LyrArc Article Gist
In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, the commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, responds to a question about Vice President Biden, and says, "who is that?" An aide jumps in saying, is that "Bite Me?" These and other words of disdain for the Vice President and other policy advisors, are seen as the kind of frustration facing commanders from the slow progress in the enlarged effort in Afghanistan. It also brings to the fore the serious questions that have always remained, some raised by Biden, Reidel and others, of how any kind of success could be achieved without a reliable partner in the Afghan government, with the complicated situation in Pakistan where the Intelligence Services pursued a different agenda from that of the government, and with little interest from the people in the rural areas in a vast rural mountainous country, Kabul a little urban dot in a huge landscape of deserts and mountains. See the groups and links for Afghanistan and Pakistan for background.

LyrArc Article Gist
An inherent division between the two sides about the merits of a large scale involvement- as advocated by a tactical military man McChrystal and the limited involvement advocated by Vice President Biden considering the lack of a reliable Afghan partner - have now spilled out into the open after a compromise was patched together about a year ago. That compromise involved sending more troops but with a deadline for withdrawal set for July 2011. Now as the war reaches a stalemate -as a war of this type in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, and as ordinary Afghans see no particular interest in either side in this war, was largely expected to turn out into- the frustration has spilled out into the open. General McChrystal, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine this Spring, made comments with disdain for Vice President Biden, and an aide to McChrystal called National Security Advisor James Jones , a clown.

LyrArc Article Gist
Gen. Keane and Pletka say action by the U.S. is needed in 2013 to render ineffective the airdefense system and runways used by warplanes of the Assad regime. They emphasize that the U.S. has the technology and capacity to do this even with the Russian systems added in Syria. The lack of a U.S. response in the face of the Assad regime's attacks on civilian populations and use of chemical weapons, the support to the U.S. from the Arab world and Turkey, and the huge refugee problems in Jordan and Turkey, say Keane and Pletka, will lead to creating a worse situation than the relatively small risks of destroying the runways for Assad's warplanes and the airdefense system.

LyrArc Article Gist
The faltering approach on Syria of the Obama administration and the events that lead to the decision on June 13, 2013, to provide arms to the opposition forces.

LyrArc Article Gist
The effort by Prince Bandar, a senior advisor to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, to send arms to Syrian rebels through a command center in Jordan, after differences with Turkey and Qatar on how to arm rebels. WSJ reporters Entous, Malas and Coker provide a detailed account of the Saudi effort under Prince Bandar. The Saudis are determined to bring down the Assad regime especially now that chemical weapons are involved.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mead points out that the world with an effective U.S. leadership based on democracy and the values we cherish is needed now more than ever, after the failures of the Bush and Obama administrations to provide the kind of balanced leadership all Americans can stand behind. A world without an effective and enlightened leadership from the U.S, is one in which the world could fall apart in regional rivalry, one in which the hundreds of millions of people in the poorer parts of India, China, Russia, Brazil, and other developing countries of the world, will have less opportunity to meet their aspirations for a better life. This is because a focus on development requires less regional rivalry and because serious missteps can reverse in a few years decades of economic progress as shown in the 2008 global financial crisis. More so because we live in an increasingly interdependent global economy. It is also the kind of world where suppression of freedoms and suppression of the opposition as in China and Russia, provides a wrong kind of message, a world in which we or our children would not want to live in. Russia, India and China, are too driven by rivalry and lack the deep experience to go it alone, multipolar is more likely to end up being multipolar rivalry leading to a race to the bottom, which would be bad for all, especially for the poor in Asia and the developing world. The 2008 crisis showed what some serious economic mistakes could do to employment and incomes in the world with output dropping by a third in most places. Political missteps could lead to a slippery slope of this magnitude but more difficult to correct. Greater participation in the political process and more enlightened leadership is needed in all countries to allow many voices and greater interaction across boundaries, focussing on the dangers of such multipolar rivalries. The world of the G-7 is already moving to the G-20 where many voices are heard and serious discussion of differences takes place, but participatory is different from multipolar....

LyrArc Article Gist
  Rachel Louis Ensign of the WSJ describes one moment in the Madison Square Garden Trump rally. In it Lutnick who Ensign describes as embracing controversial crypto finance business, and EV's Musk, say they plan to  create a Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, also the name of a cryptocurrency. The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the central banks of China, India have warned of risks and dangers associated with Crypto currency which has no backing of the government. In one moment of the rally at Madison Square Garden as reported in the WSJ. Lutnick says- "How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted, $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?”   “I think we could do at least $2 trillion,” Musk said.  Fitzgerald says "Yeah" A budget that the large part of includes spending for Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Education, and other departments of government. Howard Lunick is Donald Trump's head of Human Resources in 2024, for hiring people to run the government under his administration. In 1993 he was running the company Cantor Fitzgerald and taking his son to kindergarden when the bombings of the World Trade Center by terrorists killed 980 of the company's employees. Fitzgerald has contributed to Kamala Harris's campaign for US Senate in 2016, and calls himself a fiscal conservative and social liberal. In 2023 he was invited by Trump to help his campaign. Fitzgerald says the Democratic party left him with its immigration and other policies. This report by Rachel Louis Ensign in WSJ says Cantor Fitzgerald's company has embraced crypto, which larger companies have stayed away from. It says the WSJ has reported that a Hong Kong based owner of the stable coin tether used Cantor Fitzgerald to help oversee its $39 billion bond portfolio. Crypto finance is reported as playing a large part in 2024. Rachel Louis Ensign of the WSJ describes one moment in the Madison Square Garden Trump rally. In it Lutnick and Musk say they plan to  create a Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, which is also the name of a cryptocurrency. The problem with cryptocurrency is that the US Federal Reserve does not support it, China, India and the European Central Bank disapprove of it and it is banned in China even though some of the crypto companies have connections with China. In one moment of the rally at Madison Square Garden as reported in the WSJ. Lutnick says- "How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted, $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?”   “I think we could do at least $2 trillion,” Musk said.  Fitzgerald says "Yeah" ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...