START - Finished

What does START mean to you? For many of the new generations it means the little button you click in Microsoft Windows that gives you access to a bunch of programs not sitting on the desktop...

For older generations and the slim minority of newer generations that care about history, START is the STrategic Arms Reduction Talks that began on June 29, 1982 and culminated in an agreement with the USSR about Nuclear missile and material reduction in 1991. START II began in June 1992 and ended with President H.W. Bush and President Boris Yelstin's agreement in January 1993. START III was dead on arrival in 1997 and dealt a death blow by the George W Bush Administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Before I mention why I'm bringing up START let's talk about a strange trend that you can notice in that last paragraph.. did anything about the culmination of the START talks strike you as odd or telling? START I: Pres. Reagan brings it up, pushes it until it passes. START II: Pres. George HW Bush brings it up with the Russians, Pres. Clinton pushes it until it passes. START III: Offered by Russian diplomats, agreed to in principle by sane State Dept. diplomats, killed by Pres. GW Bush. Sad.. It is like we this Bush Administration has taken pride in wasting and throwing away all the good will and soft diplomatic power the US possessed and worked hard to gain. Hard work by Presidents and proud American men and women who toiled to step America up just one more step so that the next global generation would see America on a pedestal not in the dirt. Thanks, Dubya - you have spoiled and deserted their ideals then threw them out all in the name of a new American "power" - force and terror.

Well... Where was I before my diatribe? START! That's right, START is going to expire! START expires in December 2009. The United States and Russia are trying to come together to come to an agreement. There are a few, uh how to put this.... problems.

First, US diplomats have zero credibility or power because they represent a lame-duck President with less than 90 days to serve.

Second, this Bush Administration is more interested developing ABMS (Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems) and antagonizing the Russian Bear than it is willing to actually doing something truly courageous - working towards a more peaceful world.

Third, the Russians are looking to regain the Soviet glory of military power with no international restrictions (obviously they have rose-colored glasses on their hindsight along with a severe case of selective amnesia).

Fourth, there is a general disagreement as to exactly what a new START would cover - US diplomats want to limit the number of missiles period, the Russians would like to see a limit on warheads (there can be many of these per missile) and they want a limit on ABMS.

I hope that in the 11 months following the Presidential Inauguration that (then) President Obama will have the ability to multitask effectively and deal with the START talks seriously and with great care. As an aside - I do not believe that total disarmament should neither be a possibility nor a goal. The reduction of nuclear weapons will lend a hand to a more effective security between nations and will reduce the ability of rogue states or terrorists of getting their hands on Nuclear materials.

Have ideas? Share them here! Comment!

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

Blinking... sometimes a good thing!

During Sarah Palin's ABC interview with Charles Gibson she responded to a question about her style of response to terrorism with this gem: “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

Then the blinking came up again when asked about how she responded to being asked to be the VP on the GOP ticket: “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, you can’t blink.”

So what's the deal with all this blinking, or lack thereof? Is blinking so bad? Does she want us to all get dry, irritated eyes?

Sarah Palin was talking about resolve. The resolve she believes she and John McCain have in the face of any problem. That however causes me to stop a moment and wonder.. is not blinking really the best thing for our country?

I'll first deal with her second quote about she couldn't blink because she is "wired in a way of being so committed to the mission." What mission is that Gov. Palin? If I was being asked to possibly become the next Vice President of the United States, one heart beat away from the most powerful office in the world, I'd be sweating it! Am I ready? Am I the best fit? Am I doing this for me and my political career? What about my family? What about my children? Is this the best thing for the country?

It seems that Ms. Palin didn't ask herself those questions. She just said Yes because she is committed to her "mission." Now depending on what exactly that mission is I'm not sure what to say.. but I would suggest to her that she clarify her remarks.

To reply to those critics who will wonder if I'm treating her too harshly.. I say this: If you want to take the job of VP, hey, that's your decision but remember, we are voting for a ticket because we believe that not only do they have the right answers now but they also will have the right kind of judgement to make good decisions in the future.

To address her comment about leadership in the face of terrorism being exemplified in her viewpoint in "not blink[ing]... in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." That sounds great.. but is that really what you want? I hate to equate terrorism with any other action in a metaphor but I'll make an exception this time... If you are driving along and you realize you need to fill up your tank with gasoline do you: a) find the shortest route from your location to the gas station, and start driving like a maniac? b) try to get to the gas station as quickly as possible, following the posted signage and obeying speed limits?, or c) stop, idle the car,ponder the pros and cons of fossil fuels,slowly draw out a map to several gas stations, double check it, ask all your friends about it, sing with the radio, head to a fast-food joint and get some burgers, then if you remember, head to one or more of the gas stations?

If you chose A, then you are dangerously low on intelligence and will be involved in an accident or will end up in a lot of trouble before you get to your destination.

If you chose B, then you will get to your destination OK, although it may take a little longer you will still be alive, well, and safe.

If you chose C, then you overthink things, waffle, can't be trusted to be quick on your feet, and will probably fail to make any important decisions - in turn letting existing problems get out of hand while you are distracted with yourself.

To me Republicans seem to be gravitating to the bravado and feeling of real rapid response of choice A while Democrats in a move to accentuate their differences are moving towards choice C. Let's not forget that Democrats have gotten and kept the US in a lot more wars then Republicans.. Think about it, Democrats: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam vs. Republicans: Civil War, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II. I know many of those were provoked.. but it just goes to show that the word democrat didn't always translate into 'peacenik'.

Back to McCain/Palin and their aversion to blinking... they seem a little to eager to prove themselves as great generals instead of trying to prove to us that they are a good statesman/stateswoman team. I know there aren't fireworks or a parade when you negotiate and deal to avert disaster or war but it sure beats the sorrow knowing that your failure to do so meant even one scratch on a soldier, whose job it is to protect the United States not fight for presidential legacies. I am by no means saying that I'm a pacifist, what I am saying is that sometimes words and a carrot and stick can do wonders that a sledgehammer can't.

In conclusion, taking a moment to think can be a good thing.

Links:
Gov. Palin’s Worldview - NY Times

Iraq and Her Suiters.. Cheating on the US

When you take your eye off the ball chances are you are gonna get a pitch thrown right into your face. When the cat is away the mice will play. Ah... you get the point.

The United States is beginning to lose its grip.. in the past couple months we've seen that allover the world things are happening that wouldn't happen at any other time except Election season in the US. You think Mugabe would be beating up his rivals, Georgia could be invaded and then partially-occupied, Serbians would muscle their neighbors, or Iraq would be openly cavorting with Iran if the United States was at full strength in terms of foreign relations? Probably not.. or at least not as openly as they are doing it now. I've said it before.. I'll say it again, this President Bush has undone so much of what his father did its like one Bush wiped out his father's legacy and then dragged it through the mud. Sad.


Back to the issue at hand... Iraq... and China. Now what would China want with a bunch of sand and Arabs? Perhaps they want one-humped Arabian camels to complement their two-humped ones? No.. perhaps they want a bunch of goo that is beneath the sand and is one of the major supplies needed to run a regional or global superpower? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right!

Iraq signed a three billion dollar ($3B) oil contract with China to export crude and service one of their oil fields as a continuation of a deal made with Saddam Hussein in 1997. The Chinese national oil company will first import oil at a laughably low amount then eventually more than quadrupling that amount. China is the first country (besides the US) to sign a deal with Iraq on oil fields and exports since the Iraq War began. Scary. It seems the best way into the "loyal" Iraqi government's heart is a whole lotta green paper. The oil contract according to officials and sources on both sides is just the tip of the iceberg with China looking to drain every drop of oil out of Iraq as quickly as it can to feed its exploding demand for the stuff. China has turned up its foreign policy charm since 2005 in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia trying to get its hands on natural resources to keep the dragon at home satiated as it grows at a phenomenal rate - an average of 9.9% since 1978! China had approached the Iraqis before but the Iraqis backed off at the last moment about the oil issue because of problems with the oil revenue sharing plan and US pressure to keep all the oil contracts coming their way (or at least to Halliburton.. which is now Headquartered in Dubai). China, however, is relentless when it sees something it wants.. even if it means waiting until the perfect moment when the US have their sights all set at home instead of abroad.

If you've read this blog in the past you might accuse me of just repeatedly attacking the Iraqi government or perhaps the Chinese one.. this is not the case. The Chinese government has every right and logical reason to seek to secure resources as it vies to become stronger and perhaps a superpower... however it is the role of the United States to if not deter competition to keep up and stay far ahead for their own national interests. The Iraqi government deserve my complaints and ire because they are seemingly getting a free pass only because they were installed by a country that just happens to have 130,000 troops around and it would look really bad to throw them out after you hailed them as modern saviors to democracy and Thomas Jeffersons of the Middle East.... they are more like Benedict Arnolds, and even he had more honor and dignity.

Iraq has taken advantage of the loss of American focus to sign deals with Iran, Russia, China, and a withdrawal plan with the US. Sounds like someone is ready to move out.. and play with the big boys. Some call the US an empire and Iraq a colony but it looks like this colony is already cheating with our adversaries.. and all it has left for the US is a flirty "good bye!"

Links:
China hails three-billion-dollar oil deal with Iraq - AFP
China, Iraq reach $3 billion oil service deal - AP

Kick Russia out of G-8? Bad Idea

Big Bad Russia. The New Russian Empire. The Crazy Bears. Sovietskis. The Cold War is Back.

All these things are currently being said about Russia in the continuing aftermath of the Georgian invasion and South Ossetian conflict. We've learned something about the character of today's Russia that we previously suspected but didn't have solid actions as proof for: Russia is being reborn and it is hungry. The Russian Bear is ready to tussle with anyone who gets in its way. Currently the Russians are keeping it local and safe, preying on breakaway provinces and nearby neighbors who aren't a part of NATO and aren't too close to China or the US.

So... how do we punish Russia? Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Graham (R-SC), both surrogates for Sen. McCain's Presidential bid, are advocating removing Russia from the G-8. Hmm.. seems reactionary and not very well thought out. This is the kind of politics that could have worked eighty or more years ago but nowadays you need to do like the mafia and keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We need to basically be sleeping with Russia (and China) so we can monitor them and be able to influence their actions more. I know that for you academics out there it sounds like I've taken a liberal (in the Kantian use of the word) position however my realism is still intact, worry not.

One of the many lessons taught to us by the successful foreign policies of the Reagan Administration was that engagement doesn't have to mean capitulation or even compromise. When Reagan and H.W. Bush met with Gorbachev it created a personal connection that kept a dialogue open and both sides were open with their criticisms of the other. Much the same must exist for the Russians and Chinese. In Russia's case it was a lack of effective dialogue and a distracted Administration that allowed the Georgian Crisis to come to a head without US intervention of any kind. In the end French President Sarkozy looks like a hero brokering the peace deal that exists. The US did not even send an serious diplomatic mission or a contigent of Senators until long after the deal was agreed to on both sides. Sad.

Kicking the Russia out of the G-8 is not just a terrible idea, it's also impossible. Try to get the other members to agree to expelling Russia, not going to happen. First off, let's face it - Russia is sitting on an oil well and they can pump it out faster than any other country in the world. They may not have enormous reserves but they sure do have the infrastructure to get it out of the ground and into a barrel quickly. No one wants to mess with an oil country right now... especially now. Second, everyone else in the G-8 is a part of NATO. Kicking Russia severs an important international forum for Russia and NATO to keep the dialogue running. Lastly, It is just waaaay to rash. It is as if the US is throwing a tantrum whenever things in the international area don't go it's way. Just because we can't control things like we used to doesn't mean we need to go out and lose our heads. Keep your cool and try to figure out how to get back on top or maybe just further up then anyone one else...

Smart Foreign Policy will lead to a Smarter and Strong America.


Links:

Lieberman: Kick Russia out of G-8 - Think Progress

Medvedev to World: I'm just imitating Bush!

One thing you might learn about in Law School is a little something called 'precedent.' According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Precedent" is an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances and according to dictionary.com it is any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations. This isn't an English lesson though, its just a clarification. When you do something and declare that it is legitimate then in the future when someone copies you it is difficult to object without looking hypocritical. Case in point: Georgia/Russia and Iraq/US.



Both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are claiming that the invasion into Georgia and the subsequent bombing campaign are very much in line with the international precedent created by President Bush in Iraq because they claim they are only protecting the people of provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia from "oppression and tyranny" of the Georgian government. Hmm... at least those two are sticking to that story instead of concocting some intelligence about a nuclear program. What can President Bush say to that? Not much.



President Bush, along with political leaders and thinkers from the Right and Left, are very worried about this military strong-arming into the Caucuses Region by Russia. The problem paritally contributed to the fact that the United States has always been looked at as a progressive leader in Human Rights and International diplomacy (which was good) and then now it seems that even with diminishing global reach we have created a precedent in a world that we are less able to control. Twenty or even ten years ago when the US wanted something to be stopped.. I mean seriously wanted an international action to stop, it could have its magic hand and threaten beligerants with something that would really hurt. Nowadays the US is mired in two international conflicts, talking about a third one, has a housing/banking crisis, dealing with record high oil prices, and has seemingly lost its grip of international organizations. Reapetedly discrediting the UN in 2003, the Bush Administration unwittingly shot itself in the foot, losing one of the best legitimizers of American power and instruments of Western foreign policy.

While the US stagnates its power (and loses some as well) the rest of the world are racing to get just a little closer to the hegemonic level the US has achieved. Russia is resurgent, China is booming, India is growing, the EU is consolidating and expanding, but still there is no greater power than US foreign policy... unfortunetly we have set a terrible precedent and it will take at least five years to undo the damage.

Links:

Georgia-Russia: Medvedev speaks to the world - CNN
Overview of Georgian Conflict - Wikipedia

Georgia invaded by Russian Military

Save the Peaches.. ok, but seriously this is a problem.

Since the mid-nineties the break-away country of Georgia has been at odds with the Russian Empire Federation. The dispute has been about an region called Ossetia, whose people believe that they are more Russian than Georgian and thus use Russian currency and speak Russian. Since their call for independence from the newly independent Georgia problems have been brewing...

This flare-up should really send a message to the Global Community, especially the European Union, that "New" Russia is just "Old" Russia with a PR department. Remember back in the day (or perhaps you've just studied it, like me) when the ol' USSR would decide it needed to crush a thorn in its side it would just roll in the tanks and claim it was just taking care of a problem in its "sphere of influence" - that was the old way... The new style of Russian foreign policy is just a little tweaked but basically the same. Let's walk through it together:

1. Russian Leader wakes up... there are problems allover the place (mostly created by his own corrupt regime and mafia control)
2. Russian Leader decides that he ought to solve a problem, scare all his rivals at the same time, and give the people something to cheer about in a nationalistic way
3. Russian leader points the a surrounding country on a map where there have been some problems and tells his military leaders to invade it
4. Russian leader and his foreign ministry fabricate a story about said tiny country's efforts to "abuse" the human rights of Russians or "interfere" with Russian interests
5. (If possible) Tie that country in with the War on Terror
6. Issue strict ultimatums and impossible conditions and call it all 'diplomatic talks and failing to find a diplomatic solution due to a lack of cooperation on the opposite side'
7. Remind people that all Russia is doing is just protecting its people and their interests
8. Russian Leader waits for the opportune time (preferably while everyone else is watching some kind of global spectacle) to launch the invasion
9. Invade
10. Try to block out the news, deny anything wrong is going on, , and then ignore foreign criticisms
11. Repeat claims of protecting interests
12. Continue blasting the living daylights out of target country
13. At some randomly decided time: stop, declare victory, and have a massive military parade through Moscow

There you go! The "New" Russian model for invasions of neighboring sovereign countries. In the USSR you just had steps 1, 9, 10, 12, and 13.

The truly sad thing about this new Georgian incursion is that Russia has been harassing this poor little country for years including cutting off their gas and oil supplies. That's harsh! In the age of live coverage and hyper-media reactions it seems the Olympics have acted as an override switch to the news of hundreds, possibly thousands, of villagers and civilians being slaughtered by nearly round-the-clock bombings of civilian and military targets. The airports and roads have been crushed and a long line of at least two hundred tanks and armored personnel carriers have been seen entering the country according to recent reports but hey... I'd rather talk about Micheal Phelps or that Chinese hurdler! I guess Russia still knows when to orchestrate an attack when no one will care about some 'insignificant' country... sad. Very sad, indeed.

I will try to keep track of this story and keep you all posted if possible.

Whelp.. I guess I'll just sit around here and wait for the KGB to come and eliminate me. Until next time, please leave some comments for you comrade in arms.