Let’s dig in, shall we!

1. ‘Obama’s Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism‘, Mark Salter, Real Clear Politics

President Obama decries ‘politics’, regarding our nation’s immigration policy debate, in a purely political speech without any substance or chance of leading to actual reform:

Obama has never been serious about passing immigration reform. But he has been very adroit at using the unresolved issue to advance his own political interests.

In 2005, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain sponsored comprehensive legislation that would have made substantial improvements to border security, establish a guest-worker program, and give the 12 to 20 million immigrants now living here illegally a path to citizenship….

A bipartisan group of senators supporting the bill formed an informal caucus to help guide it successfully through Senate debate. They met every morning in a room just off the Senate chamber to discuss plans for defending the bill from amendments that would reduce its chances of passage. Then-Sen. Barack Obama asked to join in those discussions.

As an aide to McCain, I was in the room for every one of those meetings. It was my first opportunity to observe Obama closely. During those meetings, I never saw him engage in any discussion concerned with building a majority vote in favor of the legislation. In the meetings he attended, he would draw from his shirt pocket a 3×5 index card, on which he had written changes he insisted be made to the bill before he would support it. They were invariably the same demands made by the AFL-CIO, which was intent on watering down or killing the guest-worker provisions. Republicans and Democrats alike were irritated by his transparently self-interested behavior, but tried to negotiate with him. He remained adamant in his positions and unwilling to compromise.

2. ‘Syria: The Class Clash‘, Walter Raubeson, Foreign Policy Association

A colleague of mine who spent the last two years in Damascus has been covering the uprisings in Syria since they started. This particular piece discusses the role of classes in the current insurrection.

The ongoing coverage of the Syrian uprising has focused, mostly, on issues of sect, ethnicity, and political affiliation. “This is a sectarian issue! Sunnis vs Alawites vs Christians!!!” Or maybe…”It’s about Kurds vs Arabs!!!” Another favorite is…”It’s about Authoritarianism vs Islamism vs Liberalism!!!” Newspapermen seem to like fights.

The one issue that seems to be getting thrown under the bus, and what might just be most important in the Syrian context, is the issue of class.

3. ‘Mitt Romney: Obama’s Running Mate‘, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board rips into Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program, delivering what could be a devastating strike to his presidential aspirations:

“There’s a lot to learn from the failure of the ObamaCare model that began in Massachusetts, which is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers. Not that anyone would know listening to Mr. Romney. In the paperback edition of his campaign book “No Apology,” he calls the plan a “success,” and he has defended it in numerous media appearances as he plans his White House run….

The only good news we can find is that the uninsured rate has dropped to 2% today from 6% in 2006. Yet four out of five of the newly insured receive low- or no-cost coverage from the government. The subsidies will cost at least $830 million in 2011 and are growing, conservatively measured, at 5.1% a year. Total state health-care spending as a share of the budget has grown from about 16% in the 1980s to 30% in 2006 to 40% today. The national state average is about 25%.

The safety-net fund that was supposed to be unwound, well, wasn’t. Uncompensated hospital care rose 5% from 2008 to 2009, and 15% from 2009 to 2010, hitting $475 million (though the state only paid out $405 million). “Avoidable” use of emergency rooms—that is, for routine care like a sore throat—increased 9% between 2004 and 2008. Meanwhile, unsubsidized insurance premiums for individuals and small businesses have climbed to among the highest in the nation.

Like Mr. Obama’s reform, RomneyCare was predicated on the illusion that insurance would be less expensive if everyone were covered. Even if this theory were plausible, it is not true in Massachusetts today….

More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.”

4. ‘Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators‘, Marc Thiessmen, Washington Post

Just today, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he has “made a lot of progress” on the investigation of former CIA interrogators. Remember, all of these CIA officers have already undergone a federal investigation in which they cleanly passed.

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.” Now, it turns out that the very CIA interrogators whose lives Obama turned upside down played a critical role in what the president rightly calls “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

It is time for a public apology.

5. ‘History Lessons for Obama and Other Liberals‘, George will, Washington Post

Will brings some welcome historical perspective to the entitlement program debate, among other topics.

Responding to Ryan’s budget proposal, Obama said it “would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known certainly in my lifetime. In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what we’ve known throughout our history.”

Well. It is unclear what “fundamentally” means to Obama, but consider some possible metrics of what is, and is not, different than what we have known “throughout our history.” Ryan’s plan would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from the 2009-11 average of 24.4 to 19.9 in 10 years. It was not until the nation was 158 years old — in the Depression year of 1934, with the New Deal erupting — that peacetime federal spending topped 10 percent of GDP, and it did not reach 12 percent until the war preparations of 1941.

Ryan’s plan would alter Medicare. But Medicare has existed in its current configuration for only 46 of the nation’s 235 years.

The hysteria and hyperbole about Ryan’s plan arise, in part, from a poverty of today’s liberal imagination, an inability to think beyond the straight-line continuation of programs from the second and third quarters of the last century. It is odd that “progressives,” as liberals now wish to be called, have such a constricted notion of the possibilities of progress.

Liberals think Medicare and Social Security as they exist are “fundamental” to the nation’s identity. But liberals think the Constitution — which the Framers meant to be fundamental, meaning constituting, law — should be construed as a “living” document, continually evolving to take different meanings under whatever liberals consider new social imperatives.

Please feel free to offer your own recommendations or thoughts on ours in the comments.

'The name's Robert Gates, and I'm a damn fine Secretary of Defense'

In a speech to NATO officers at the National Defense University, US Secretary of State Robert Gates made this statement:

“The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

Gates went on to warn that the perception of European weakness could provide a “temptation to miscalculation and aggression” by hostile powers. These comments of course come on the heels of what appears to be a Dutch troop retreat from Afghanistan in the coming year. Gates went on to say that financial and man power shortcomings by many NATO members was “directly impacting operations” in Afghanistan. Also noted by Gates in his address, was the fact that only 5 of the 28 NATO members have reached the established target: 2 percent of gross domestic product for defense spending. Polls have shown a growing gulf between how Americans and Europeans see the world, and especially the use of force in international politics.

These are strong statements from a strong leader from NATO’s leading country and should not be taken lightly.

Looking from and IR theory standpoint, we have clear signs of realism and liberalism here. Realists would argue that of course the European states are bandwagoning and letting the United State foot the bill, both in lives and treasure. After all, it appears the Americans are willing to make the sacrifices in Afghanistan no matter the overall NATO commitment. Realists would also not be surprised to see Secretary Gates lament this situation. This current predicament also has strong IR liberal ties. To a certain extent, America’s European NATO partners live in a post-realist world, where international law, globalization of economic goods, technology, and ideas, and a greater emphasis on diplomacy are much more effective tools in fomenting world peace and stability. Of course, when one does not have a powerful military, promoting these facets, one’s you are strong in, just makes sense. As Robert Kagan has argued, the US wishes to live in this world with Europe, but is too busy facing a realist world with problems and actors that may require realist tools, such as the use of military force and deterrence. The US believes without the presence of such tools, as Gates states ‘achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st’ may not be possible.

Since Obama’s Cairo speech much has been written, but I would like to highlight three specific pieces that I feel provocatively tackle what the speech means to US foreign policy, more specifically, the way President Obama seeks to lead it, going forward.  All of these pieces to varying degrees discuss the importance of identity politics in Obama’s approach, very much seen in his Cairo speech.  I’m talking about Obama himself as an identity, Islam as an identity, and the US’s ‘changing identity’.  This in turn leads the authors to focus on how Obama believes that with a change in identity and approach, challenges facing the United States and international security (Iran, terrorism, Israel-Palestine, North Korea, Cuba, etc.) have a greater chance of being solved.  These writers open the door to what may become a serious facet of an Obama led foreign policy and they all come across concerned.  Here they are below, each with a short excerpt:

1. Robert Kagan’s Woodrow Wilson’s Heir -

Like Wilson’s, Obama’s foreign policy increasingly seems to rest on the assumption that nations will act on the basis of what they perceive to be the goodwill, good intentions or moral purity of other nations, in particular the United States. If other nations have refused to cooperate with us, it is because they perceive the United States as aggressive or evil. Obama’s job is to change that perception.

2. David J. Rothkopf’s On Equivalency: Introducing the President of Newton’s Third Law of Motion… -

The answer as to whether Obama ultimately lives up to our hopes or our fears come when his actions illustrate whether there are values we are not willing to negotiate, points that can’t be balanced, enemies we are willing to oppose, friends we are willing to stand by even when it is unpopular. Tell me the day that Obama is willing to make his first enemy in order to defend a deeply held principle and I will tell you the day he ascends from being a politician to being a statesman.

3. Christian Brose’s From One Cairo Speech to Another –

can’t help but feel frustrated that I’ve been watching Obama closely for more than two years now, and after an hour-long speech in Cairo today, I still don’t have a clear read of which way he’ll come down on the looming hard decisions for which there is no middle ground, try as he may to carve some out.

Alright, I’m pretty sure I’ve got you confused already by the title.  Let me explain, or at least attempt to. Much has been leaked that the upcoming Obama policy plan for Afghanistan will take a ‘minimalist‘ approach to the crucial, yet troubling security situation in South Asia.  In other words, Obama may downplay talk and attempts to create a democratic and prosperous Afghanistan, and instead aim for the creation of a stable country that can defend against extremists and terrorist elements at home and keep them from reaching abroad, especially to American shores.  Now at this moment this is no sure policy-thing, as the report has yet to be released and Obama has used heavy rhetoric and significant troop commitments to the country to possibly suggest otherwise.  

However, others have already given their views of what policy the US should follow in Kabul and beyond. Many of these voices are already calling Afghanistan ‘Obama’s Vietnam’, advocating a lessening of goals, and poll numbers show a surprisingly negative view of a US military presence in the country, with about 50% believing we should start drawing down troops immediately.  Some of these people raise valid and thoughtful arguments that can be quite persuasive.  IR scholar and arch realist Stephen Walt lays out the realist approach to US policy in Afghanistan quite well,  Here is his succinct description of US national interests in Afghanistan:

“We have only one vital national interest in Afghanistan: to prevent Afghan territory from being used as a safe haven for groups plotting attacks on American soil or on Americans abroad, as al Qaeda did prior to September 11. It might be nice to achieve some other goals too (such as economic development, better conditions for women, greater political participation, etc.), but these goals are neither vital to U.S. national security nor central to the future of freedom in the United States or elsewhere. Deep down, we don’t (or shouldn’t) care very much who governs in Afghanistan, provided they don’t let anti-American bad guys use their territory to attack us. As I recall, President Bush was even willing to let the Taliban stay in power in 2001 if they had been willing to hand us Osama and his henchmen.”

Indeed, there are many people in this country that are sympathetic to this reasoning.  But there also many who would fight it vigorously.  Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman, both strong advocates for the ‘surge’ in Iraq, call for a similar strategy and commitment for Afghanistan.  They unabashedly believe that if the US is truly committed it can ‘win’, that’s right ‘win’, in Afghanistan, and this would include helping build a strong, representative government along with defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  Here’s their side:

“The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success — a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary — can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever “middle way” that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security.”

They call on Obama to follow his campaign pledge that Afghanistan is a ”war we must win.”  The tone of the McCain-Lieberman is supportive, but also concerned, as you can tell they fear Obama may go the other way.  I call their approach ‘realist-liberal’ because they base their strategy on hard policies of more troops and political will, but have an end goal that Afghanistan become a pluralist, democratic state because that itself will help secure US national interests by keeping extremists marginalized.  Just like in Iraq, their argument basically states that if we take a minimalist approach in Afghanistan, we will just be back again and again.  This strategy is based on the belief that an open, democratic society will be more peaceful toward the US and its neighbors and through time erode extremism, all IR liberal viewpoints.  

Obama’s choice will probably be a tightrope between both of these policies.  His choice of language concerning the conflict will be vital.  Will he pledge to be there ’til the job is done’ or will he take a more subtle approach?  Americans will be listening, as the poll numbers show what they hear will be crucial, but even more important will be the fact that Afghans, Pakistanis, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban-led insurgents will be to.

A hot topic recently is Obama’s foreign policy ‘realism’. Now those who visit this site regularly already know that I’ve called Obama on his realism DAYS AGO! There are those who applaud this approach, arguing that the best foreign policy doctrine is not to have one. Then there are those who fear this outcome, asserting that one of America’s greatest assets is its promotion and defense of democracy and human rights.

This brings up two issues before we can argue for either side; 1. Has Obama truly shown himself a realist by his policies? 2. And is he really departing so completely from President Bush’s so-called ‘freedom agenda’? First off, I believe that all US presidents have been at least partially liberal in their world view, even those early presidents who lead a weak, fragile state at the time. That being said, it is not like these guys only had international liberalism in their bones, blood, and sinew, as they all followed the rules of power politics in most cases, from the Jay Treaty to the Bush’s partnership with Pervez Musharraf. Bush full heartedly tried to bring democracy to two despotic states, called the Darfur conflict a genocide, criticized the Burmese military dictatorship, gave prime time to political dissidents from China and elsewhere, and made many key speeches preaching the power of liberty and human rights. YET, he cozied up with dictators in Pakistan, Egypt, China, and Kazakhstan, used military force in pursuit of US interests, and disregarded many multilateral treaties. Bush was followed both a realist and liberal foreign policy.

Barack’s election rhetoric and policies so far have definitely trended more realist (and in many ways logically follow many of Bush’s policies). He has has openly stated he will negotiate with many dictator-run states (Iran, Syria, North Korea), put NATO expansion on hold, let Russia know that deals involving security trade offs could be made, treated Britain like it was just a ‘state’, rarely discusses the liberal threesome of liberty, democracy, and human rights in speeches, and his Sec of State Hilary Clinton stated that human rights would not get in the way of US-China relations. This being considered, Obama has also leaned liberal on many occasions. His emphasis on ‘talking’ and diplomacy are not just realist measures, but seem to him to be modern ways that conflicts are solved. He has also reached out to the Muslim world in a widely heard interview and plans on making a speech in a Muslim-majority country this year. Obama also showed his trust of international institutions and treaties by raising the US ambassador to the United Nations to a Cabinet Position and in his early discussions with Russia about arms reductions and Europe regarding climate change. But overall, I do agree with the aforementioned articles that Obama is mainly following a realist foreign policy so far. (of course so did Bush before 9/11)

I googled 'Realism vs. Liberalism' and this was the first picture that came up.

So should we be concerned or pleased about Obama’s realist leanings? I think, like when given the choice between chocolate and strawberry ice cream, a little of both. The realist attributes of cautiousness and pragmatism are indeed valuable and Obama seems keen on following them in many of his policies so far. International relations are indeed fraught with dangers of missteps and a realist viewpoint can prevent the US from unforeseen calamities and overzealousness. However, if the US becomes more and more just like another state, it not only denies what it has been for its entire history, a beacon of liberty and hope, but it may also undermine the growth of a stable world, which has made a steady climb in democratization. It is not an overstatement to say the current strength of democratic governance in the international system is held up by American leadership. Specifically, states in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, and Poland, in many ways have their sovereignty and free political system dependent on US/NATO engagement and protection. These states will not welcome the canceling of the missile defense system treaty or talk of NATO expansion quietly fading away. In terms of Afghanistan and Iraq’s governing future, Obama has already laid framework for a less than democratic outcome. I also hear loudly how much Obama has NOT spoken about the power of liberty, democracy, and human rights and I think this is a shame as the world is listening.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen poignantly quoted an Obama intro to one of theologian/realist theorist Reinhold Niebuhr’s books: “there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. We should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.”

This Monday I will ask my IR students to to identify realism and liberalism in current foreign affairs. A major exercise of this will be the following video of The Stanley Foundation’s Michael Schiffer, who discusses the attributes and consequences of Rising Powers in our world today for the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions program. I will ‘require’ my students to find elements of realism and liberalism in Schiffer’s talk about these great powers, and I ‘urge’ you to do the same in the comments section. What do you see in his discussion that is focus’s on states, their interests, their rationality, and their life in a self-help world? aka realism’s view of IR. Where does he emphasize IR liberal arguments and topics? International institutions, ideology, multilateral cooperation, economic integration, norms against war and narrow state interests, etc.? Go at it!

(The embed code isn’t working, so you have to click the link to watch the video.)

Link

Now I wouldn’t give you homework on a weekend without a reward would I? Yes. Yes, I would. But I won’t today. Tomorrow I’m going to do my first…….wait for it…….wait……GREAT POWER TOP 10 RANKING! At first this will be a quick, rather superficial analysis with results of the world’s great powers and how they compare, but it will evolve into a scientific system where each power is judged on specific criteria, economy, military, political influence, number of Taco Bells, etc. Tomorrow I will give a quick overview of how I came about with my choices and a quick summary of why each great power is ranked where they are. This list is my own, but I encourage your input and to see your own rankings. I plan on having these rankings updated on a monthly bases, taking into account recent foreign affairs changes or moves. With the help of my super Admin, we also plan on getting these rankings up permanently on the side bar and maybe even creating a way for you to voice your criticisms and much more likely, compliments. Now get back to work on Mr. Schiffer’s video!