Palin is an insult to the American people - Hagel

Politics is not for the weak minded or easily upset.

These days we see politicians tiptoeing around issues, being evasive and ambiguous, and giving us party lines that obscure the real issues. There are a few exception however.. one of them is Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

I give a minimal amount of respect to every elected official then I either add or subtract admiration based on their behavior. For the gold standard in today's political world for a true statesman, I turn to Senator Chuck Hagel. That being said, I listen to what he says.. and boy, did he say a lot!

Sen. Hagel may be a close personal friend of Senator John McCain but Hagel doesn't pull punches when it comes to his views on the McCain campaign and especially, as we found out, about Gov. Sarah Palin's readiness to take the No. 2 job in the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government.

His major bone to pick with Palin was that she was trying to appear knowledgeable on foreign policy and international relations. I suppose Hagel, like the rest of reasonable Americans, doesn't believe that the proximity of your state to another country counts as "experience". He had this to say:

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,' that kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

Next, he slammed her so-called international experience which includes a visit to Kuwait & Germany (to visit the Alaska National Guard troops), and a fueling stopover in Ireland. [After this interview it was confirmed that, at the request of John McCain, Sarah Palin will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York] Senator Hagel definitely wasn't impressed with her 'traveling experience' with that either:

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

His argument against Palin was definitely not one based on her domestic issue understanding or social values but more about her ability to lead. These next two quotes say it all:

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

Think about it... and tell me if you agree/disagree.


Links:

Sen. Hagel doubts Palin's ready - Omaha World Herald

Trip Report Card (Part One)

Of course we couldn't let the Obama-thon World Tour go without analyzing just a little bit... So we officially present to you:

The Obama World Tour Report Card

In the interest of not re-hashing everything that has been on every cable-news channel and news report for the past two weeks this will be a quick strike report card. Quick, clear, and fair. What did Senator Barack Obama want out of his destination, what he got, where that got him, and a Grade. An overall grade is given at the end.

Kuwait

What was the objective: Land the plane somewhere "safe", Visit the troops, feign watchers into thinking he was going to Iraq
What actually happened: Visited troops, didn't play basketball because he was hurt
Problems: Low media reporting (in part due to clamping down on information about his next destination), not a lot of coverage of him with the troops (besides the picture above and a few more)
Grade: C-, people barely even know he was there.. or that he visited the troops there.

Afghanistan

What was the objective: Face time with President Hamid Karzai; Talk about importance of "original" War on Terror
What actually happened: Superb photo-op of Obama (walking with Karzai) looking presidential (above); Obama appears to be brave arriving days after 9 US troops are killed in Afghanistan; visits Bagram Airbase
Problems: Not a lot of face time with troops or commanders; only stays in safest part of Kabul; email about his alleged disrespect on his visit to Bagram sets the blogosphere on fire
Grade: B+/A-, First real coverage and pictures broadcast in the US show a confident Obama, followed by Sen. Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Reed (D-R.I.) talking with President Karzai and looking very much at home

Iraq

What was the objective: Prove his plan on Iraq is based on facts on the ground, meet with US Generals, meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister (and have him agree with the 16-month plan); battle McCain ads bringing up his two-year absence from Iraq
What actually happened: Picture perfect. Another Superb Photo of Obama, Gen. Petraeus , and Hagel in a copter over Baghdad; Iraqi PM al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama again.. (this time accompanied by a press conference)
Problems: Sticks around the Green Zone
Grade: A-/A, sticks to his message and seems genuinely Presidential while chatting with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi PM

Jordan

What was the objective: Visit an Arab Ally in the region, Meet with the King of Jordan - Abdullah II, Talk about Mid-East Peace
What actually happened: Met with the King (another great Photo-Op), got Chauffeured by the King (in his Mercedes S600 S-Guard), got lectured on the history and imperatives of Middle-East Peace, visited the ancient Amman Citadel (pictured above - Hagel on right, Reed on Left)
Problems: Getting told what to do by a King without actually being President sort-of hurt, talking about democracy and then visiting and commending a Monarchy is a bit ironic
Grade: B+, not very high-publicity visit but looked very comfortable in the Royal setting and fluent in Middle-East concerns.

Israel

What was the objective: Calm American Jewish concerns that he is not Pro-Israel enough, appear interested in solving the Israeli-Palestinian question
What actually happened: Met with PM Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak (pictured above - on left), and FM Tzipi Livini(pictured above - on right); visits a Holocaust Museum (and looks moved); goes to the West Wall wearing a Yarmulke
Problems: Had conflicting messages about his view for Jerusalem, his youth creates the impression that he is not fully aware of the long painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Grade: C, meh.. he didn't do too bad but it seemed too formulaic without much real substance.


To be continued...

Please leave comments! Part II is coming withing a couple days.

Speak of the Taliban.. there they are!

Chaos in the streets. Men with automatic weapons and mortars. Attacks on diplomats and top government officials. People fleeing in terror. Military patrols and checkpoints allover.

Sounds like an average day in Baghdad, but this was in fact the scene in Afghanistan after a failed attempt on the life of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, high-ranking government officials, and diplomats during a celebration over the triumph over the Soviets. Approximately six Taliban sympathizers came out of a building or possibly were hiding behind a barricade and armed with automatic weapons and mortars began firing on the dignitaries. Most news reports say that 3 people were killed and a few dozen wounded by the attack.

The question however remains that after Karzai reacts initially to this attack how will he react to this brazen attack. This attack bears a very striking resemblance to the 1981 attack on Anwar Sadat of Egypt with killed the Egyptian leader and led to a state-of-emergency that remains until today. Will Karzai, who just two days ago told the US military to stop going after Taliban militants, gravitate towards martial law and strengthen his executive power or will he focus on pinpoint raids and arrests of Taliban militants?

Tragedy of this type puts Afghanistan at a crossroads, what will they do about militants of the opposition? Can they move beyond putting down rebellions and opposition using blunt-force or do they still have some maturation as a nation to go?

Liberal or illiberal Democracy, Karzai. You decide.


Links:

CNN Story Here
StrongModerate's Story on Karzai's demand of US military Here

Afghan President: Stop Killing Taliban

What is politics if not just a random mess of relationships and interests?

Yesterday in a interview with the New York Times, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that coalition (NATO) forces, especially US forces, stop targeting and killing Taliban militants because they are killing civilians. He suggests that the US military go after "terror sanctuaries" in the wildly unstable Pakistani frontier lands across the Afghan border.

What does this all mean though?

Does he like terrorism and the Taliban now? Has he entered some kind of unholy alliance with his enemies? The answer to those questions is No. What did happen was that like any politician when you start seeing an election coming up you must ruffle your feathers and sing to the tune of the electorate. The Afghan elections are just around the corner and one of the top issues on Afghan minds is being more independent AND reducing the number of casualties from military strikes of villages. On the issue of further sovereign independence (at least topically) Karzai absolutely needs the US and NATO troops in his country to hold it all together because his Afghan Army is weaker than most militias in Iraq, so Karzai instead of enacting real change that would anger his closest allies he has opted to try to solve the problem by changing the image of the US forces.

The Taliban are still out there and attacking Afghan targets but there is no way that any military action will oust them from their positions in Afghanistan and Pakistan . The only way to oust a political foe who is among the people is have the people turn against them, and with significant amounts of villagers and innocent civilians being killed by US air strikes the people are angry at the US military and the government for not protecting them. So, Karzai's move is partially targeted towards answering the people's cry for help and partially targeted towards bringing down the popularity of Taliban and other renegade forces in the far reaches of his country. He figures, most logically, that if the majority of Afghan casualties are caused by Taliban attacks (such as one of the most recent on a police station) the people will slowly turn against them, and according to every piece of military literature (including the US War College's study on insurgency) when an insurgency loses the backing of the people it will fade out of existence very quickly.

However, I know a few of you reading this must be outraged wondering how this "peaceful" approach would ever work against groups who are so ideologically driven to kill people. My approach to the problem would be more two-pronged, part precise military intervention and part peaceful interaction. The US military is a beautiful machine of force, capable of either leveling a country or two simultaneously or silently putting a bullet in someone with ever being detected. The military is currently using its big hammer to crush targets in Afghanistan, which is not the best instrument to use when it comes to an insurgency-like movement. Instead the US military and coalition forces should be focusing on Special Operations (even more) in order to exact scalpel-like efficiency in removing and arresting the Taliban's key members, and to keep civilians happy, publicize the Afghan Army's a role in them.

Terrorists must be dealt with no doubt, but air strikes and large show of force attacks do more to help insurgencies by scaring and killing civilians.

Links:

New York Times article: Here
MSNBC Story: On Karzai's Comments
CNN Story: On the Afghan Police attacked