Friday, October 23, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
It is a Conflict of Ideas & Wills before everything
or, when you are cursed with such pointless enemies.......
The Afghan Stakes
A U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would have terrible consequences in the war on terror.
By BRET STEPHENS, Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2009
So George Will has noticed that Afghanistan is a backward place ill-suited to nation-building, and Nicholas Kristof thinks that war is a tricky, dirty business, and Tom Friedman is hedging his bets on yet another conflict he once supported but which now disturbs his moral equilibrium.
Thus do three paladins of the right, left and center combine to erode support for a war that, if lost, would be to the United States roughly what the battle of Adrianople in 378 A.D. —you can look it up—was to the Roman Empire. Things did not go well for Western civilization for 1,100 or so years thereafter.
Overstated? I don't think so.
The simplistic case for NATO's mission in Afghanistan is that it's the country that harbored al Qaeda when the plans for 9/11 were hatched.
The simplistic rebuttal is that nothing prevents al Qaeda from planning another attack from another country, if not in the Pakistan hinterland then perhaps in Somalia or Yemen—and the U.S. has no plans to physically occupy any of these places.
Ergo, goes the argument, we should "offshore" our military and intelligence capabilities so we can strike at will while leaving Afghans to their own incompetent and tragic devices.
But Afghanistan matters not because that's where 9/11 was conceived. It matters because that's where it was imagined.
In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. A little less than a decade later, the Soviets left, humiliated and defeated. Within months the Berlin Wall fell and two years later the USSR was no more. Westerners may debate whether credit for these events belongs chiefly to Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Charlie Wilson or any number of people who stuck a needle in the Soviet balloon. But in Islamist mythology, it was Afghan and Arab mujahedeen who brought down the godless superpower. And if one superpower could be brought down, why not the other?
You can’t “offshore” a handshake.
Put simply, it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that laid much of the imaginative groundwork for 9/11. So imagine the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists—and the possibilities that would open up to them—if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn.
Notion One: Attacks on the scale of 9/11 are by no means fatal to the cause of radical Islam. On the contrary, despite the huge losses the movement has suffered over the past eight years, it would emerge from a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan with something it was denied in Iraq: a monumental political and ideological victory from which it could recruit a new field of avid jihadists. Ergo, further attacks on the U.S. homeland could yield similar long-term benefits.
Notion Two: The U.S. has no stomach for long-term counterinsurgency. Ergo, surrender or political accommodation to apparent U.S. military success is pointless; if you hold out long enough, they leave and you win.
Notion Three: The U.S. is not prepared to stand by its clients in the Third World if it believes those clients are morally tainted. That happened to South Vietnam's Nguyen Van Thieu, it happened to the Shah of Iran and, if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, it will happen to the lamentable Hamid Karzai. Ergo, other shaky or dubious U.S. allies in the Muslim world—Algeria, for instance, or, yes, Saudi Arabia—are prime targets for renewed assault.
Notion Four: A U.S. that doesn't have the stomach for a relatively easy fight like Afghanistan, where even now casualties are a fraction of what they were in Iraq during the worst of the fighting, will have even less stomach for much tougher fights. Ergo, maximum efforts should go into destabilizing and, not implausibly, taking over Pakistan, a country that, as Mr. Will says, "actually matters."
And from here the possibilities flow.
1/ Withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Taliban takeover in Kandahar and perhaps Kabul, would plunge Afghanistan into another civil war infinitely bloodier than what we have now.
2/ Withdrawal would force Islamabad to abandon its war on terror and again come to terms with its own militants, as it did in the 1990s. Only this time, it wouldn't be clear who is patron and who is client.
3/ Withdrawal would give Pakistan's jihadists the freedom to shift fronts to India, with all the nightmare scenarios that entails.
4/ Withdrawal would invite the al Qaeda remnant in Iraq—already on an upswing—to redouble its efforts, and do so with the confidence that the U.S. has permanently soured on Middle Eastern interventions.
This is a partial list. The alternative is a winding and bloody struggle to defend and improve a hapless and often corrupt government in a godforsaken land of often (though by no means pervasively) ungrateful people. This is not the noblest fight, and no sane nation would wage it by choice. But we did not choose it and, if we keep our nerve, we can win it. Otherwise, the consequence will be ashes flying again in our own streets, something to remember on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary.
..
About Bret Stephens.
Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's "Global View" column on foreign affairs, which runs every Tuesday in the U.S. and is also published in the European and Asian editions of the paper.
He is a member of the Journal's editorial board, and has previously worked for the paper as an assistant editorial features (op-ed) editor in New York and as an editorial writer in Brussels for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
From March 2002 to October 2004 Mr. Stephens was editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28. At the Post, he was responsible for the paper's news and editorial divisions. He also wrote a weekly column. In 2004, Mr. Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he is also a media fellow.
He is the recipient of a prize for commentary from the South Asian Journalists Association for his coverage of the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, and of the Frank Knox Media Award for his coverage of U.S. military affairs.
He is the 2008 winner of the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism. Raised in Mexico City and educated at The University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.
The Afghan Stakes
A U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would have terrible consequences in the war on terror.
By BRET STEPHENS, Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2009
So George Will has noticed that Afghanistan is a backward place ill-suited to nation-building, and Nicholas Kristof thinks that war is a tricky, dirty business, and Tom Friedman is hedging his bets on yet another conflict he once supported but which now disturbs his moral equilibrium.
Thus do three paladins of the right, left and center combine to erode support for a war that, if lost, would be to the United States roughly what the battle of Adrianople in 378 A.D. —you can look it up—was to the Roman Empire. Things did not go well for Western civilization for 1,100 or so years thereafter.
Overstated? I don't think so.
The simplistic case for NATO's mission in Afghanistan is that it's the country that harbored al Qaeda when the plans for 9/11 were hatched.
The simplistic rebuttal is that nothing prevents al Qaeda from planning another attack from another country, if not in the Pakistan hinterland then perhaps in Somalia or Yemen—and the U.S. has no plans to physically occupy any of these places.
Ergo, goes the argument, we should "offshore" our military and intelligence capabilities so we can strike at will while leaving Afghans to their own incompetent and tragic devices.
But Afghanistan matters not because that's where 9/11 was conceived. It matters because that's where it was imagined.
In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. A little less than a decade later, the Soviets left, humiliated and defeated. Within months the Berlin Wall fell and two years later the USSR was no more. Westerners may debate whether credit for these events belongs chiefly to Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Charlie Wilson or any number of people who stuck a needle in the Soviet balloon. But in Islamist mythology, it was Afghan and Arab mujahedeen who brought down the godless superpower. And if one superpower could be brought down, why not the other?
You can’t “offshore” a handshake.
Put simply, it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that laid much of the imaginative groundwork for 9/11. So imagine the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists—and the possibilities that would open up to them—if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn.
Notion One: Attacks on the scale of 9/11 are by no means fatal to the cause of radical Islam. On the contrary, despite the huge losses the movement has suffered over the past eight years, it would emerge from a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan with something it was denied in Iraq: a monumental political and ideological victory from which it could recruit a new field of avid jihadists. Ergo, further attacks on the U.S. homeland could yield similar long-term benefits.
Notion Two: The U.S. has no stomach for long-term counterinsurgency. Ergo, surrender or political accommodation to apparent U.S. military success is pointless; if you hold out long enough, they leave and you win.
Notion Three: The U.S. is not prepared to stand by its clients in the Third World if it believes those clients are morally tainted. That happened to South Vietnam's Nguyen Van Thieu, it happened to the Shah of Iran and, if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, it will happen to the lamentable Hamid Karzai. Ergo, other shaky or dubious U.S. allies in the Muslim world—Algeria, for instance, or, yes, Saudi Arabia—are prime targets for renewed assault.
Notion Four: A U.S. that doesn't have the stomach for a relatively easy fight like Afghanistan, where even now casualties are a fraction of what they were in Iraq during the worst of the fighting, will have even less stomach for much tougher fights. Ergo, maximum efforts should go into destabilizing and, not implausibly, taking over Pakistan, a country that, as Mr. Will says, "actually matters."
And from here the possibilities flow.
1/ Withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Taliban takeover in Kandahar and perhaps Kabul, would plunge Afghanistan into another civil war infinitely bloodier than what we have now.
2/ Withdrawal would force Islamabad to abandon its war on terror and again come to terms with its own militants, as it did in the 1990s. Only this time, it wouldn't be clear who is patron and who is client.
3/ Withdrawal would give Pakistan's jihadists the freedom to shift fronts to India, with all the nightmare scenarios that entails.
4/ Withdrawal would invite the al Qaeda remnant in Iraq—already on an upswing—to redouble its efforts, and do so with the confidence that the U.S. has permanently soured on Middle Eastern interventions.
This is a partial list. The alternative is a winding and bloody struggle to defend and improve a hapless and often corrupt government in a godforsaken land of often (though by no means pervasively) ungrateful people. This is not the noblest fight, and no sane nation would wage it by choice. But we did not choose it and, if we keep our nerve, we can win it. Otherwise, the consequence will be ashes flying again in our own streets, something to remember on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary.
..
About Bret Stephens.
Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's "Global View" column on foreign affairs, which runs every Tuesday in the U.S. and is also published in the European and Asian editions of the paper.
He is a member of the Journal's editorial board, and has previously worked for the paper as an assistant editorial features (op-ed) editor in New York and as an editorial writer in Brussels for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
From March 2002 to October 2004 Mr. Stephens was editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28. At the Post, he was responsible for the paper's news and editorial divisions. He also wrote a weekly column. In 2004, Mr. Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he is also a media fellow.
He is the recipient of a prize for commentary from the South Asian Journalists Association for his coverage of the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, and of the Frank Knox Media Award for his coverage of U.S. military affairs.
He is the 2008 winner of the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism. Raised in Mexico City and educated at The University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
When you are fed-up desperate & no one to help you
And your Government - as usual - Does Not Care the Shet about your Fate.....
Captive Egyptians defeat Somali pirates, sail free
Using machetes and guns, the men fought a desperate battle to take control of two boats off the Somali coast. But this time, it wasn't pirates who launched the attack — it was Egyptian fishermen who had been held hostage for four months and who killed two brigands and took others captive as they regained control of their vessels.
On Friday, the roughly three dozen newly liberated fishermen sailed toward home. One pirate was in custody in Somalia after local fishermen found him near shore with machete wounds, police said.
Another pirate, who said he escaped during the fight on Thursday, described the struggle in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
"They attacked us with machetes and other tools, seized some of our guns and then fought us," said the pirate who identified himself only his nom de guerre, Miraa. "I could see two dead bodies of my colleagues lying on the ship. I do not know the fate of the nine others."
"They attacked us with machetes and other tools, seized some of our guns and then fought us," said the pirate who identified himself only his nom de guerre, Miraa. "I could see two dead bodies of my colleagues lying on the ship. I do not know the fate of the nine others."
The fishermen on both vessels coordinated their attack and some of the pirates even cooperated with them, making it easier for the other gunmen to be overpowered, said Mohamed Alnahdi, the executive manager of Mashrq Marine Product, which had hired the fishing boats.
"The crew on both boats started their operations at one time. They were coordinating among themselves," he told the AP in a telephone interview from Bossaso, a Somali town where he spent more than a month trying to negotiate the fishermen's' release.
Alnahdi, whose company is based in Yemen, said the ransom talks deadlocked Thursday, with him offering $200,000 but the pirates demanding $1.5 million.
The Ahmed Samara and Momtaz 1fishing boats sailed Friday for Yemen, where the crews were to hand over the captured pirates. The crew will then fly home to Egypt, said Mohammad Nasr, owner of the Ahmed Samara.
The struggle took place off the coastal town of Las Qorey along the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest waterways. It is infested with Somali pirates.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Clues about Metastasis
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
[May 6th 2009]
Researchers Identify Genes that Drive Breast Cancer’s Spread to the Brain
Researchers have uncovered the first genetic clues that suggest how invasive breast cancer cells pry their way into the tightly protected interior of the brain, where they can grow into new and lethal tumors.
Studies indicate that those renegade cancer cells use some of the same strategies that other breast cancer cells rely on to invade the lungs – but also need more specialized molecular tools to infiltrate the brain.
Metastasis occurs when cells from a primary tumor break off and invade another organ. It is the deadliest transformation that a cancer can undergo, and is the cause of 90 % of all cancer deaths. Metastases to the brain –
usually from breast or lung cancers -- can be particularly devastating.
Even with treatment, patients usually survive only six to 10 months after diagnosis.
"Metastasis is what we fight with post-operative therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, yet very little is known about the mechanisms that drive it"
Some cancerous cells, such as lung cancer cells, seem well equipped to invade multiple tissues soon after a tumor develops. But for breast cancer cells, metastasis takes time. When breast cancer spreads to distant organs, new tumors may not appear until years – or even decades -- after the original tumor has been removed from the breast. Massagué says this indicates that breast cancer cells do not become fully metastatic until they accumulate the
genetic alterations that allow them to infiltrate new tissues and survive in that environment. “If metastasis occurs, the primary tumor must have released cells that were competent to be released and to hide away,” he said. “However, when they were released, they evidently did not yet have everything that it takes to grow in the bones, or the lungs, or the brain. It may take years to acquire that capacity.”
Breast cancer metastases to the brain develop even more slowly than metastases to other organs. Massagué says this suggests that cells need a particularly specialized set of tools to enter and grow in the brain. This should not come as a surprise, he says, because the brain is well protected by a tightly woven, double-layered network of cells called the blood-brain barrier.
Massagué’s lab had already demonstrated that metastatic breast cancer cells acquire certain genetic characteristics that permit them to invade and survive in different organs, such as bone or lung. He likens cancer cells’ adaptation to
these tissues to the evolution of different species of finches in the Galápagos Islands. Like the birds, whose beaks are shaped to best exploit the food source on individual islands, metastatic breast cancer cells acquire the specific properties they need to survive in a particular environment, Massagué says.
To find out which genetic adaptations are associated with brain metastases, the group implanted tumor cells from a patient with advanced breast cancer into mice. They later isolated cells that generated tumors in the brains of the
mice.
The scientists measured gene activity in the metastatic cells and found 243 genes whose expression appeared abnormal.
They next measured the activity of those 243 genes in clinical tumor samples and narrowed their focus to 17 genes associated with brain metastases.
“Cells that have these genes activated are better ready to invade the brain of a mouse,” Massagué explained. “We also found that patients whose primary tumors have these genes activated have a higher rate of brain metastases.”
“These results show that for entry into the brain tissue, breast cancer cells use some of the genes that they use to penetrate into the lung, but then some more.
They are also using genes that are more specialized for the blood-brain barrier,” he said. The next step, he says, is to see if they can determine the biological roles of these genes in cancer cells. His team has already done these kinds of studies for three of the candidate genes identified in their study. When they reduced the activity of any of the three genes in cells grown in the laboratory, those cells were not as effective at infiltrating a cellular model of the blood-brain barrier.
Two of the genes, COX2 and HBEGF, also help breast cancer invade the lungs.
The third gene, ST6GALNAC5, appears to specifically enable metastasis to the brain.
ST6GALNAC produces a protein that normally modifies the surface of cells in the brain. The cancer cells appear to use it to insinuate themselves into the brain “like a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Massagué says.
Further characterization of the other genes Massagué’s group identified could provide new ideas for cancer therapy, or new markers to predict which cancers are most likely to spread to the brain, Massagué says. But importantly, their findings are already providing a new glimpse into the mechanisms that control metastasis to the brain.
[May 6th 2009]
Researchers Identify Genes that Drive Breast Cancer’s Spread to the Brain
Researchers have uncovered the first genetic clues that suggest how invasive breast cancer cells pry their way into the tightly protected interior of the brain, where they can grow into new and lethal tumors.
Studies indicate that those renegade cancer cells use some of the same strategies that other breast cancer cells rely on to invade the lungs – but also need more specialized molecular tools to infiltrate the brain.
Metastasis occurs when cells from a primary tumor break off and invade another organ. It is the deadliest transformation that a cancer can undergo, and is the cause of 90 % of all cancer deaths. Metastases to the brain –
usually from breast or lung cancers -- can be particularly devastating.
Even with treatment, patients usually survive only six to 10 months after diagnosis.
"Metastasis is what we fight with post-operative therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, yet very little is known about the mechanisms that drive it"
Some cancerous cells, such as lung cancer cells, seem well equipped to invade multiple tissues soon after a tumor develops. But for breast cancer cells, metastasis takes time. When breast cancer spreads to distant organs, new tumors may not appear until years – or even decades -- after the original tumor has been removed from the breast. Massagué says this indicates that breast cancer cells do not become fully metastatic until they accumulate the
genetic alterations that allow them to infiltrate new tissues and survive in that environment. “If metastasis occurs, the primary tumor must have released cells that were competent to be released and to hide away,” he said. “However, when they were released, they evidently did not yet have everything that it takes to grow in the bones, or the lungs, or the brain. It may take years to acquire that capacity.”
Breast cancer metastases to the brain develop even more slowly than metastases to other organs. Massagué says this suggests that cells need a particularly specialized set of tools to enter and grow in the brain. This should not come as a surprise, he says, because the brain is well protected by a tightly woven, double-layered network of cells called the blood-brain barrier.
Massagué’s lab had already demonstrated that metastatic breast cancer cells acquire certain genetic characteristics that permit them to invade and survive in different organs, such as bone or lung. He likens cancer cells’ adaptation to
these tissues to the evolution of different species of finches in the Galápagos Islands. Like the birds, whose beaks are shaped to best exploit the food source on individual islands, metastatic breast cancer cells acquire the specific properties they need to survive in a particular environment, Massagué says.
To find out which genetic adaptations are associated with brain metastases, the group implanted tumor cells from a patient with advanced breast cancer into mice. They later isolated cells that generated tumors in the brains of the
mice.
The scientists measured gene activity in the metastatic cells and found 243 genes whose expression appeared abnormal.
They next measured the activity of those 243 genes in clinical tumor samples and narrowed their focus to 17 genes associated with brain metastases.
“Cells that have these genes activated are better ready to invade the brain of a mouse,” Massagué explained. “We also found that patients whose primary tumors have these genes activated have a higher rate of brain metastases.”
“These results show that for entry into the brain tissue, breast cancer cells use some of the genes that they use to penetrate into the lung, but then some more.
They are also using genes that are more specialized for the blood-brain barrier,” he said. The next step, he says, is to see if they can determine the biological roles of these genes in cancer cells. His team has already done these kinds of studies for three of the candidate genes identified in their study. When they reduced the activity of any of the three genes in cells grown in the laboratory, those cells were not as effective at infiltrating a cellular model of the blood-brain barrier.
Two of the genes, COX2 and HBEGF, also help breast cancer invade the lungs.
The third gene, ST6GALNAC5, appears to specifically enable metastasis to the brain.
ST6GALNAC produces a protein that normally modifies the surface of cells in the brain. The cancer cells appear to use it to insinuate themselves into the brain “like a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Massagué says.
Further characterization of the other genes Massagué’s group identified could provide new ideas for cancer therapy, or new markers to predict which cancers are most likely to spread to the brain, Massagué says. But importantly, their findings are already providing a new glimpse into the mechanisms that control metastasis to the brain.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Approaches in Antibodies Bioindustry - Simplicity
antibodies are complex protein tailored to clamp onto a specific target. Immune cells in the blood and lymph use antibodies either to identify enemies for attacks or to directly bind to and neutralize intruders.
Scientists now regularly develop antibodies for use in medicines against cancers and other diseases or in sensors to warn of dangerous microbes and chemicals. Unfortunately, the antibodies currently used irreversibly break down at high temperatures, often limiting extended use in the field.
Llama, camel and shark antibodies consist just of chains of heavy proteins, missing the additional lighter protein chains that more complicated antibodies from other species use. Their relative simplicity makes them more durable, capable of withstanding temperatures of almost 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
Past studies revealed that the binding regions of these antibodies and those from camels and sharks are unusually small, just one-tenth the size of common human antibodies.
The researchers generated more than a billion kinds of antibody binding regions in the laboratory based on genes taken from small blood samples from llamas. After testing their antibodies against various biological threats, the researchers found they could within days successfully identify antibodies targeting cholera toxin, a smallpox virus surrogate and ricin, among other known menaces, invaluable features for the development of biosensors for biothreats in the field
Scientists now regularly develop antibodies for use in medicines against cancers and other diseases or in sensors to warn of dangerous microbes and chemicals. Unfortunately, the antibodies currently used irreversibly break down at high temperatures, often limiting extended use in the field.
Llama, camel and shark antibodies consist just of chains of heavy proteins, missing the additional lighter protein chains that more complicated antibodies from other species use. Their relative simplicity makes them more durable, capable of withstanding temperatures of almost 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
Past studies revealed that the binding regions of these antibodies and those from camels and sharks are unusually small, just one-tenth the size of common human antibodies.
The researchers generated more than a billion kinds of antibody binding regions in the laboratory based on genes taken from small blood samples from llamas. After testing their antibodies against various biological threats, the researchers found they could within days successfully identify antibodies targeting cholera toxin, a smallpox virus surrogate and ricin, among other known menaces, invaluable features for the development of biosensors for biothreats in the field
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The 47 million year old fossilized remains of a primate is seen at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
an almost perfectly intact fossil of a 47 million-year-old primate, Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws, the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright.
A team of amateur fossil hunters discovered the near-perfect remains inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt in 1983.
Experts believe the pit was a volcanic caldera where scores of animals from the Eocene epoch were killed and their remains were kept remarkably well-preserved.
Though the pit has been a bountiful source of other fossils, the inexperienced archeologists didn't realize the value of their find.
Years later, the University of Oslo bought the 95%-intact fossil, and Hurum studied it in secret for two years.
Experts believe the pit was a volcanic caldera where scores of animals from the Eocene epoch were killed and their remains were kept remarkably well-preserved.
Though the pit has been a bountiful source of other fossils, the inexperienced archeologists didn't realize the value of their find.
Years later, the University of Oslo bought the 95%-intact fossil, and Hurum studied it in secret for two years.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Illusions of Obama's Idealism Abroad
David Paul Kuhn
Candidate Barack Obama was dogged by charges of naiveté. President Obama has done little to disprove the accusation. He has been championed as a realist. But he has acted the ungrounded idealist.
It was a young John Kennedy who described himself as "an idealist without illusions." But Kennedy proved otherwise early on. The Bay of Pigs undercut US power nearly 48 years ago to the day.
Obama is more cautious than Kennedy. He is also more taken with illusions of the green diplomatic sort: that popularity wins policy or kindness woos kindness.
The damage has been limited to theatrics. But as Kennedy learned, weak theatrics can induce aggression. And Obama is accumulating some weak theatrics.
A North Dakota native was sentenced this weekend to eight years in prison for espionage. The conviction was by secret trial. It came a month after Obama committed himself to a new era of engagement with Iran that is "honest and grounded in mutual respect."
Meanwhile, Iran is undeterred in its effort to construct the ultimate deterrent. The White House continues to push for talks with Iran. Iran continues to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The West looks resigned to an Iranian bomb. It hopes to contain a rising regional power after it has nuclear weapons. Look how well that worked with Pakistan and North Korea.
Earlier this month Obama spoke of "a world without nuclear weapons." That same day nuclear North Korea test fired a ballistic missile. "I am not naïve," Obama responded to the atomic irony.
Obama subsequently doubled down on his naiveté. He spent political capital by assigning his U.N. ambassador to win a "resolution with some teeth." Obama came up all gums, as Kimtologists foretold. Russia and China were not suddenly moved to reverse policy and agree to seriously punish Pyongyang. The U.N. issued a statement. Tempered caution led North Korea to act most intemperate. Kim Jong Il left the six-nation disarmament talks and restarted his nation's nuclear weapons program.
This past weekend, as Iran convicted Roxana Saberi without even her attorney present, Obama was attending the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. The president entered the summit pledging to "listen and learn." He got an ear full.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega spent 45 minutes reciting the worst U.S. actions and allegations in the Americas. He decried "Yankee troop" invasions and called Obama "president of an empire." But Ortega added, "I want to believe" that Obama has "got the will" to change U.S. policy. How diplomatic.
Obama greeted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with a handshake and a smile. It was last month that Chavez called Obama an "ignoramus." So Chavez went about schooling Obama with an Uruguayan historian's book "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
The Venezuelan leader quickly posted photos of the handshake with Obama on his government website. The book "Open Veins" began the weekend at 54,295 on Amazon.com. By Sunday night, it soared to No. 2. Propaganda achieved.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner heads a nation that once dreamed of empire and acted accordingly. No matter. She highlighted the failures of the U.S. drug war and its operations in the Americas.
But it's not personal for this president. Kirchner told Obama that this reproach against the United States was "in no way a reproach against you." It was just group therapy. "Simply an exercise to look back at what happened," in her words.
A U.S. president acts multilateral to critics of U.S. unilateralism. Critics greet Obama's olive branch with sanctimonious rants.
Obama responded with humor. "I'm grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
To Chavez there was more bite. "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States'," Obama said. "It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States."
Obama's literally right. But the series of missteps sum to no joke. History beckons yellow lights where Obama has seen diplomatic green.
It's not easy to even win over allies. Obama proved popular in Europe earlier this month. But he won no substantial concessions from France and Germany on Afghanistan or stimulus spending. French President Nicolas Sarkozy later demeaned Obama as inexperienced.
Enemies are more difficult. There cannot always be the presumption of rational action. It's flirtation, not dance. No one leads the entire way. One cautious action awaits another. Obama is doing this with Cuba. He slightly eased the embargo. Raul Castro appears to desire the courtship. This same pragmatism is found in Obama's early approach to Afghanistan and Iraq.
But concessions do not always earn concessions. Russia rejected Obama's offer to withhold missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland if Russia helps contain Iran. Pledging diplomatic fresh starts without fresh action can embolden adversaries. North Korea and Iran persist with brinksmanship. Adversaries don't always want to "change" relations at the same time. One leader's peace is another's interpretation of weakness.
Last spring, President Bush ridiculed Obama's promise to negotiate with U.S. enemies. Obama rebutted that if Republicans have a problem with meeting with enemies then they "can explain why they [also] have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev."
The meeting of Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev offered the opposite lesson. Kennedy intellectually understood appeasement, as Obama does. JFK's magna cum lade Harvard thesis was on "Appeasement at Munich." By 1961, Kennedy rushed to meet bilaterally with Khrushchev all the same. Khrushchev pummeled Kennedy for U.S. "hypocrisy."
Kennedy said afterward that the Soviet premier "just beat the hell out of me." Khrushchev walked away from the meeting characterizing Kennedy as "too intelligent and too weak." He soon challenged Kennedy as he had not Dwight Eisenhower. The Berlin wall was built a few months later. Kennedy told aides "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." War almost came the following year with the Cuban missile crisis.
The Bay of Pigs made America look feckless. But when Khrushchev met with Kennedy, the Soviet premier decided the president was feckless as well.
Kennedy once said, "let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Indeed. Absolute hawkishness offers only aggression to dissuade war. But as Kennedy learned with Khrushchev, premature dovishness can also undercut peace by inviting aggression.
David Paul Kuhn covers national affairs for RealClearPolitics and is the author of The Neglected Voter. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com
Candidate Barack Obama was dogged by charges of naiveté. President Obama has done little to disprove the accusation. He has been championed as a realist. But he has acted the ungrounded idealist.
It was a young John Kennedy who described himself as "an idealist without illusions." But Kennedy proved otherwise early on. The Bay of Pigs undercut US power nearly 48 years ago to the day.
Obama is more cautious than Kennedy. He is also more taken with illusions of the green diplomatic sort: that popularity wins policy or kindness woos kindness.
The damage has been limited to theatrics. But as Kennedy learned, weak theatrics can induce aggression. And Obama is accumulating some weak theatrics.
A North Dakota native was sentenced this weekend to eight years in prison for espionage. The conviction was by secret trial. It came a month after Obama committed himself to a new era of engagement with Iran that is "honest and grounded in mutual respect."
Meanwhile, Iran is undeterred in its effort to construct the ultimate deterrent. The White House continues to push for talks with Iran. Iran continues to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The West looks resigned to an Iranian bomb. It hopes to contain a rising regional power after it has nuclear weapons. Look how well that worked with Pakistan and North Korea.
Earlier this month Obama spoke of "a world without nuclear weapons." That same day nuclear North Korea test fired a ballistic missile. "I am not naïve," Obama responded to the atomic irony.
Obama subsequently doubled down on his naiveté. He spent political capital by assigning his U.N. ambassador to win a "resolution with some teeth." Obama came up all gums, as Kimtologists foretold. Russia and China were not suddenly moved to reverse policy and agree to seriously punish Pyongyang. The U.N. issued a statement. Tempered caution led North Korea to act most intemperate. Kim Jong Il left the six-nation disarmament talks and restarted his nation's nuclear weapons program.
This past weekend, as Iran convicted Roxana Saberi without even her attorney present, Obama was attending the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. The president entered the summit pledging to "listen and learn." He got an ear full.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega spent 45 minutes reciting the worst U.S. actions and allegations in the Americas. He decried "Yankee troop" invasions and called Obama "president of an empire." But Ortega added, "I want to believe" that Obama has "got the will" to change U.S. policy. How diplomatic.
Obama greeted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with a handshake and a smile. It was last month that Chavez called Obama an "ignoramus." So Chavez went about schooling Obama with an Uruguayan historian's book "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent."
The Venezuelan leader quickly posted photos of the handshake with Obama on his government website. The book "Open Veins" began the weekend at 54,295 on Amazon.com. By Sunday night, it soared to No. 2. Propaganda achieved.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner heads a nation that once dreamed of empire and acted accordingly. No matter. She highlighted the failures of the U.S. drug war and its operations in the Americas.
But it's not personal for this president. Kirchner told Obama that this reproach against the United States was "in no way a reproach against you." It was just group therapy. "Simply an exercise to look back at what happened," in her words.
A U.S. president acts multilateral to critics of U.S. unilateralism. Critics greet Obama's olive branch with sanctimonious rants.
Obama responded with humor. "I'm grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."
To Chavez there was more bite. "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States'," Obama said. "It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States."
Obama's literally right. But the series of missteps sum to no joke. History beckons yellow lights where Obama has seen diplomatic green.
It's not easy to even win over allies. Obama proved popular in Europe earlier this month. But he won no substantial concessions from France and Germany on Afghanistan or stimulus spending. French President Nicolas Sarkozy later demeaned Obama as inexperienced.
Enemies are more difficult. There cannot always be the presumption of rational action. It's flirtation, not dance. No one leads the entire way. One cautious action awaits another. Obama is doing this with Cuba. He slightly eased the embargo. Raul Castro appears to desire the courtship. This same pragmatism is found in Obama's early approach to Afghanistan and Iraq.
But concessions do not always earn concessions. Russia rejected Obama's offer to withhold missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland if Russia helps contain Iran. Pledging diplomatic fresh starts without fresh action can embolden adversaries. North Korea and Iran persist with brinksmanship. Adversaries don't always want to "change" relations at the same time. One leader's peace is another's interpretation of weakness.
Last spring, President Bush ridiculed Obama's promise to negotiate with U.S. enemies. Obama rebutted that if Republicans have a problem with meeting with enemies then they "can explain why they [also] have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev."
The meeting of Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev offered the opposite lesson. Kennedy intellectually understood appeasement, as Obama does. JFK's magna cum lade Harvard thesis was on "Appeasement at Munich." By 1961, Kennedy rushed to meet bilaterally with Khrushchev all the same. Khrushchev pummeled Kennedy for U.S. "hypocrisy."
Kennedy said afterward that the Soviet premier "just beat the hell out of me." Khrushchev walked away from the meeting characterizing Kennedy as "too intelligent and too weak." He soon challenged Kennedy as he had not Dwight Eisenhower. The Berlin wall was built a few months later. Kennedy told aides "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." War almost came the following year with the Cuban missile crisis.
The Bay of Pigs made America look feckless. But when Khrushchev met with Kennedy, the Soviet premier decided the president was feckless as well.
Kennedy once said, "let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Indeed. Absolute hawkishness offers only aggression to dissuade war. But as Kennedy learned with Khrushchev, premature dovishness can also undercut peace by inviting aggression.
David Paul Kuhn covers national affairs for RealClearPolitics and is the author of The Neglected Voter. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
