receiving the report of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission is a sore point for him and other observers, demonstrating a stark failure to lead. Tea party advocates will need a new mandate in 2012 where they control more than just the House of Representatives to push for their plan of aggressive deficit reduction and a balanced budget. Krauthammer sees the Obama stimulus, auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, and the current battle over deficit spending as a large Keynesian gamble which has failed to revive the economy. A choice on limiting government or a different set of policies should now be left to voters to decide....

LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama repeatedly compared the Iran nuclear deal vote in Congress to the 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq under president George W. Bush, in a speech at American University. President John Kennedy made a speech on a strategy for peace at American University in Washington D.C. on June 10, 1963, offering negotiations as away to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Obama said the "choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war." The nuclear deal faces bipartisan opposition in Congress on grounds of weak verification, doubts about Iran's intentions, lifting of a weapons embargo including ballistic missiles, and lifting of economic sanctions with snapback seen as unrealistic, and support limited to Democrats in Congress. Compared to the speech by Kennedy which was hopeful- " in the final analysis, our most common link is that we all inhabit this same planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future's. And we are all mortal." It was also a response to Soviet Union's head Nikita Krushchev's letter to Kennedy of Dec. 1962 following the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, saying "the time has come now to put an end once and for all to all nuclear tests." Compared to the enthusiasm with which the Kennedy speech was received, the Obama speech brought up the divisions of the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, in which many Democrats including Senator Hillary Clinton voted to support the Iraq war, and missed the power of president Kennedy's (and Krushchev's) words of 1962. The last minute inclusion of a lifting of an arms embargo including ballistic missiles," created doubts about Iran's intentions in the U.S. Congress, unlike Kruschev and Kennedy's decisive response on the nuclear issue which led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The condition agreed to that the Iran nuclear deal of July could pass with only one third of Congess supporting it- based on a presidential veto if Congress did not approve it with a two thirds majority- created the prospect of the U.S. moving ahead on a major foreign policy issue with only limited support....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....