By PVG viagra

Personal loans and credit checks Payday loans Nevertheless is not the case

President Obama made a ‘war on terror’ state of the union type speech today at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC).  The speech covered the basics (we are fighting hard against Al Qaeda, but the threat is still with us, etc.), but two things peaked my interests.  There was a lot to like about the speech no doubt, but these two things irked me a bit.

First off, Obama rightly praised the work of all those who have diligently worked, mostly in the shadows, to keep America safe.  Specifically, he highlighted the recent good works that have lead to the deaths or capture of 11 of the top 20 Al Qaeda members.  These folks and these works do indeed deserve every American citizen’s cheers and gratitude.  But what was missing was any mention of the previous administration led by President Bush.  The very constitution of the NCC itself as it looks today would not be as it is without the Bush administration.  I’m not asking Obama to heap praise on Bush, but a quick acknowledgement of all the work that was done after 9/11 would have been appropriate and respectful.  Whether one agreed with 50%, 75%, or 100% of the previous administration’s anti-terror policies, there were still thousands of good people, many Bush appointed, doing their best to keep America safe and by not mentioning this in any real way is bringing partisanship into national security.  Obama, you don’t like Bush, I get it, but you’ve been president for almost a year now and know the hard calls that the position takes.  I would think this would sober one up a bit and give one greater respect for his predecessors.  It’s not like President Obama has really reversed much of the Bush anti-terror policies anyways.  This is really disappointing to me because, though it sounds and is surely naïve, I like to think that certain parts of our American system are above politics, and protecting the country is one of them.  I would like to see more continuity between administrations and less ‘all bad, I fix’ mentality that I so far have seen from Obama.

Secondly, I was disappointed in the time of the speech, not the ‘timing’, but the speech’s length.  It is well known that President Obama’s main focus is on domestic affairs, but couldn’t a speech on a such a vital national security issue be longer than 10 minutes?!  Especially in light of the recent arrest of Al Qaeda connected terrorist Zazi in Denver and reports that the US has had some major success in killing numerous of Bin Ladin’s top men in the mountains of Pakistan.  I’m not sure how long the President’s Olympic address was in Copenhagen, but I’m gonna guess it was longer.   

Overall, a couple minor qualms in a decent speech.  GPP’s thoughts on the Iranian negotiations and Obama’s UN speech still to come.  And I guess I could forsee the 4th edition of GPP Great Power Rankings! coming soon as well.  

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 at 6:30 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

16 comments so far

Lear
 1 

New GPP Power Rankings

After G20 gatherings, the Olympics going to Brazil and Ireland ratifiyng the Lisbon Treaty
here is the new list…. This time including power percentages.

USA…….100%
China……60%
Germany.50%
Russia…..45%
France…..45%
UK……….45%
Japan……40%
EU………..20%
India……..20%
Brazil…….20%

October 7th, 2009 at 7:10 am
micraig
 2 

Lobbying for the EU before the rankings even come out? The EU is not a country so it does not qualify. It’s major representatives are already represented in your list with Germany, France, and the UK listed. By including the EU you are effectively doubling up on their supposed influence. So if you really want the EU listed Lear, you should logically take all the individual members out of the running. You can’t have it both ways.

October 12th, 2009 at 11:29 am
micraig
 3 

And while I’m at it Professor Frost, if Israel bombs Iran’s enrichment sites, will it then be included in the top 10? (That comment is facetious — sort of)

October 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
 4 

Your rankings are duly noted Lear and I really like your percentages. Cool idea. Though Micraig is likely to win out when the next rankings come out as the EU is not likely to appear. The Irish ratification of the EU Treaty is a positive sign for its future, but let us not forget that it was rejected by the same group just about a year ago and the treaty has many more hurdles, including actual implementation, when/if that happens.

Israel back on Top 10 if attacks Iran? Only if it is a unequivocal success as it would further cement Israel’s place atop the region, militarily speaking.

October 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Lear
 5 

Maybe some of honored readers here still need an update on where the EU stands or how other
academics assess the power status….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers#European_Union

This Wikipedia section reads pretty balanced.

I would assume that the EU as a potential superpower (even if the age of superpowers seems to be over) has already achieved great power status.

October 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Diogenes
 6 

Lear, you still don’t address micraig’s observation that if you want the EU in, then France, Germany, and the UK should be eliminated.

October 13th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
micraig
 7 

While wikipedia is an interesting and useful source of quick information it is hardly a definitive source for assessing power rankings given that it is merely the compilation of the opinions of many lay contributors as well as a repository for those with views that don’t receive widespread acceptance. Again, do you want to leave France, England, and Germany out in favor of including the EU?

October 13th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Lear
 8 

@micraig & Diogenes: Ask the G8 leaders if they consider it necessary to excludes nations in
favor of the EU.

Answer: They don´t. The G8 includes both, the EU and the European national powers. The traditional nation state wields enough (even more ) souvereignty than the EU in total. On the other hand the EU has accumulated enough influence and souvereignty to be considered a single actor and a major power in its own right.

There is no either or.

Here is a useful update on the global military/security involvement of the EU.

http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2009/08/12/mapping-geopolitical-footprint/

To my knowledge these missions by far exceed all activities outside borders compared to China, India, Brazil or Japan.

October 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am
micraig
 9 

Simply put, Lear, you are wrong. The EU is not a nation and as long as the individual nations retain their sovereignty the EU could never be considered a major international power. Just because nations get together to agree on certain economic items, or trade issues, or currency standards, or even global warming issues, does not mean they cede their individual status as world powers. Until the EU can dominate the member countries even when some of them do not agree on a specific issue, then the EU is not a world power in the sense of this power ranking exercise. You might as well argue that the United Nations is a major world power because they managed to get 183 nations to agree with the Kyoto Protocols. Or you might argue that the Vatican is a major world power because it represents the more than 1 billion Catholics. But you would be wrong on both counts. Your unwavering, unqualified support of the EU is admirable if misplaced. You should apply for a job in their public relations department, if in fact you don’t already work for them.

As for asking the G8 leaders if they should be excluded in favor of the EU, I suspect that even they would argue that the EU is not considered a nation unto itself. The very fact that they wouldn’t agree to be excluded exemplifies the point that the EU is not, in their minds, a world power.

October 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Lear
 10 

@micraig : The discussion stops here I´m afraid, I´m sorry. It seems you are not able to assess souvereignty or the function of what you consider nation state. I recommend you get updated or more informed on these issues.

I also recommend not to repeat “the world is flat” arguments. This is basically what the English media is doing with their people.
Denying the existence of everything EU.

Right now your arguments / knowledge appear to be at a stage of an 16 year old high school student. And please stop
misreading every single halfsentence.

There is probably a catalogue of more than 1000 factors to pinpoint full national independent, selfsufficient, political souvereignty.

The EU AND its Member states (which ARE the EU) governs a currency. Its highest court judges the Member states on EU law.

Never heard that the Vatican is represented at G8, or the UN, or the Back Street Boys.
The fact alone that the EU is represented at G8 credits the existence of the EU as major power.

October 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
micraig
 11 

Well I’m a tad older than 16 (lol) but thanks for the compliment.

Hit a nerve did I?

October 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Lear
 12 

@micci,

By repeating tabloid statements, you hit a nerve, correct. But it was a short fun, because you lost every credibility. As an IR analysts you are out. It´s unlikely that I comment on micraig posts in the future.

October 15th, 2009 at 4:55 am
 13 

Come on Lear,
I think you are being a little too harsh. Micraig disagrees with your EU position, but his IR heart is in the right place. Seems like he/she just wants to debate. And I would not call ‘you are not able to assess souvereignty or the function of what you consider nation state’ tabloid-like disagreement.

In regards to the EU activity map… Yes, it shows a very engaged political animal, but you can’t really call these lightfootprint missions serious geopolitics, can you? The EU indeed has us in the global security and politics, but until it actually starts acting like a real state actor, it shouldn’t be treated as such.

October 15th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Lear
 14 

@Frost:

The security missions under the EU flag are minuscule, right.

But a), they exist, and b), they are international even global. That has to be recognized in first place in order to except that an actor called EU is a factor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/11/eu-esdp-10-years

October 16th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Lear
 15 

Obama to host EU-US summit in November

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jhagTy5gTaOdAUBlqDa8Ja9d-qCQ

Never heard of a US-India, US-Turkey, US-Brazil summit addressing several global questions.

October 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Lear
 16 

The EU Lisbon Treaty and Transatlantic Relations

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=4454

October 16th, 2009 at 4:11 pm