Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: Sid Harth

20 views

Skip to first unread message

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 7:52:51 AM10/9/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/322514_Obama-wins-Nobel-Peace-Prize

A file photo of US President Barack Obama, who has won the Nobel Peace
prize this year. AP/PTI Photograph (1)

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

STAFF WRITER 15:10 HRS IST
Prasun Sonwalkar

London, Oct 9 (PTI) US President Barack Obama was today picked up as
the surprise winner of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary"
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy, hardly less than a year
after coming to power.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international
politics, a statement released by the Norwegian Nobel Committee said,
lauding his vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

It was because of Obama's effort that multi-lateral diplomacy has
regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United
Nations and other international institutions can play, the statement
said.

48-year-old Obama is the fourth US President to win the Nobel Peace
Prize.

The prize committee said the US President's vision of a world free
from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms
control negotiations.

Obama was honoured "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," it said.

...and I am Sid Harth

ltlee1

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 8:41:59 AM10/9/09

It is a prize given for the hope of peace, not given for peace
achieved.

In this sense, the surprise award is not surprising if one reads
Robert Kagan's OF PARADISE AND POWER. According to Kagan, European
countries, as individual nations and as a collective, are impotent in
securing peace. Hence the hope of peace is pinned on America the
hyperpower and its president. But of course, the prize may as well
given to the Pentagon which can be said to provide an international
environment in which "international diplomacy and cooperation between
people" can be achieved.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 9:28:04 AM10/9/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100901092_Comments.html

Your Comments On...

Facts and Numbers of the Nobel Peace Prize
Facts on the Nobel Peace Prize On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel
signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his
fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in
Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "the person who shall have
done the most o...

Comments

bakulaji wrote:

All of the previous comments disregard the very fact that Barak Obama
initiated the process of recognising the importance of a dialogue
between the Muslims of the world. The 9/11 outrage was true and
despicable. However, it does not mean that all the muslims are
terrorists. On the contrary, very few are. These misbegotten Muslims
would be there, no matter what America does to the world of Islam,
which does not believe in hurting. Please consider the fact that one
in four person in this godforesaken world of today is a Muslim. When
one puts a stamp of terrorism on all of them one is shortsighted as
well as misinformed. Let us hope that Obama's fifteen minutes' fame
would remove the shame of bigotry towards Islam. Inshalla.

...and I am Sid Harth

10/9/2009 9:09:05 AM

travelgalpage wrote:

The Peace Prize was shamed years ago. It is now proven to be a joke.
The media has what it wanted. This man has had everything given to him
while never accomplishing one thing.
10/9/2009 9:07:59 AM

Bcamp55 wrote:
vintel7 wrote:

Obama brought the world back from the brink of financial destruction
and saved millions from starvation. How about for working on
initiatives like universal health coverage? What have you done?
NOTHING
Republicans and Bush are the anti Nobel and anti-peace party. You love
war and killing and you love to make war hence your love of guns and
why you protect yoru weapons with your life. Bush and Republicans
started 2 wars resulting in 4-5000 dead Americans, 35,000 Americans
maimed for life, and 600,000 dead Iraqis. Yes this blood is on Bushes
hands and all those that voted for him.

Typical misinformed, misguided, lib--turd lemming gorged with Kool
aid.

A few FACTS lib--turd.

1) It was HilliBilly CLINTON who initiated action against Iraq when he
signed HR4655 (The Iraq Liberation Act) calling for the overthrow of
Saddam and the installation of a democratic form of governemnt.
2) As Obozzo was stuffing his pockets with one of the two largest (the
other went to Dodd interestingly enough) campaign "contributions", he
was voting against S.190. Read it moron and you will see Obozzo's REAL
roll in "bringing the world back from financial collapse" (ROFLMFAO).

What an absolute troll. Typical "don't confuse me with the FACT
liberal imbecile" cause it's so much easier to believe what Katie
Couric said this morning.
10/9/2009 9:05:54 AM

Crucialitis wrote:
Bcamp55 wrote:

...For you lib--turds who are always...
You'll need to speak-up since the sounds of the crikkets chirping is
deafening.

Try addressing folks like you're an adult first instead of trying to
coin half-assed colloquialisms like 'lib-turd'.
10/9/2009 9:04:11 AM

Bcamp55 wrote:

Pardon me while I puke.

Now pardon me while I apologize to all those who have dedicated their
entire lives to the peace movement and who have just received the
biggest slap in the face of their lives.

For you lib--turds who are always railing about the US wanting to
dominate the world; maybe you can pen your letter to the Nobel
organization p^ssing & moaning (the things you seem to do best) in
objection to this obvious travesty of misguided martyrdom.

BTW - Name a single action Obozzo has undertaken AND ACCOMPLISHED
which has promoted world peace. You'll need to speak-up since the
sounds of the crikkets chirping is deafening.
10/9/2009 8:57:44 AM Recommend (1)

vintel7 wrote:

Look at all the pathetic Anti American comments from all the
republicans posting here. It is truly pathetic. Even those of us that
hate Bush supported him on some issues because he is the POTUS and the
respectable and patriotic thing to do is to support the POTUS and the
country. Yet you lack patriotism and any semblance of good. All you do
is complain and whine like little babies. Obama brought hope to this
world and polls 98% throughout the world and 58% in America. His
numbers are still high even though he inherited a country in shambles
from Bush and the republicans. All you complainers and whiners....why
don't you move to Canada or France if you don't want to support the
USA and in fact...you do everything in your power to hurt the country.
You and your pathetic low IQ gun toting minions have done enough
damage. We the majority 58% will never relenquish power. Get used to
being the irrelevent minority republicans...because this is what you
are and what you will remain in this country despite all your flaming
internet posts and noisy staged town halls.
10/9/2009 8:49:44 AM Recommend (2)

vintel7 wrote:

barowe2 wrote "For what? wishful thinking". NO....how about for
initiating world wide reductions in nuclear weapons? How about for
improving America's image in the world that was damaged under Bush and
the republicans. How about for quickly implementing changes before he
even got into office to combat the world's greatest financial
catastrophe since the 1930's? Obama brought the world back from the
brink of financial destruction and saved millions from starvation. How
about for working on initiatives like universal health coverage? What
have you done? NOTHING
Republicans and Bush are the anti Nobel and anti-peace party. You love
war and killing and you love to make war hence your love of guns and
why you protect yoru weapons with your life. Bush and Republicans
started 2 wars resulting in 4-5000 dead Americans, 35,000 Americans
maimed for life, and 600,000 dead Iraqis. Yes this blood is on Bushes
hands and all those that voted for him. Bush and the Republicans
created the greates financial catastrophe since the 1930's and the
collapse of the banking system. YES...it is a fact....the financial
crises was engineered by Bush and happened under republican
"stewardship". You and Republicans in actuality did nothing but start
war and take lives and ruin the prosperity of this nation. Those of us
in the 58% majority will never forget the deep damage you did to this
country. Remember you are the 20% party. You poll less than Nixon and
Truman. You are quickly becomming the party of irrelevance.
Republicans are a dying party and will be gone in 20 years. You are
the party of war and killing yet you purport to be "godly" Christians.
You know nothing.

10/9/2009 8:42:09 AM Recommend (1)

smcsmc wrote:

Even if one were to include "pre-inauguration" activities, his resume
is pretty thin for a Nobel prize. That's not to suggest that he hasn't
done "anything". He's given plenty of speeches over the years. But as
they say 'talk is cheap'. He really hasn't brought about any major
shifts towards peace. I had kinda thought that the Nobel Peace prize
required a larger body of work. I'm guessing he would have rather won
it a few years down the road when it might not seem so premature to so
many.
10/9/2009 8:41:46 AM

Crucialitis wrote:

Even a Nobel Peace Prize can convince the nobama crowd that the sky is
falling.
10/9/2009 8:41:06 AM

newbeeboy wrote:

I bet that President Clinton is furious.. this is what he wants for
himself.. first Al G. now.. this..
10/9/2009 8:37:47 AM

jim_skins wrote:

You can get a Nobel Prize... for making a speech ?

I miss the old days when you had to actually do something to win one.
10/9/2009 8:33:12 AM Recommend (1)

rugbykate wrote:

You missed Lester Pearson 1957, prime minister of canada.
To JWx2, review the content of the Rome speech in the summer of 2008,
prior to the election, that might give you a clue.
10/9/2009 8:23:37 AM

barowe2 wrote:

For what? Wishful thinking? Did he win because he's not Dubya?

Changes my perception of Nobel Peace Prize award team....wonder if
Michelle nominated him...as JWx2 says, the nomination deadline is 1
Feb, he only took office 20 January, sorry but this is a joke,
wouldn't be surprised if it was all part of his plan.
Unbelievable....

10/9/2009 8:07:22 AM Recommend (1)

cowgold wrote:

Why didn't write that Kim Dae Jung(Korea leader) won the nobel peace
prize in 2000?
10/9/2009 8:00:37 AM Recommend (1)

JWx2 wrote:

hmmmm! the nomination deadline is feb 1....but obama took office jan
20th and didn't mention anything about nuclear free world until April
in Czech capital Prague...and then talk about world peace until
june.....
10/9/2009 7:43:28 AM

dhicks24 wrote:

One more sign of the apocalypse...
10/9/2009 7:30:08 AM

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 9:29:50 AM10/9/09

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33237202/ns/politics-white_house?GT1=43001

‘Humbled’ Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Committee says president gives world’s people ‘hope for a better
future’

Video

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Oct. 9: President Obama is only the third sitting president ever to be
awarded the honor. NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd
reports.
Today show

Video: White House

Reporters gasp at Obama’s Nobel surprise

Oct. 9: President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize less
than two weeks after taking office earlier this year. David Gregory,
host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” talks with TODAY co-host Matt Lauer
about the award.

OSLO, Norway - President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel
Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts
to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win
the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took
office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.
Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but
many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an
Afghan woman's rights activist.

The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in
international politics" and said he had returned multilateral
diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world
stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush
from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for
resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the
Sept. 11 terror attacks.

NBC News reported that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called
Obama with the news just before 6 a.m. Aides said the president felt
"humbled" by the committee's decision.

'Captured the world's attention'

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared
intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing
the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim
nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured
the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,"
Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past
year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N.
for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the
Muslim world and East-West relations."

He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the
time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global
response to global challenges.'"

President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President
Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.

The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former
Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international
conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush
administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war. Video

Reporters gasp at Obama’s Nobel surprise

Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000
presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness
about global warming.

The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's
prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given
too someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.

Nominators include former laureates; current and former members of the
committee and their staff; members of national governments and
legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences,
history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs
institutes; and members of international courts of law.

The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its
founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-
South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years
of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.

"We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the
leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting
peace and the eradication of poverty," the foundation said.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should
go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for
fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of
standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish
institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-
member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and
Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel's death.

The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines,
expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to
combat poverty, disease and climate change.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 9:34:44 AM10/9/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/reaction_obama_wins_nobel_peac.html?sid=ST2009100901112

Reaction: Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
By Garance Franke-Ruta

Updated 9 a.m.
Syria is reacting warmly to the announcement, the Wall Street Journal
reports:

"I believe Obama is working hard for peace," said Muhammad Habash, a
Syrian member of parliament and director of the Islamic Studies Center
in Damascus. "We in Syria believe that Obama's initiative have been
suitable, and that Syria is now witnessing important steps to correct
the relationship with the United States. I believe everyone here will
be very happy for Obama."

Updated 8:39 a.m.
Does President Obama deserve to have won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize?
Share your reaction in a Washington Post reader poll -- and then
elaborate in this Post discussion group.

Updated 8:36 a.m.
President Obama will speak from the Rose Garden at 10:30 a.m., the
White House announced. He is expected to address the topic of the
Nobel award.

Updated 8:14 a.m.
More international reactions can be found over at The Lede. Among
them:

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangarai of Zimbabwe, who had been among the
favorites to win this year, told Reuters: "I wish to congratulate
President Obama. I think he is a deserving candidate."

The Reuters roundup of world opinion, including from the Arab world,
can be read here.

Updated 7:55 a.m.
Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy magazine notes that "the Committee
has been awarding these 'aspirational' prizes for years." For more on
this topic, see Ronald R. Krebs's July 30 Foreign Policy article, "The
Dangerous Prize."

Updated 7:49 a.m.
The Post's Juliet Eilperin reports that environmentalists are greeting
the news with hopes that President Obama will go straight from Oslo to
Copenhagen for climate talks in December, now that it looks like he
will be in that part of the world -- just as Gore did in 2007. Climate
talks start Dec. 7, and the Nobel will be awarded Dec. 10.

"We congratulate President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace prize,"
said Keya Chatterjee, director of climate change for WWF-US in a
statement. "Now that we know President Obama will be in Scandinavia in
December, expectations are even higher that he will attend the
Copenhagen climate summit in person to usher in a fair, ambitious and
binding climate agreement."

Updated 7:42 a.m.
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC, "It's an honor,
certainly nothing that anyone expected, certainly not the president
himself."

Asked if Obama would accept the award in person, Axelrod said it was
too early to say. "This is all news to us, so I don't know what we're
going to do. I would assume so. The point is to rededicate ourselves
to the causes that the president has brought forth," he said.

Probed on how conservatives appear, as Mark Halperin put it, as
excited about this as they were disappointed Chicago didn't get the
Olympics, Axelrod replied, "I would hope that everybody would view
this is an affirmation of some very important causes for which we
should all be dedicated."

Updated 7:34 a.m.
The Post's Howard Schneider reports from Israel:
In Israel, where raised expectations have been followed by little
tangible progress, there was surprise from both sides of the spectrum.

"We congratulate him for this," said Ahmed Yousef, deputy foreign
minister of Hamas, the Islamist group that runs the Gaza Strip and
which remains isolated by the U.S. from peace talks because of its
refusal to recognize Israel. But "we believe he has been rewarded or
judged based on good intentions towards peace but not on his
achievement. It was too early to award him. He has not don't that much
yet."

Danny Danon, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the ruling Likud
Party who has been critical of Obama's efforts to force Israel to
freeze construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank,
also said the new U.S. president is being rewarded for a relatively
thin list of accomplishments.

"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking,"
Danon said.

Hagit Ofran, head of the anti-settlement program for the Israel's
Peace Now movement, said that while Obama's involvement in the Middle
East has yet to produce a dramatic breakthrough, his election has
still changed the dynamic.

She said it is unlikely that current Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
would have endorsed creation of a Palestinian state, or that he would
consider curbs on Israeli settlement construction without a push from
the U.S.

"All we hear is 'this is not possible, the Palestinians will not
agree,' or 'this is not possible, the Israelis will not agree,'" she
said. "He is being respected for his belief and determination to get
things going. It is not peace and it is not enough, but his rhetoric
did change many things."

Updated 7:30 a.m.
More news and reaction from the mediasphere streaming across Twitter:

Good Morning America: "'Both thought they were being punk'd'-
@GStephanopoulos on two WH aides hearing of Nobel news."

Alan S. Murray: "Can someone explain? I thought award was for
accomplishments, not intentions."

Jeffrey Goldberg: "It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize
down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere. Or trade for
Olympics"

Karen Tumulty: "guy with big check at door may have been less of a
surprise today"

Ana Marie Cox: "Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone
who is not George Bush."

Marc Ambinder: "I bet this wil be CW amng Dems: RT @AdamSerwer: No
joke obama should turn the nobel peace prize down until he's finished
with his two wars."

Updated 7:12 a.m.
CNN reports, "After the president was awakened and told he had won, he
said he was humbled to be selected, according to an administration
official."

Updated 7:09 a.m.
Not happy with the selection of Obama for the award? The Taliban.

Reports the AFP:

"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing
for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in
Afghanistan or to make this country stable," Taliban spokesman
Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.

"We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama," he said by
telephone from an undisclosed location. "We condemn the institute's
awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's peace prize as
unjust."

Updated 6:54 a.m.
Bloomberg's Jones Hayden reports on reaction from the EU Commission:

European Commission President Jose Barroso said the award of the Nobel
Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is "a tribute to President
Obama's commitment to the values of peace and progress of humanity."

The award is "a reflection of the hopes that he has raised globally
with his vision of a world without nuclear weapons," Barroso said in a
note of "warm congratulations" to Obama, Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen, a
commission spokeswoman, told reporters in Brussels today. "This award
is an encouragement for engagement by all those who can contribute to
bring about a safer world."

Updated 6:49 a.m.
In the United States, the Twitterati appear perplexed by the selection
of their first-year, first-term president for so august an honor.

Jacob Weisberg: "Aren't you supposed to do something for peace BEFORE
winning the prize?"

Mickey Kaus: "Instant advice for Obama re: Nobel Peace Prize: Turn it
down! It's win/win."

Kaus elaborates on his blog, warning, "the possibility for a Nobel
backlash seems non-farfetched."

Updated 6:41 a.m.
Obama's family in Kenya reacts:

The Kenyan family of US President Barack Obama say they were honoured
by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to their favourite son.

"It is an honour to the family... we are very happy that one of us has
been honoured. We congratulate Barack," Said Obama, the president's
step-brother, told AFP.

Said said that the awarding of the prize to Obama "touches many
people" because the US president represents "people from different
walks of life."

Updated 6:33 a.m.
Reaction is starting to roll in from abroad. The AFP reports:

The Nobel Peace Prize won by US President Barack Obama on Friday
should prompt him to start working toward ending injustice in the
world, an aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP.

"We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of
bringing justice to the world order," said Ali Akbar Javanfekr,
Ahmadinejad's media aide.

"We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he will
start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world."

The AFP also reports on reaction from Afghanistan:

KABUL -- Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai said Friday that US
President Barack Obama was the "appropriate" person to win the Nobel
Peace Prize.

"We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel," said Siamak Hirai, a
spokesman for Karzai.

"His hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and
efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global level and
global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace
Prize," he told AFP.

5:56 a.m.
CBS's Mark Knoller reports this initial White House reaction:

Spokesman Robert Gibbs e-mails one word: "wow."

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 9:38:22 AM10/9/09

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509156992275937.html?mod=article-outset-box

OCTOBER 9, 2009, 8:42 A.M. ET.
Syria Reacts Warmly to Obama Peace Prize .Article

Comments (2)

Text .By JULIEN BARNES-DACEY and CHIP CUMMINS

In Damascus, one focal point of the Obama administration's Mideast
engagement, officials and analysts greeted the news of the U.S.
president's Nobel Peace Prize win warmly.

During his campaign, Mr. Obama suggested he'd reach out to Syria and
Iran, reversing the Bush administration's policy of attempting to
isolate them. His early outreach included a Persian New Year's
greeting to Iranians and a decision to reinstate a U.S. ambassador in
Damascus.

"The radical change in American policy to Syria, the visits of his
envoys, reflects his desire to achieve peace, so he deserves to be
congratulated," said Thabet Salem, Syrian political analyst.

Those efforts have borne some fruit, and also drawn criticism. Syrian
officials have appeared increasingly willing to cooperate with the
U.S., including on issues related to security and stability in next
door neighbor Iraq. Earlier this month, U.S. officials sat down with
Iranian diplomats to discuss Tehran's nuclear efforts, winning what on
the surface appeared a significant concession by Tehran to open up its
nuclear program to new inspection and to ship some of its uranium for
enrichment overseas.

Critics of Mr. Obama say he's pursued détente with Iran and Syria at
the expense of demanding an end to human-rights abuses in both places.
In Iran, where the government orchestrated a bloody crackdown on
protesters in the wake of a contested June presidential poll, human-
rights advocates have pushed Washington to elevate human rights to the
top of its engagement agenda.

But the other big focus of Mr. Obama's Mideast initiative -- the
relaunch of comprehensive peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians -- has met with limited success so far. Despite a flurry
of shuttle diplomacy on the part of his special Mideast envoy, Mr.
Obama hasn't appeared to bring Israel and Palestinian officials any
closer together.

Mideast envoy George Mitchell was expected to meet with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday during his current visit.
Israeli officials haven't been willing to make concessions Mr. Obama
has demanded, including a complete freeze of settlement building in
the West Bank. And Palestinians have so far refused to restart talks
without such a freeze.

In Jerusalem, police girded on Friday for violence during a day on
which Palestinian leaders called for demonstrations to bolster their
claim to the holy city in any peace deal. Israeli police restricted
access in mostly Arab East Jerusalem, and in the old city, preventing
Muslims from visiting the Al Aqsa mosque for Friday prayer. The move
came after a series of violent skirmishes in recent days.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 10:44:15 AM10/9/09

http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2009/10/obamas-nobel-prize.html?hpid=topnews

Obama's Nobel Prize

Does U.S. President Barack Obama deserve to have won the 2009 Nobel
Peace Prize?

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically
valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post
users as a group or the general population.

By Hal Straus | October 9, 2009; 7:35 AM ET | Category: National

radbwana wrote:

One should not forget that it is the Swedes who give the Nobel Prizes
for science, etc. Norway gives the peace prize as nothing more than a
socialist political statement.
Obama getting the Nobel for his international groveling is comparable
to Nevile Chamberlain having received it (which he didn't) for signing
Britain over to the Nazis with the stroke of a pen.
Such Norwegian "phoney baloney"is only taken seriously by the liberals
-- Chris Matthews must be having another one of those Obama tingles
running up his leg.
Perhaps the President can give the prize money to his former client,
ACORN.

Posted by: radbwana | October 9, 2009 7:54 AM

World events are moving SO quickly. Far from being a do-nothing
President, From Day One, Obama has tried to win with ideas, logic and
reason instead of bluster, threat and swagger. Isn't the the kind of
world we all want to live in? Ghandi said, "Be the change you wish to
see in the world." Obama is walking the walk.
Only time will tell if the Nobel Committee was wrong with its timing.
We'd better hope they were right.

Posted by: iachimo | October 9, 2009 7:57 AM

This has to be the stupidest thing I've seen in the news all year.
I mean, the guy has accomplished exactly NOTHING in regard to
ANYTHING. And he gets this now-worthless "prize".
Ridiculous. If I were President Obama, I would be shocked and
embarrassed.

Posted by: ZZim | October 9, 2009 7:58 AM

A new low and embarrassment - nominated within weeks of the
inauguration - the liberal obsession and cult of personality knows no
limits - the hero worship is nothing short of nauseating - US
President for 9 months with zero accomplishments other than an
uncontrollable, radical obsession of the left with the 'divine'
President - Continental Europe and the shamelessly political Nobel
Committee always do their best to shame America, promote weakness,
promote the left, and have clearly done well in picking Obama - in the
past they had much more credibilty selecting candidates with actual
accomplishments or who have survived torture i.e. the Dalai Lama or
even President Carter who decades after ACTUAL accomplishments
recieved the award. Obama? Nothing other than ambivalence and
apologizing on behalf of America - so pathetic its beyond words. Nice
way to intervene a faltering administration.
Perhaps he can skip some other rules and qualify for canonization and
sainthood in his first term also.
Also nice to see a President diss and decide not to see a real
laureate, Dalai Lama, and for his weakness and capitulation, he is
awarded a Nobel Peace prize himself. Pathetic.

Posted by: vipermd | October 9, 2009 7:58 AM

After the shameful leadership and performance that we and the world
have endured for eight years, the contrast is eminently refreshing,
which is what this European beacon is signaling. It recognizes that
America _does_ have better angels in its nature.

Posted by: Pangraz | October 9, 2009 7:58 AM

In order to answer this question honestly, you need two pieces of
information:
1. The bio's from the other 200 nominees so that you can appraise and
compare each.
2. The criteria for choosing the "winner". Is it based on
accomplishments over a lifetime? accomplishments over the past year?
Or is it based on perception of possible accomplishements in the
future?

Posted by: MDLaxer | October 9, 2009 8:05 AM

Obama has ALREADY done a tremendous amount simply by changing the
PARADIGM. We can no longer just run out and "kick butt" somewhere and
then run back behind our borders.
the only way to get along in this ever-shrinking world is to have a
much broader view. We are truly "ALL in this together." It's nice to
now feel a part of this wonderful, complicated world, rather than just
it's detached ruler...

Posted by: mmck | October 9, 2009 8:06 AM

Dear Washington Post,

I suppose President Obama received this endorsement of the path
towards peace -- he has expressed. It would be better if we were
further along that path before congratulating ourselves.
But, your graph displaying the votes here really does distort the
results. You know better than this -- quit giving FOX and its cohorts
ammunition to say you are biased. Seriously. Fix this!
Thanks. --SRS
Posted by: srswart | October 9, 2009 8:08 AM

Congratulations President Obama! You are a true WORLD Leader.

Posted by: pgl911rs | October 9, 2009 8:08 AM

Osiclaims acorn acorn socialism socialism....
there - we have the right wing response, since they cannot be happy
for America when it means supporting our president. Something I
believe they called treason when people questioned the previous
resident when his administration roke myriad laws and lied to start
wars.
One of the things that the world and many Americans found so
disturbing about the bush cabal was their total disregard for the
entirety of the flow of history and their disregard for the
internation system of conflict resolution created by the United States
in the 20th century. A system and set of ideas and ideals followed by
every American president from FDR to Clinton. Every one regardless of
party or ideology played from the same rulebook. A rulebook drafted
from the foundation of American values and ideals. bush thought all
the rules - those ones, the ones in the Constitution, the ones in
American law, simply did not apply to him if he wanted to do something
outside the rules. THAT is why the nobel commitee was moved to present
this award to President Obama. He has moved in a short time, a time
when he is also fixing the system of finance left in tatters by
conservatives, while he is fixing the health care system left in
tatters, the environmental policy of the US also left in tatters,
moved in that short time to place the United States foursquare and
center back in a place of leadership and moral authority stemming from
our adherence to our own system of laws and values. He is leading by
example, not by dropping bombs on anyone who dare disagree with him. A
much stronger and far reaching way to affect democratic change and
bring peace.
of course the rightards are frothing at the mouth because they do not
understand American values. they do not understnad American history.
they do not understand much of anything except screaming slogans in
unison and hating whenever the United States succeeds. That and a good
public tea bagging - they love that.

Posted by: John1263 | October 9, 2009 8:08 AM

A knee-jerk reaction to this news isn't worth much. It takes a little
research to understand the rationale of the Nobel peace prize
committee.
1. The committee said that for 108 years it had sought to stimulate
precisely the international policy and attitudes for which Obama is
now the world's leading spokesman.
That is to say, the prize is intended as both a representation of what
the committee has been promoting and also a much-needed endorsement of
Obama, a push in the direct direction.
2. On the other hand, the other candidates were less than impressive.
The Guardian for example notes: "Speculation over potential winners
had focused on Zimbabwe's prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, a

Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan

women's rights activist."
3. Those who want achievements instead of speeches and efforts, should
be reminded that the world's most intractable problems are in Obama's
lap through no doing of his own, but yes through the doings of the
previous American president. He can try but if he doesn't succeed,
it's not his fault.

Posted by: FedUp1 | October 9, 2009 8:10 AM

HAHA, way to go Nobel Committee, this is just going to drive the
repubs batty!!.. just look at what they're posting on this site.. I
can only imagine what is going on over at wingnut central command, aka
The Dirty FOX, their heads must be exploding!!.. hahahahahahahahaha..

Posted by: VietVet68 | October 9, 2009 8:10 AM

This is obviously a political statement. He has good intentions but
hasn't accomplished much. Takes away from other more formidable people
who have won this award after accomplishing real change.

Posted by: DRo1 | October 9, 2009 8:11 AM

How disrespectful to mention Ghandi and Obama as being on the same
level. I won't even go into how wrong that is on how many levels.
Anyone who does, knows nothing of either man.
No one should be given a prize for what his hopes are; who doesn't
hope for peace? The prize should go to someone who has actually
accomplished something toward that end.
The Nobel prize has just been rendered meaningless. Meaningless. One
more thing that has been stripped away from my kit bag of idealism.
Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: kil_auren | October 9, 2009 8:12 AM

I congratulate the Nobel Prize Committee for this bold and correct
choice to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. His vision,
leadership, and initiatives to promote peace and harmony among
countries and peoples mired in war and violence deserved nothing
less.
This is a great day for America and the world!

Posted by: ejazahmed32 | October 9, 2009 8:15 AM

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke. Obama deserves it as much as
Paris Hilton deserves it for international "relations!"

Posted by: joeblotnik49 | October 9, 2009 8:15 AM

The right wing-roar has started. At least they didn't give it to Bush.

Posted by: Billy96 | October 9, 2009 8:16 AM

your graph is quite silly.

makes it look like Obama is certainly the Chosen One here in
Washington Post land.
This Nobel prize bunch of people are all just liberal nothings. The
prise is nothing spectacular.... at least that is how I see it.
I can think of many people then, that REALLY deserve this prise....
for instance the guy down the street from me in my neighborhood of
Broadlands Virginia. He volunteers his time all year every year to do
for disadvantaged people, mostly seniors, income tax forms (a huge
headache and about to get worse). He does thousands for free.

Posted by: rdb2 | October 9, 2009 8:17 AM

Yes, Obama deserves the prize and the committee has expressed the hope
of the world that rational thought and genuine respect for other
cultures will lead us to peace.

Posted by: bjscot | October 9, 2009 8:18 AM

Congratulations Mr. President. Your racist Republican enemies will
never forgive you for this. You're supposed to be a failure. They're
ones who have failed.
Massively.

Posted by: cllrdr | October 9, 2009 8:19 AM

Nobel Committee did a fantastic thing. They send message to all world,
multilateralism, respect and working together is the way of the
future. Not destructive weapons everyone without one is trying obtain.
It is Prtesident Obama's passion for World Peace which Nobel Committee
honored. Prsident Obama has brought Iran, North Korea, and Israel to
the negotiating table instead of the belligerent rhetoric like "Axis
Evil" "Dead or Alive". President Obama is saying let us resolve our
issues and work on significant and dangerous golobal issues together,
then only we can solve them.
Vision, working towards solving global problems with mutual respect
and cooperation is what Noble Committee recognized. I am proud that
our President won it and all of us should be.

Posted by: Maya2 | October 9, 2009 8:20 AM

The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for even placing this
poll in the paper. Instead of fomenting trouble with all its right-
wing readers, the WaPo could, and should have, stuck with reporting
the news. It is so sad to see what was once a fine paper reduced to
tabloid journalism and Fox news shenanigans.
The courteous response to the selection of President Obama as the
recipient of the Nobel Peace prize is a simple, "Congratulations, sir.
Your bring honor to the United States of America and to all for which
it stand."

Posted by: marmac5 | October 9, 2009 8:20 AM

When I heard the news this morning I actually thought it was a paraody
skit...
The Nobel committee has really lost a lot of credibility....
.
Posted by: oldnova | October 9, 2009 8:23 AM

This is an embarrassment to the Nobel Committee. Why don't we just
rename the prize the Nobel Fanboy Prize?
By no rational criteria has Obama achieved anything in his entire life
and professional career worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Even the ardent
Obama acolytes cannot claim with a straight face that he deserves this
prize at this stage of his presidency. This truly diminishes the
prize.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | October 9, 2009 8:23 AM

No doubt Obama benefitted from not acting like George Bush. The path
this country was on from 2001-2008 was toward an unending war with
Islam (all 1.3 billion of them). Obama has taken steps to talk us down
from a war footing to a more reasonable position that may enable us to
focus on the terrorists who are a real threat rather than painting all
Muslims with the same brush. Congratulations Mr. President. You may
save the world from a terrible period of war which results in millions
of deaths and expends all our nation's discretionary income that can
be used for higher purposes to meet the needs of our citizens.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | October 9, 2009 8:25 AM

This is Orwellian. Obama is expanding the war in Afganistan. He is
miffed that the Europeans will not support his Afgan war. Nothing has
been accomplished since he took office;the Israelis mock and ignore
him, Iraq is a mess, he is coy about Gitmo and torture therefore this
prize is meaningless. This is more Obama baloney just like his soaring
rhetoric in his speeches that make him think he has actually done
something.

Posted by: jsands2 | October 9, 2009 8:26 AM

Congratulations Mr. President!

For all you right wing idiots out there I've got this to say in
response to your ugly childish behavior - nanny nanny boo-boo, stick
your head in dodo! Now, we are on a level playing field, I have
lowered myself to your standard - ain't it pretty? Shall we continue?
You do realize we won't accomplish anything by this behavior don't
you?
Get back in your caves and let the rest of us carry on!

Posted by: Kathy5 | October 9, 2009 8:26 AM

Premature a little? I mean, for goodness sakes, even the Church waits
until someone has passed to make them a saint. Perhaps they'll make a
exception for Obama, though. As a Democrat and patriotic American, I'm
embarrassed beyond belief.

Posted by: rhwest | October 9, 2009 8:27 AM

For those of you who were asleep, sick or off of the planet for the
past nine years, Bush and Cheney conducted cowboy diplomacy which
treated the world like a bunch of school yard bullies. That part of
the world that did not hate us, had no respect for us. We now have a
president who is intelligent, reasonable, and realizes that we are a
part of the world. He has caused a tsunami in how the world views us
and how we can move ahead.

Posted by: roscym1 | October 9, 2009 8:29 AM

One should heed the disclaimer as to the poll's statistical validity.
The rants of the malcontented (as represented by the comments posted
here in the Post) are a better representation of the true feelings of
the sample, and certainly not of the populace as a whole. Bitterness
reigns!

Posted by: Geezer4 | October 9, 2009 8:29 AM

Congratulations, Mr. President! And as a bonus, you know that the
right wing whack jobs (Krauthammer, Gerson, Rove, Hannity, O'Reilly,
Boortz, Coulter, Malkin) will be spinning like tops over this!
Well done!

Posted by: mlipsius | October 9, 2009 8:29 AM

The Post should take down this poll, as the Nobel Peace Prize is not a
public contest. The Nobel Committee has stated their reasons for
awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama. The opinion of others is
irrelevant to the award, and this poll will only attract those seeking
to further divide the country and embarrass the President. Take it
down and let the country enjoy this most refreshing moment on the
world stage.

Posted by: chuckwarnock | October 9, 2009 8:31 AM

All I can say is...
HOW?
Obama has done absolutely NOTHING!
This guy gets more mileage from hope speeches than anyone else in the
history of the world.
It's ironic that he has done even less than Bush for world peace.
The Nobel Peace prize is now at a new low in terms of relevance.

Posted by: postfan1 | October 9, 2009 8:33 AM

By starting at a base of 45% (as of this reading), your graphic
grossly misrepresents the results of your poll. The "no" bar is four
times as big as the "yes" bar, giving the visual impression that the
vote must have gone 80-20 against Obama's Nobel. On the contrary, as
of now the vote is 53-47 against. Whoever produced this graphic should
re-read Edward Tufte's "The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information."

Posted by: threefab | October 9, 2009 8:33 AM

It is time for the United States of America to regain her status in
the eyes of the world as the leader, not the ruler of this planet.
King George W. will live in infamy forever as the USA leads the march
to freedom and prosperity. Congradulations! President Obama.

Posted by: neolib | October 9, 2009 8:34 AM

Those who say Obama has accomplished nothing so far simply lack the
necessary understanding of world politics. Successes (and there are
already quite a few despite the stupid SNL "nothing accomplished"-
chorus) on the international arena, many more to be exptected in the
future, are and will never be easily accessible, particularly not to
those who still think America can "win" wars in countries like Iraq
and Afghanistan. What is already distinguishing Barack Hussein (yes!)
Obama from G.W. Bush is a deep grasp of the realm and challenges of
international affairs, and there's is much more to be expected in the
future if the american public gives him a chance to draw deliberately
from his potential.

Posted by: observer62 | October 9, 2009 8:35 AM

Congratulations Mr. President.
Hey Wapo, might want to adjust the scale of your poll graph. It makes
4 percentage points look like 60 and it's sending the tinfoil hat
teabagger crowd even further off the edge.

Posted by: mack1 | October 9, 2009 8:36 AM

The prize shouldn't be seen in the context of the last nine months,
but of the last nine years.
It's just such a nice change to have a US president who doesn't think
his job is to stir up war and trouble on behalf of the American
armaments industry.
The prize is for Obama's effort to bring a giant rogue state back into
the international fold.
I guess that just gives America's crazed Republicans twice as much
reason to be angry about it.
But they're angry about everything all the time anyway. Let them
froth, the world no longer wishes to deal with them ... in fact that's
the real message of this prize.

Posted by: JenDray | October 9, 2009 8:36 AM

Jack and squat. Nuff said.

Posted by: dtestard | October 9, 2009 8:37 AM

Milli Vanilli would be proud.

Posted by: kingsra | October 9, 2009 8:38 AM

I voted for Obama and believe he won the Nobel peace prize only
because his rational view of the world is so much a relief when
compared to the irrational views held by George W. Bush.
Unfortunately, in my mind, that is not sufficient to justify the prize
even though we welcome the change.

Posted by: ianmac37 | October 9, 2009 8:39 AM

Someone made comment that the graph is misleading, but it really isn't
if you know how to read a graph.
This type of graph highlights the difference, not the complete number
of votes and is appropriate when viewing percentages.
Posted by: gconrads | October 9, 2009 8:39 AM

SNL should be interesting this week.

Posted by: lkirk | October 9, 2009 8:40 AM

Wonderful! If we can all contribute to change we will see and say more
positives.

Posted by: realitygirl2 | October 9, 2009 8:40 AM

why is graph not drawn to scale? The vote is 51 - 49 no and the graph
looks like an overwhelming number of "voters' said no
Posted by: spitts1 | October 9, 2009 8:41 AM

The graph is purposely designed to make it appear that there are a
huge number of no votes and demonstrates obvious bias.

Posted by: fingersfly | October 9, 2009 8:41 AM

When was he nominated is the key question here. If her were nominated
just two weeks into the office, the win is ridiculous and we should be
embarrassed. If the vote were just days ago, the win is ridiculous and
we should be embarrassed. How could anyone in their right mind think
this novice--author, president, two-year senator, deserve the Nobel
Prize...simply that he can deliver a speech! OMG!

Posted by: jobro2 | October 9, 2009 8:42 AM

radbwana, with the over the top imagery, is a Moron. Are the black
helicopters circling your Mother's basement?

Posted by: mjwies11 | October 9, 2009 8:42 AM

Of course Obama deserves it. Now the question is, with such pedestrian
polls and distorted graphic representations, does The Post deserve my
readership?

Posted by: DC_Grrl | October 9, 2009 8:43 AM

The award completely removes any validity to the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel committee awarded their prize to a "perceived rock star",
based on their liberal beliefs. This unfortunate award will cheapen
future awards to those really deserving.

Posted by: topgun97365 | October 9, 2009 8:44 AM

As a middle of the road European, not a right-wing American, I thought
it was a parody skit too. When scientists truly earn their Nobel prize
through years of very hard work and coming up with discoveries of real
value to society, the Peace Prize is given to someone who has achieved
absolutely nothing as yet. This has not only devalued the Peace Prize
but the Nobel Prizes in their entirety. They have lost their
credibility which is a shame for those who truly deserve recognition
for years of hard work. And to a man who hasn't even got the guts to
meet the Dalai Llama.
Posted by: pandas1 | October 9, 2009 8:44 AM
I too WISH for peace and goodwill among men...
Where's my Nobel?....
What a joke.

Posted by: kentuckythunder | October 9, 2009 8:45 AM

I guess those beers with that Boston COP and Gates (the racists
professor) were more meaningful than I thought.
Name one (not 20, not 10, not 5, not 3) f--ing thing this imbecile has
done to promote world peace. What an embarrassment to the entire Nobel
organization and to all those who genuinely deserve it.
Forget that - we know that's BS. Name one ACCOMPLISHMENT this putrid
administration has had, with full control of both houses no less. This
is THE MOST INCOMPETENT A-HOLE TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE SINCE CARTER.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 9, 2009 8:45 AM

This is a clear recognition of the deviation from the past eight years
of both internal and external terrorism perpetrated by the previous
administration. The award is truly a challenge Obama has to strive to
live up to. The world will certainly be a better place at the end of
it all based on the coperation of Iran and other nations. The
international community is getting less polarized.
ANdy

Posted by: Andy27 | October 9, 2009 8:46 AM

I do wonder if all the people writing and voting here do actually read
this (or another) newspaper, too - or just occupy the space to pretend
the right-wingers are more than they are...

Posted by: KorneliaKoronetz | October 9, 2009 8:46 AM

I congratulate the Nobel Prize Committee for this bold and correct
choice to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. His vision,
leadership, and initiatives to promote peace and harmony among
countries and peoples mired in war and violence deserved nothing less.
This is a great day for America and the world!
******************************************
Hear.hear!
...a American expat from Australia

Posted by: dv8cowboy2 | October 9, 2009 8:47 AM

Pacifism combined with socialism is entirely different than bringing
peace to any great extent worldwide worthy of such a recognition. I
guess the committee felt sorry for Odrama's lack of ability to bring
the Olympics to Chicago so they handed him a consolation prize.
Stokely Carmichael would have been a better choice.

Posted by: euripedes | October 9, 2009 8:47 AM

You have got to be kidding! He has accomplished zero (yet)! He may be
a great President, but we cannot tell that after just 8 months.
Awarding the prize that has gone to Mandella, Tutu, Mother Teresa,
etc., to Obama because he has "potential" is very unfortunate.

Posted by: Revcain777 | October 9, 2009 8:49 AM

Your readers may not have gotten the memo, but they actually do not
have a vote in all of this. The Nobel Peace Prize is determined by
people who are taking a longer view of things than the bitterly
divided and largely uninformed American populace, who allow their
opinions to be shaped by nitwits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
From the perspective of someone who lives in the Middle East, I can
say that the overwhelming consensus of people here is that Obama has
made a huge difference in making the U.S., once again, a champion in
the interests of peace. He richly deserves this honor, and gives us
every reason to hope for more accomplishments in the future.

Posted by: jwm8 | October 9, 2009 8:49 AM

Of course he deserves it.
Congratulations Mr President - now with Gods will, Sir, stay the
course.
We are all numb bone tired of war.

Posted by: PeterBTaylor | October 9, 2009 8:51 AM

FIX THE GRAPH.

Posted by: rangerjoe1971 | October 9, 2009 8:51 AM

I didn't realizing they were now awarding a Nobel Prize for Rhetoric.

Posted by: kilgore_nobiz | October 9, 2009 8:52 AM

Amusing--an online poll by a bunch of keyboard kommandos second-
guessing the Nobel committee. Can we please allow President Obama his
moment?

Posted by: marciamac1 | October 9, 2009 8:52 AM

I'm looking at the graphic here and cannot figure out what you guys
are trying to show?
The tiny slice of blue is supposed to be 50% and the huge slice of red
is supposed to be 50% and the scale at the bottom is......
WHAT?

Posted by: Tomcat3 | October 9, 2009 8:53 AM

This is so funny that even Matt Lauer was trying not to laugh. I
thought that the Peace Prize was awarded to someone who had actually
achieved something. This is obviously being given for what he says he
will do. I want to develope a cure for cancer. Can I have my Nobel
prize now?

Posted by: VaBroker | October 9, 2009 8:56 AM

Does Obama deserve to win? What kind of question is that? Does the US
deserve a president of such intelligence and high principles? Guess
what, Americans, you need to wake up, turn off Fox News and the like
[and the junky Fox shows that retard your minds] and realize that most
of the world respects and esteems President Obama for the hope he
inspires and the changes he can bring if given sufficient support. He
is such a change from the old politics that it is breathtaking. Thank
you, Nobel committee.

Posted by: insighter | October 9, 2009 8:56 AM

Yes & No. I voted yes (whats with the graph?). He does deserve the
prize for taking a ginormous (gigantic/enormous) step towards peace
involving the whole world. People had concrete peace results within a
community. The President has took that step towards world peace.
Bringing all nations to the table to talk. Thats a achievement itself.
Yes its only talk with no results, just yet. But its a huge step he
took towards world peace.

Posted by: joe0341 | October 9, 2009 8:57 AM

First, Congrauluation to our President Obama!, I think it shows there
are far too few people working and speaking toward peace in this
world, with so little to choose from, I think President Obama is a
fair choice and hope he does more for peace in the years to come.
Cherish Life,
Larry J. King

Posted by: snitchonmurder | October 9, 2009 8:58 AM

I think this shows how the world (Norway at least) still looks to the
United States for leadership. It may also show just how upset some
people were at the direction of the United States under George Bush
and how much they welcome the change under Obama, even it is mostly
words so far.

Posted by: Dadmeister | October 9, 2009 8:58 AM

This action spoils for me the value of the Nobel prize. The award
reminds me of how we chose the King and Queen in my high school class
-- it was strictly a popularity context.

Posted by: JerryB2 | October 9, 2009 9:00 AM

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Thursday, October 8th at 10:26PM EDT

When I was a teenager, my friends and I joked about NAMBLA, the North
American Man/Boy Love Association.
Until I was in my twenties, I thought my friends had just made it up.
Surely there was no such organization that campaigned
to allow open sexual relations between boys and men — a concept that
did not just involve statutory rape, but offended
the profound decency of a moral public.
Sadly, NAMBLA is very real and today steps right out of the darkest
pits of immoral human behavior and straight
into the White House. Sean Hannity has been all over this story and we
are just now coming to terms with how sick and demented
the thinkings and associations of White House Safe Schools Czar Kevin
Jennings are.
To be sure, the left wing Media Matters, which is run by former
conservative turned homosexual activist and left-wing icon David
Brock,
is screaming from the rooftops that Sean Hannity is lying.
Hannity is not lying. Kevin Jennings is a profoundly sick and immoral
human being — a proponent of statutory rape, an opponent of the Boy
Scouts of America, and a zealous advocate of NAMBLA.
He is Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar. He is a supporter of men who
openly and vocally support pedophilia.
Media Matters threw out a few talking points to defend Van Jones. But
Media Matters is giving a full throated, aggressive defense
of Kevin Jennings. Why? Well, to paraphrase Wonkette, gay is the new
black.
Van Jones was just a black guy. With a black President, resources did
not need to be brought to bear to defend him. Kevin Jennings,
however, is not just a gay man, but a man who believes in the full gay
rights agenda, where men and boys can have sexual relationships
free of prudish moral people frowning. Jennings has championed
NAMBLA’s causes and lauded a pedophilia advocate.
He even wrote the forward to a book called “Queering Elementary
Education.” That’s right, Jennings wrote the forward to a book
that, in its own description advocates the aggressive homosexual
agenda among elementary school students. From the book:
“queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and
view childhood from the inside out.” No irony is intended
apparently in that description. Americans of moral decency should be
stunned to know the President of the United States would put in charge
of “safe schools,” a man who encourages predatory relationships
between young boys and grown men.
Barack Obama has done exactly that. Has he no shame

Posted by: springco1 | October 9, 2009 9:00 AM

What a joke.
He won because he's NOT George Bush, which is a pretty pathetic way to
win it. If I were the Dali, Kissinger, Lech Walesa, MLK's foundation,
Mandela, Mother Teresa, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, good lord,
need I go on...I would be throwing mine in the trash.
Of course Carter and Gore will keep theirs as they fall squarely into
the same category as Obama.
I'm betting Bill Clinton is on oxygen and going into permanent
therapy.

Posted by: flintston | October 9, 2009 9:02 AM

I wouldn't think it such an honor to be included in the list of fools
and incompetents that have received this award. Totally meaningless.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | October 9, 2009 9:02 AM

The vote was taken when Obama was only a couple of weeks into his
presidency. What had he done then? Won an election by being marketed
by Axelrod as a "new, better presidential product." Not really closed
Gitmo with a flourish of his pen?
First, Gore. Now, Obama. Confirms the Nobel is awarded for chicanery.

Posted by: judithod | October 9, 2009 9:03 AM

President Barack Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize since he has
moved faster than any U.S. President in history to make the world's
leaders, and citizens of various countries, understand that we share
one planet and peace is an absolute necessity, if we're going to
survive. President Obama also deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for
quickly reversing the war mongering policies of his predecessor, which
almost irreparably damaged the position of the United States as a
leader on the world stage. Congratulations, President Obama - I salute
you.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | October 9, 2009 9:03 AM

You have got to be kidding me....What has he done!!!!!
The Leader has done nothing but apologize for America's international
actions over the last 100 years. Actions we should never apologize
for, we saved millions of europeans from speaking German and now this
idiot apologizes.
He is super critical of most decisions made by past administrations,
yet he expands on their ill-conceived policies.
HE IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER.....HANDS DOWN!!!
This is an embarassment for this country!

Posted by: mmixon27 | October 9, 2009 9:03 AM

In the 21st century, peace makes more sense than war. Ask a soldier,
or the soldiers mother and children if war makes sense. War causes
more war. In the eyes of the world, the US is the gravest danger, the
most aggressive, the only nation to inflict the horrors of nuclear war
on any population. I am grateful that Obama has pointed more of us
toward peace. Now he must earn the prize. Sorry Military Industrial
Complex - you are so 19th Century!

Posted by: Too2much | October 9, 2009 9:05 AM

President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for just removing the
Republican War Criminals from power, Bush "The Moron" to be followed
by Old Man McCain and his idiotic choice of Palin "I can see Russia
from my house" moron! Just that alone qualifies, it is a better world
for all humans everywhere! For those who hate President Obama, tell me
one President in recent history, even FDR, who has inherited a greater
nightmare of economic, financial and foreign policy fiascos left by
Bush-Cheney than President Obama? At least with President

Posted by: kemcb | October 9, 2009 9:05 AM

This is a JOKE. What success have his peace overtures had. And get rid
of Nuclear weapons/; it'll never happen. Saying you wish it will NOT
make it so. North Korea has kicked sand in his face, Iran test
launches a missile right after Mr. Obama puts them to task for a
secret nuclear facility. He gets dumped by Hugo Chavez, and does
nothing to defend his honor or our country. He is as useless as Jimmy
Carter was. Giving him the Nobel Peace would be the same as giving it
Nevil Chamberlain when he conceded the Sudetenland region of
Czechoslovakia to Germany in hopes of peace - and then the world
watched as the Germany army then roll in to Poland anyway. Strength
ensures peace; not the starry eyed dreams and concessions of this
fool...

Posted by: Starbuck61 | October 9, 2009 9:06 AM

I can see it now. Next year the co-winners will be the leaders of Iran
and North Korea for showing remarkable restraint and not blowing up
the world!!!

Posted by: lackmanh | October 9, 2009 9:06 AM

The only thing I have seen that he has done is break the United States
of America.
Raising the national debt by 5 trillion.
Starting another war instead of ending the one he said he would. Told
lies about health care, flu pandemic, and terriorist, maybe by bowing
down to a foreign leader did it.

Posted by: Vic5440 | October 9, 2009 9:06 AM

Um... what has the President done to deserve this now worthless prize?

Posted by: ghostman | October 9, 2009 9:07 AM

From the Nobel website, how Alfred Nobel described the Peace prize in
his will: "...the person who shall have done the most or the best work
for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of
standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace
congresses".
I do not believe President Obama has earned the prize based on Nobel's
own requirements. He may someday deserve it. I believe this particular
award was not for achievement, but is a pure political statement (they
virtually said so when they said they hope it helps). I believe it
also demonstrates an infatuation with a man who has yet to demonstrate
his potential as President. Let us see in 2-4 years if President Obama
can truely earn this accolade.

Posted by: marlendale | October 9, 2009 9:07 AM

Should have gone to TOTUS instead of POTUS!! That's who really
deserved it!"-)

Posted by: jcvitucci | October 9, 2009 9:09 AM

Let's see: Obama has been in office for eight months with no foreign
policy achievements, unless you count rhetoric, and gets a Nobel Peace
Prize. Ronald Reagan sets in motion the ending of the Cold War without
a shot being fired and the Nobel committee gives its prize to
Gorbachev.
If anyone doubted that the Nobel committe is filled with a bunch of
European leftists that doubt is now gone.

Posted by: bobkelly1 | October 9, 2009 9:09 AM

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for what he has already done.
He has acknowledged that the US is one nation among many. He is
promoting that words of diplomacy and respect are far more effective
then threats and bluster. In the short time he has been in office he
has done far more to promote world peace then any President in our
history. He has also acknowledged the danger posed by global warming
and has stated his support in fighting climate change.
Those who can't see that are wearing blinders in their determination
that the failed policies of the Bush administration should be
continued.
Only the blind or the incredibly obstinate see value in the old Bush
policies.

Posted by: reiley | October 9, 2009 9:10 AM

Pathetic! No other word can describe it. Has anyone else ever been
awarded that distinction while having military fighting on foreign
soil?
I'm wondering how all those unemployed in this nation feel about it,
while the unemployment rate increases!

Posted by: SeniorVet | October 9, 2009 9:13 AM

I loved the graph with the tiny blue 50% and the huge 50%.
When Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Prize,a committee member called it "a
kick in the leg" to the United States.
This prize continues to be an important piece of information.

Posted by: BobPolicy | October 9, 2009 9:15 AM

It is hard to vote definitively yes or no. My vote is "not sure.' I
certainly have hopes that his track record will live up to what I
believe the award is intended to recognize, but nmy reaction at the
news was WHAT!!??
I know he is trying to get the country on the path toward a more
positive influence for peace in the world and to have the US act as a
partner with other nations. The jury is still out, in my mind, as to
whether his efforts are suficient at this time to warrant such an
award. - rolandel

Posted by: rolandel | October 9, 2009 9:15 AM

President Obama did not ask for this and was not seeking to obtain the
Nobel Peace Award. He was chosen by someone who thought he deserved
it. So why do we have so much negativity towards him for receiving it.
Stop hating. I say congratulations Mr. President.

Posted by: brendah1 | October 9, 2009 9:17 AM

I think, more than anything, this prize was meant as a slap in the
face to our previous President and his supporters. I think he and they
deserved it. And I hope this "slap" has a good hard sting for them.

Posted by: rjciardo | October 9, 2009 9:18 AM

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to recipients whose works are
aspirational. This is certainly true for President Obama. In addition,
his short presidency has already impacted to the good how America is
viewed in the world. Am I proud to have a president who wins this
award over one who participates in a hoax to engage in a preemptive
war? Of course. The decision is the Nobel Committee's to make. How
nice it would be if we the electorate could see it as a bit of grace
that removes the tarnish from America. And to the Washington Post:
Please fix your bar graph so it does not appear so biased.

Posted by: jswift426 | October 9, 2009 9:20 AM

I was puzzled when Gore won the nobel peace prize. But now I can
easily say that the nobel peace prize is a hoax and a political tool.
What next? Nobel Peace Prize for Ahmadinejad because he took a stand
against Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: trumeau | October 9, 2009 9:22 AM

Of course, I am surprised as others are on hearing this news. But
thinking about the President-- the type of campaign he conducted, his
efforts in just eight months to reach out to the rest of the world--
on that alone, this honor is deserved.
Even if one reacts hawkish in a situation-- making peace should be the
ultimate goal. The United States has nationals living all over the
world. We must when possible lead by example.
This is a great day for peace! And a great day for the president. Yes,
my congratulations to him are well deserved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbvv3R5oDdU

Posted by: Victoria5 | October 9, 2009 9:22 AM

Posted by: Victoria5 | October 9, 2009 9:23 AM

I understand that Obama was nominated for the Nobel since Spring. Pray
tell, what did he do besides criticize America's past by then.
But we should share the President with the world. Maybe he could
resign the Presidency and become Idol-Of-The-World instead. God knows
nothing that he has done has benefited working Americans.

Posted by: sperrico | October 9, 2009 9:23 AM

Whether he deserves it or not - the award is a good thing.
Better to give the unhinged loonies on the right something shiny, but
largely symbolic and meaningless, to focus their rage on -- time they
spend whining because most of the world disagrees with them is less
time for them to spend mucking up health care, financial oversight
legislation, cap and trade, and any number of other things that
matter.
Come to think of it, is there any way we might convince the Nobel
committee to award Obama something on a weekly basis?
It would be win-win.
Rushbo and friends would get a consistent supply of fuel for their
outrage mills, while the rest of us can focus on solving problems
those they enabled for a generation created.

Posted by: zonk1 | October 9, 2009 9:24 AM

This is one President, that will cause thousands of sleepless nights
for the wicked, the extreme racists and the greedy.
The Lord Almighty has upheld President Obama, knowing how wicked some
of His children are. The Lord knows that when He sent His Son here to
correct the evils of the Romans & some Jews, the "crucified Him.
So He is guiding this President. Can't you see? Cant't you understand?
Can't you change from your wicked & hatred ways for God's sake?

Posted by: olafaux | October 9, 2009 9:24 AM

CINC - Normally used as Commander In Chief, in this case I think
Cheerleader In Chief is more appropriate.
Award are given for Accomplishments. NOTHING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

Posted by: brownst38 | October 9, 2009 9:24 AM

It is unfortunate that the Nobel Peace Prize has been reduced to
nothing more than a political pawn. It is obvious that the EU so
desperately wants Obama's socialization of America to come to fruition
that they will degrade the NPP to this in an attempt to legitimize his
efforts. The EU wants to reduce America to a socialized country in
order to level the playing field. They are fully aware that it has
been our history as a capitalist country that has led us to be the
world leaders that we. Now in their efforts to bring about a new world
order they are trying to get "their guy in America" more credit in
order to hopefully get him reelected and more time to bring about the
final goal. We can only pray that America's citizens will see this for
what it truly is and reject it's legitimacy. Sad and unfortunate for
any future recipients as now the prize will surely ring hollow going
forward.

Posted by: cdresp | October 9, 2009 9:25 AM

Wow this is awsome! Its awsome how some of you ignorant pubecsent so
called Americans try to tare down a man that has dedicated his life to
the betterment of this countries people. Some of you in your ignorance
have already given the reasons why he deserves this honor. His years
of hard work in the community before he became a polotician, thank you
PANDAS1. Some of you say he hasn't done anything to deserve this, all
I have to say to you is reading is fundamental. Stop going off what
these radio host, Bias networks... Say. The is a long list of good
Obama has accomplished and is accomplishing as I write this. It drives
me crazy that how ignorant we can be as Americans. Someone, anyone
that happens to read this after I post, Do a list of some of your
argument as to why he does or does not deserve this medal. Make it in
list for so that it's not a book to read, like some of us have already
writen. All I keep hearing is Acorn, socialisit ok fine, what else you
got?

Posted by: Teflon | October 9, 2009 9:26 AM

Posted by: olafaux | October 9, 2009 9:26 AM

Absolutely ludicrous that obama would get a Nobel prize for attempting
to ruin America. His scheme to try to change the face of America into
a socialist nation is being rewarded by similar socialist countries.
It's like rewarding someone for bad behavior.
The mid term elections continue to creep closer but will it be in time
to save America from the liberal agenda?
The revolt against obama continues to grow.

Posted by: spiris333 | October 9, 2009 9:27 AM

Now that our troops have suffered and died for Mr. Obamma so he could
win the Nobel Peace Prize, he can now send them some help.
Now we all know why he has been stalling.
Wow that is a I, My good example.

Posted by: T-Tom | October 9, 2009 9:27 AM

I have to ask -- has this question been asked of any other Nobel Prize
recipient? Anyone could predict it would be a magnet for foaming-at-
the-mouth rabid extremists and closet racists, and lead to an exchange
that is the antithesis of the reasoned discussions for which Obama
received the award.

Posted by: jgrudin | October 9, 2009 9:27 AM

It is a farce to even pretend to honour somebody who, according to one
of the posted comments, has done even less than Bush for peace. The
World known that Obama is only there to please the neo-cons of the
White House. Even the Secretary Gates is reported to have said that he
will follow Obamas advise as if Obama is either his equal or
subordinate. Somebody has also written that this is a joke of the
Nobel Prize Committee. Obama is continuing with the mass killing of
Muslims. Look at the plight of the Palestinians in the hands of his
Middle East overlords whom he does not possibly dare even look up into
the eyes. Let the Nobel Committee, the EU, the Tony Blair, etc., feel
happy to their hearts content. The Muslim race is no cheap instrument.
Yes, if Obama can bring about peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict only
and quickly enough, he may earn the respect due to a President of the
United States of America.

Posted by: anwar2get | October 9, 2009 9:28 AM

WaPo, please fix your graph!

Posted by: schencks84 | October 9, 2009 9:28 AM

Considering the scope and intent of the award it is entirely
appropriate. Obama has altered the world's perception of the US and
its trustworthiness as confirmed by a recent international survey that
had the US rise 19 places in 6 months to place 1st as the most admired
country.
Since little has changed except the leadership that dramatic
improvement in world confidence that a peaceful and reasonable hand is
at the tiller. That will have a greater positive impact on world peace
and cooperation between the US and world World community than most
people in the US could believe.
Well done selection committee and President Obama!

Posted by: km6xz | October 9, 2009 9:28 AM

Obama trashes the USA and I guess that's what makes him an appealing
choice. He may talk a good game but please show us some
accomplishments. George Bush actually did far more in his fight
against AIDS through AFRICARE than any Pres. has ever done and it's
hard to find anyone giving him credit for that. This guy is in office
2 weeks after a do-nothing career as a Senator and gets nominated for
the Nobel. It's become worthless.

Posted by: golfing1 | October 9, 2009 9:29 AM

I'm so thoroughly enjoying reading these comments. If only to watch
the right wingers go nuts at their rejection. Now they're acting like
the last-picked kids on the playground: pretending like it didn't
matter and they didn't want the prize anyway.
What a complete and utter rebuke of Bush and his neocon thuggery. This
is a world breathing a sigh of relief that Cheney, Rumsfeld and co.
have finally made their belated exit offstage. Good riddance, Nobel
Committee says. And they're applauding the direction of diplomacy and
realpolitick of Obama. And like the insecure immature idiots they are,
the rightwingers are here putting down the Nobel Committee, Finland,
Europe and whomever else they can blame for not seeing things their
way. Somehow they are still shocked that the rest of the world never
saw things their way, never did and never will.

Posted by: Pupster | October 9, 2009 9:29 AM

This is one President, that will cause thousands of sleepless nights
for the wicked, the extreme racists and the greedy.
The Lord Almighty has upheld President Obama, knowing how wicked some
of His children are. The Lord knows that when He sent His Son here to
correct the evils of the Romans & some Jews, they "crucified Him. The
wicked Romans were so afraid, of losing the grips on slavery, sex sins
other nasty behaviors that they died while still alive.
So He is guiding this President. Can't you see? Cant't you understand?
Can't you change from your wicked & hatred ways for God's sake?

Posted by: olafaux | October 9, 2009 9:30 AM

Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize had to be submitted by Feb 1.
Obama took office on Jan. 20.
Two questions:
1) What did Obama do in 11 days that qualified him to win the Nobel
Peace Prize?
2) Who in Hades nominated him?

Posted by: ahashburn | October 9, 2009 9:31 AM

Winning this award is another "validation" to the President that his
agenda is "on the right track", to moving our country and the world in
a "much better" direction then before.
Congratulations Mr.President!!!!

Posted by: rayven-t | October 9, 2009 9:31 AM

President Obama derserves the Nobel Peace prize for the manner in
which he has conducted himself in the face of right wing,gun toting
rabid,swamp rat racists that incite harm against this President of the
United States. He deserves a Peace Prize from this country.

Posted by: allowme1 | October 9, 2009 9:32 AM

Teflon- why dont you make a list of what he HAS done. What has he
accomplished. Looking into his past. Why dont you explain to the
American people why he deserves this award over the other people who
were up for it. We are waiting to hear from you......

Posted by: conniewhite | October 9, 2009 9:34 AM

This makes me want to throw up on my shoes! It devalues the Nobel
Peace Prize. The man has been in office only 8 months and has spent a
lot of time running around the world "apologizing" for the US. He
devalues the sacrifices of our country. He's spewed out a lot of
"talk" from his telepromptor but has yet to really do anything!!

Posted by: jodalin | October 9, 2009 9:35 AM

Well the Country needed something to laugh about and the teleprompter
provided it. Mark many of us as ..who cares and does this force him to
push for real jobs creation?
The Peace Prize is a joke as most of us prefer Clinton's Piece Prize.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | October 9, 2009 9:36 AM

To those of you who are negative about Obama winning the prize: You
probably have had nothing positive to say about him anyway. SO,
I consider the source of the comments. It's getting to the point that
the negatives are only worth paying attention to because they are
laughable.
He won the election. He won the Nobel Peace Prize (regardless who
gives it). It seems to me that there is a lot of sour grapes going
around. I'd say get over it, but it seems that you can't. It's amusing
to me that you will have 3 more years to be stressed out about him.
This kind of stress is not good for your health. They say laughing is
better.
At least he's trying which is more then I can say for some of those on
the Right.

Posted by: mcdonalsherry | October 9, 2009 9:37 AM

Mr. Nobel's intent was to award this prize for significant and actual
accomplishments. This year, they awarded it to the potential for "hope
and change". Yes, this award has lost significant credibility.

Posted by: bob1wilco | October 9, 2009 9:37 AM

I have lost absolute credibility for such highly regarded prize.
Hundreds of people have died, are in captivity, or living under
oppression because of their life-long "extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I
believe those are worthy of such or any recognition.

Posted by: arrgos2 | October 9, 2009 9:37 AM

The bar on your chart says that more approve than don't, but the
alphanumerics giv a different picture, something needs fixed.
To SENIORVET, the unemployment rate has actually slowed and has
improved in many areas. And, sir, I am also a senior vet, have lived
through every war this country has fought since WWII and have Never
been so afraid for this country as I was during the Bush years when US
diplomacy consisted of threats by Bush and his administration. I think
Bush's policies were especially detrimental to our troops, with
endless rotations, inadequate equipment and a blatant lack of planning
for what to do for the the rest of the war once the first battle,
Baghdad, had been won. Obama has only had 7 months to fix 7 years of
malfeasance (or to use Bush's own word, "miscalculation") by the
previous administration. I for one am pleased to see reason once again
applied to our relations with other nations, and a more considered
approach to our own problems in this country. I salute your service.

Posted by: papasoji | October 9, 2009 9:37 AM

The words of president Obama are echoing across the world. The
brazilians won the elections saying "Yes we can!". That alone is a
massive achievement.
But most of all, he changed the global message of fear and terror into
one of corporation, hope and possibilities.
I think he is doing a great job and I wish him all the best in these
challenging times!

Posted by: politics4me1 | October 9, 2009 9:38 AM

The first question that came to my mind is, "Who made the nomination
before he'd even gotten his feet wet with diplomacy?" He should turn
this down because in his international "America is a bad country and
I'm sorry" tour he has not managed to make peace in the very country
he is so ashamed of. He will accept it with more, "I, I, I, me, me,
me" statements that he is so famous for. This is a farce.

Posted by: bovinehams | October 9, 2009 9:38 AM

The Nobel Peace Prize
However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good
will they do you if you do not act on upon them?
~Buddha
Words may show a man's wit but actions his meaning.
~Benjamin Franklin
As I grow older I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch
what they do. ~Andrew Carnegie
Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement,
achievement, and success have no meaning.
~Benjamin Franklin
As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest
appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.
~John F. Kennedy
In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words
without a heart.
~Mohandas Gandhi
Talking isn't doing. It is a kind of good deed to say well; and yet
words are not deeds.
~William Shakespeare
Well done is better than well said.
~Benjamin Franklin
The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to stare
up the steps - we must step up the stairs.
~Vance Havner
The words printed here are concepts. You must go through the
experiences.
~St. Augustine
A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain.
~Arabian Proverb
An idea not coupled with action will never get any bigger than the
brain cell it occupied. ~Arnold Glasow
Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of
words. Trust movement.
~Alfred Adler
Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions.
You may have a heart of gold - but so does a hard-boiled egg.
~Author Unknown
When deeds speak, words are nothing.
~African Proverb
Talk doesn't cook rice.
~Chinese Proverb
Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.
~St. Francis of Assisi
After all is said and done, a lot more will have been said than done.
~Author Unknown
Talk is Cheap
~English Proverb
You see that a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone.
~James 2: 18, 24
I consistently strive to teach my children that “actions speak louder
than words”. I explain that their wishes and desires, although well
intended; mean nothing until they do something.
Now, the Nobel committee, in giving one of the highest honors in the
world, has just set an example for not only my children but for
children all over the world that talk is enough.
This is a mockery to past laureates.
~Judy Marshall

October 2009

Posted by: jmheartnurse | October 9, 2009 9:39 AM

nice graph. no propaganda here

Posted by: loudountaxrevolt | October 9, 2009 9:39 AM

Very interesting how completely the link to this poll disappeared from
the online front page so quickly after it became clear how the results
were running!

Posted by: MrsWhatsit | October 9, 2009 9:39 AM

Is not the question more than a little presumptuous, 1. I do not know
the criterion for selection and 2.I do not know who were the others
under consideration. Both would be needed to make a reasonable
response to your question. I have read some of the posted comments and
it would appear to me that some of the comments are more against the
man then about the selection.

Posted by: davscott933 | October 9, 2009 9:39 AM

It is my understanding that the President did not "win", but was
"awarded" the prize...much like a bonus given to you from your
employer...deserving or not. In addition, I could not help but notice
that after casting my vote, the graphic scale indicated 49% yes and
51% no; however, the graph lines seemed much more disproportionate for
only a 2% spread with emphasis on “no”…

Posted by: jonbwnfd | October 9, 2009 9:40 AM

Well, now we all know why he was in Scandadavia, not for the Olympics,
but for the lobbying of the Nobel Peace Prize . He can now use, "Not
what you do for your country, but what you do for me", as his slogan.

Posted by: gerry11 | October 9, 2009 9:40 AM

To the first commenter and your diatribe against Presiden Obama: as
you very correctly noted, Chamberlain did not receive the Nobel Peace
prize. The Nobel committee is wise indeed.

Posted by: no1buckigirl | October 9, 2009 9:43 AM

It is not a matter of ideologies. He has done nothing to earn this
prize. He is a great father and husband but a lousy leader. To
Allowme1: George Bush put up with a great deal more of angry,
downright hate-filled rhetoric than President Obama has and he has
maintained his dignity. He didn't become smug ("I won" - Obama) and he
has refused to attack his successor in spite of the fact that people
are still blaming him for Obama's present failures (did you read the
article blaming the loss of the 2016 olympics on him?) It's not that
the president might not EVENTUALLY deserve this award, it is that it
is premature.

Posted by: bovinehams | October 9, 2009 9:44 AM

This award makes no sense to me.
It comes on a day when Foreign Minister Lieberman of Israel states
that there will no peace agreement between the Israeli's and the
Palestinian's.
What has President Obama accomplished besides giving great speaches?
The award would be justified once he accomplishes something!

Posted by: mwhoke | October 9, 2009 9:45 AM

WOW!!!!!!!!!

If you are as disgusted as me, you need to check out this post:
http://www.wastedcarbon.com/2009/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-wtf/
Posted by: offersave | October 9, 2009 9:46 AM

ROTFLMAO

Like the Organ Grinder's Monkey need to have his overinflated ego
stroked some more.

Posted by: panielsen | October 9, 2009 9:47 AM

Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939 by Erik Brandt, a member of the
Swedish Parliament. Brandt retracted the nomination after a few days.
[8] Other infamous nominees included Joseph Stalin and Benito
Mussolini.

Posted by: johnchambers | October 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Why does the graph make the vote look so lopsided?

Posted by: subwayguy | October 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Yes, he does. President Obama neither got us into the mess in Iraq/
Afghanistan nor voted to do so. He has done much to repair the USA's
international reputation after the the debacle of the past eight years
and, as such, the United States has just been named the most respected
nation in the world, up from #7 a year ago when Dub-ya was president.

Posted by: womanfortruth | October 9, 2009 9:49 AM

After chaoctic Bush with two wars, everything seemed pleasant. Whole
world started to relax the exit of Bush and his cronies. Obama was a
hope for the people of the world. He also acted towards peace building
relationship with communities and nations. World leaders started to
gather around him on several issues. He certainly deserves the Peace
prize. I hope this gives him an impetus to achieve world peace.

Posted by: afsar | October 9, 2009 9:50 AM

Okay, so the teleprompter won an award that now holds the prestige of
an MTV Music Award. Can the President now get on with actually DOING
something about the pressing issues that face THIS country?
BTW, when the hell did Toastmasters merge with the Nobel Committee?

Posted by: Ogman | October 9, 2009 9:50 AM

I see alot of you are seeing through the rights agenda to keep us
living in fear. To you conniewhite I say NO. Just like I tell my
children, you have the ability to figure it out on you own, I've put
my work and time in researching, so you can figure it out on your
own...It's all in black and white.

Posted by: Teflon | October 9, 2009 9:51 AM

Obama does not just deserv e to win, but represents the very fabric of
this award. Now, all he has to do is make sure Bush, Cheney, Condi,
and Rove are in prison (perferably Guantanomo) for the absolute
destruction they have caused this country. Republicans are a waning
party, and someone should provide this administration the pin to pop
that bubble and send them and all their negativity straight to you now
where.

Posted by: ohb4usa | October 9, 2009 9:51 AM

I think the man deserves the prize, but it TOO early.
It would have been more fitting to give it after his policies had had
time to bear fruit.

Posted by: edouardprisse | October 9, 2009 9:51 AM

I think the man deserves the prize, but it is TOO early.
It would have been more fitting to give it after his policies had had
time to bear fruit.

Posted by: edouardprisse | October 9, 2009 9:52 AM

The graph is not lopsided .. the numbers are. Read the posts and you
will see the posts are against the idea not for.

Posted by: T-Tom | October 9, 2009 9:53 AM

It is interesting how we as human beings cry out for equal playing
field opportunities when it comes to us, but when this playing field
is open to others we cry out "foul." President Obama has opened the
eyes of our global community with a message of hope to those who had
been disenfranchised for decades, encouraging them to garnish their
dreams, their rights, and stand to be counted with the words of "Yes
We Can." This movement has been embraced by billions of citizens in
our global society. How dare we think that he is not worthy. He
continually make unpopular decisions for the betterment of human kind,
as did JFK, Gandhi, Martin King, and others... In the words of Janet
Jackson, the entertainer, I ask you, what have you done lately?

Posted by: jlmoranjr | October 9, 2009 9:54 AM

One of the earlier comments was "He is leading by example, not by
dropping bombs on anyone who dare disagree with him."
Using the same logic, ACORN is equally deserving?

Posted by: johnchambers | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM

People love him. Deal with it.

Posted by: BigHustla | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM

Oh how it amuses me how people are freaking out over this. Wait,
people or sheeple? It seems everyone is feigning the exact same
outrage. Ah well.

Posted by: XanderB | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM

Let me get this straight - Obama -the one term Senator from corrupt
Chicago politics, the 9 month rookie US Pres who has quadrupled our
deficit, weakened our defenses, is ashamed of the US but then flip-
flopped when it came time to sell the Olypics committee on the
greatness of the US (I guess the Olym Commitee believed him during his
first apology tour), took pressure off terrorists, is killing our
soldiers in Afgan. by non-decision, usurps the constitution with each
radical Czar appointment...this Obama won the NPP? I knew when Gore
won it with his hack science project that the NPP was nothing more
than a cracker jack prize. What a freakin' joke!

Posted by: NO-bama | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

Congratulation Mr. President. Now tell us exactly how much in foreign
aid (payola) to Norway this little award is going to cost the American
people.
Or maybe better yet, you can during your acceptance speech, list off
all the wonderful things you have accomplished in the last 9 months
that other candidates haven't been able to eclipse with a lifetime of
dedication.
BTW genius, make sure that teleprompter is fired up and ready to go.
You would want to embarrass the Nobel committee by looking like a
total imbecile.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

This decision by a committee is nothing more than an effort to spit in
the face of George W. Bush another time. President Obama has
absolutely no accomplishments on the diplomatic and foreign policy
fronts. This prize has been awarded for utopian rhetoric, not real
accomplishments. Get the Iranians to halt their nuclear weapons
program, Mr. President, and then we can take your prize seriously.

Posted by: rwe123 | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

My first question was "what war did Obama end"?

But then I realized this was the Nobel folks flipping the bird to Bush
and his pals, Republican Neo-Cons, who have done much to de-stabilize
our security and the world's during the Bash Admin.
Ha ha ha. I love it.
Stew in your juices, losers!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

radbwana wrote:

"One should not forget that it is the Swedes who give the Nobel Prizes
for science, etc. Norway gives the peace prize as nothing more than a
socialist political statement."
So when Henry Kissinger got the award in '73, he was getting the
socialist stamp of approval?
Stay consistent, big boy.

Posted by: krjames | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

My memory may be wrong, but isn't this prize the same PC, PR, fluff
given to that famous scientist Albert Gore for his work in saving the
universe?

Posted by: jstratt2 | October 9, 2009 9:57 AM

Since when has peace become a liberal concept? The world seems somehow
much more peaceable lately. I do not credit the presence of Obama in
the White House for this as much as the absence of Bush. Nevertheless,
peace is NOT a liberal concept, nor should it be. It is what we all
should seek. That Obama has been an instrument of peace is a good
thing for liberals and conservatives alike.

Posted by: marcelcarroll | October 9, 2009 9:58 AM

Sour grapes; President Bush never won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: smp55 | October 9, 2009 9:58 AM

Not only does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, he
deserves the admiration and support of the people and politicians in
the U.S.A.
Way to go, Mr. President!! You are an inspiration to me and millions
more who voted for you and those around the world who respect and look
to you for much needed hope in their lives.
I am so relieved to have Barack Obama as President of the United
States! :)

Posted by: MrsLfromTexas | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

what an absolute JOKE!!!!

Posted by: NO-bama | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

Can't we just say "score one for America" and share a mom
ent of pride in this before cynicism and divisiveness take over?

Posted by: valandsend | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

You got to be kidding me. This vote by the election committee makes a
mockery of the whole process. What's next, an Academy Award for the
Obama girls becuase they want to grow up to be actors! Oh, to be s SNL
writer this week.

Posted by: bbarbee2 | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

It's so strange that some of you are are commenting that the current
president is having to deal with problems created by the last
presidency. This has always been the case. And you trying to say that
all of the US problems were created in the last 8 years? Certainly
not, because that's absurd.
The only thing that is certain is that the next president will be
working to fix things that perceivably did not go well during Obama's
presidency. Quit pointing a finger and focus on the problems of today.
No one is always right.

Posted by: TitanTn | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

Obama was about to launch a full-scale war in Afghanistan to please
the Defense industries who make campaign contributions to Democratic
members of Congress who can't run or win without their support. The
only thing that Obama is concerned about is running and winning and he
respects any industry who supports Democratic candidates so they can
win and keep a Democratic majority. Whenever he fails, or does
something to please industries that normally support Republicans, he
always says he is being bipartisan. What a total crock. He doesn't do
anything but talk and when he does he doesn't tell us anything. This
is the consummate diplomat in case you were wondering what this kind
of ineffective leadership means to Norwegians. I personally wouldn't
care what Norwegians thought. I would care a lot what the people in
the United States thought or what the peopleof Afghanistan thought.

Posted by: eyemakeupneeded1 | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

If Obama can win this for talking pretty can his speech writer is next
in line for Nobel Prize in Literature?

Posted by: Ram_K | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

Congratulations Mr. President. Thank you for changing the world's
image of America. You deserve this and we rejoice in it with you.

Posted by: 1rakat | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM

Are we so egotistical that when our president garners a praise or an
honor we cannot think of it as a national honor? Is there one United
States of America? Or, are there 300+ million United States of
America?

Posted by: hanrm0415 | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM

I love this because it rankles the repugs! Who deserves it more than
Obama? He's done more for world peace than Bush could have ever even
thought in his pea size brain!

Posted by: blarsen1 | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM

WHAT'S HE DONE--------NOTHING BUT TALK

Posted by: pkaiser1 | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM

Will the right wing never get tired of blasting President Obama. You
lost get over it. At least he has a measure of intelligence as opposed
to a former president. If the right wing would work with the president
instead of listening to a++holes such as Rush who hopes he fails
things could get done. We sent these people to Washington to work for
the Americans not to act like little brats who when the game isn't
going their way they take their ball and go home.

Posted by: deljaramillo | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM

one only has to look at an actual list of actual Nobel prize
recipients, something few here have actually done, mentioning onlly
the most famous winners. well there were far more dubious choices
before and obama is well deserving he has definetly changed the tone
in world politics like no one else currently. just who exactly
compares to him right now on the world stage? who? its his time, our
time...congratulate and salute him...and help him achieve his/our
goals for peace and prosperity...enough knee jerk reactions are you
all so blinded by your hate...

Posted by: ronnieron1 | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM

I'm still laughing my Azz off over this JOKE!!! HAHAhhahahaha....to
bad the jokes on the American people.

Posted by: NO-bama | October 9, 2009 10:01 AM

Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave.
The committee has run amuck!
Jimmy Carter has done more to encourage terrorism than to promote
peace, history will show Obama has and is coddling and cultivating the
same.

Posted by: Obama_TRAITOR_in_Chief | October 9, 2009 10:01 AM

This is no more ludicrous than a murderer (Edward Kennedy) being
"knighted" or jimma carter (THE U.S.S.A.s worst president)receiving it
before BH O'Carter. All three "awards" were given by ultra liberals,
none were deserved, and all three recipients are frauds and shams.

Posted by: IQ168 | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM

Who designed the bar graph? The difference between the "yes" votes and
the "no" votes is two percentage points, yet the "no" bar is three
times as long as the "yes" bar.

In fact, "yes" is 49% and "no" is 51%: the graph is supposed to
illustrate reality, not. . . well, just what DOES it illustrate?

Posted by: cmcintyr | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM

First Al Gore & now this. The Nobel Committee has lost all
credibility.

Posted by: JEM28 | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM

A proud day for the United States of America. Congratulations
President Obama, this award is very much deserved!

Posted by: tbranen | October 9, 2009 10:03 AM

Nobel prize fail...

Posted by: Phil6 | October 9, 2009 10:03 AM

While we can speculate on the reasons for the award and disagree on
what an appropriate basis for granting such an award is, what is so
disappointing is that for so many pundits and partisans it is just
another opportunity to dump on the President. The rush to taint and
trash the honor is unseemly. If you look at the articles, blogs and
comments this morning, the chattering crowds are tripping over
themselves to be the first to p*ss on this. Jeez, grow up.

Posted by: Georgia10 | October 9, 2009 10:03 AM

Oh, yes, Obama deserves it, for all he has done in all its glory. He
should have won it three or four times by now. They should have given
it to him back when he was a state legislator in Illinois, and when he
was a law clerk in Chicago. He has earned it many times over. He
should win one each day when he gets up in the morning, and after he
brushes his teeth and when he has a cup of coffee. He has transformed
the world into better place where the lion and the lamb can sit down
together and chat over a can of beer. It's now a place where we can
all hold hands and sing his praises. Now that the prize committee has
recognized his genius, we should look forward to him getting it again
next year and the year after that, too. Man is this guy good!

Posted by: ttj1 | October 9, 2009 10:04 AM

No! And please stop pulling the race card every time someone has
something negative to say about the president. The vote was made three
weeks after he took office. What the hell had he done at that point to
bring peace? Move furniture in and out of the White House? See
whatever you want to see, the truth stopped being relevant a long time
ago.

Posted by: mytwocentstoday | October 9, 2009 10:05 AM

"the guy has accomplished exactly NOTHING in regard to ANYTHING."
He's managed to push the remaining reactionary rightwing whackos
insane. Listen to their mini-minds exploding all over the country,
Pop! Pop! Pop!
All they've got is Fear, Hate, Distortion and Division. No prize for
them!

Posted by: thebobbob | October 9, 2009 10:06 AM

FOLKS HATING ON PRESIDENT OBAMA AS IF HE VOTED HIMSELF IN. SOME OF YOU
SAY HE GOT THE PRIZE TO EARLY, WHATS THE RIGHT TIME. THE TIME IS NOW,
AIN'T NO REWIND OR FAST FORWARD. FOR ALL OF YOU HATERS, BUSH COULDN'T
GET ANY AWARD HE DIDN'T GIVE TO HIMSELF. THE PRESIDENT IS A MAN OF THE
WORLD, HE JUST HAPPENS TO WORK FOR THE USA, OOOORAH!!! HATE ON THAT.

Posted by: notbhaven | October 9, 2009 10:06 AM

It's easy to understand why Americans are so surprised by the Nobel
Committee's decision...they get their news from our right-wing slanted
media. Imagine living in a country where the papers didn't continualy
repeat obviously false smears -- deather, birther, Nazi, etc -- as if
they were legitimate "points of view."
Imagine if Truth, not faux "balance" were the underlying principle!
Imagine you're looking at the US from outside our spin-bubble, and
this makes prefect sense.
Congratulations President Obama! And may your good efforts expand and
succeed!

Posted by: watt | October 9, 2009 10:07 AM

Congratulations Mr Pres.

You are the first black US Pres in history and now the first black US
President in history to have ever won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve it! I guess the NBPP commitee loved the
fact that you degrade America at every turn, weaken our stance on
terrorism, give aid to our enemies (Hamas), kill our economy with your
asinine economic spending spree, and kill our soldiers in Afgan with
your powerful non-decisison making capabilities - I can see why they
gave you the NBPP - anyone that can weaken America that much in 9
months is a hero in their eyes. Congrats! I pray you are a one term
anomoly.

Posted by: NO-bama | October 9, 2009 10:08 AM

Interesting, not many, including news outlets, asked if President
Obama "deserved" Joe Wilson.
I think it is a good result, because it simply whips Obama's
detractors in to more of a frenzy. It is good news because it offsets
much of the ridiculous venom and demagoguery hurled at this President,
who has meanwhile worked with focus, and good results, amid very
difficult circumstances.

Posted by: kenhyde | October 9, 2009 10:08 AM

Haa Haa. That's a good one. Now, who REALLY won?

Posted by: IQ168 | October 9, 2009 10:08 AM

I understand that the olympic games will not be held in the future,
but that medals will be awarded on the basis of what the judges think
you might accomplish.
I also heard that a mexican meth lab operator was being awarded the
nobel prize for chemistry.

Posted by: rlkidd58 | October 9, 2009 10:09 AM

What a joke - if BO has any sense he'd decline the award

Posted by: grass | October 9, 2009 10:10 AM

I am a great admirer of President Obama.
Last year I winced when ASU made comments about President Obama's body
of work lying in front of him. But that was for an honorary degree
from a minor school.

This is about the Nobel Prize! I've been suspicious of the past few
winners -- I guess they've jumped the shark on this one.
They should have waited a few years, within a few years we'll see a
lot fewer wars, a lot more wet teams and targeted assassinations, and
a lot of electric cars on the road. But none of that has happened yet.

Posted by: bbb444 | October 9, 2009 10:10 AM

Sorry, But this is a joke! What a waste ! Give credit where it is do.
Was this bought and paid for? Yeah it is a socialist thing.Next to
Carter he is the worst Prez.

Posted by: getreal121 | October 9, 2009 10:10 AM

there is no honor in a prize that was once given to Al Gore for his
hack science - The Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a cracker-
jack prize...fitting for this Pres.

Posted by: NO-bama | October 9, 2009 10:11 AM

I am an Indian.I think that President Obama has not contributed
sufficiently to worldpeace to receive the precious award.He is
different and progressive in attitudes,but his efficiency to execute
his ideas are not proved so far.

Posted by: kkabdulsalam | October 9, 2009 10:11 AM

Gore, Obama - dead level comparison!
wind and smoke.......

Posted by: jdiehl6 | October 9, 2009 10:12 AM

Great poll(?). I voted "NO" - and the system wouldn't take it - NOR
let me see the results. So, I voted "YES" and it took it immediately
and showed me the results. Imagine my surprise! Is ACORN running the
poll?
Posted by: IQ168 | October 9, 2009 10:13 AM

What are the chances of another person like Obama coming along to
rescue the world after W brought it to an economic, political and
environmental collapse? Slim to none. The Nobel committee recognizes
that. He has done much more already for world peace than anyone else
after staying just 9 months in the office. This award will give him
the political and moral capital to accelerate his efforts towards
world piece.

Posted by: manofwisdom | October 9, 2009 10:13 AM

Funny how this comes a few days before our government makes a crucial
decision as to whether to wreck our healthcare or not.
Isn't this the same peace prize that was also awarded to Arafat?? I
got a better idea, lets make a gold statue of Obama so that every
Friday liberals from all walks of life can come and pray.
This man is a sick joke of a president and the people that praise him
are even sicker!!

Posted by: emmitfitzhume | October 9, 2009 10:13 AM

Congratulations, Mr. President.

I am proud of the work you have started (though we should have a
private chat sometime about that thing in Afghanistan).
I am proud that you have established the foundation for a new way
forward that is based on cooperation and engagement.
Most of all, I am proud to be an American this morning, and every day,
and that you are setting the standard in international leadership.
Thank you.

Posted by: ennepe68 | October 9, 2009 10:14 AM

The Nobel Prizes just became off little importance.

Posted by: smiggs1 | October 9, 2009 10:14 AM

This has to be a punk on Barack by Aston Kutcher..........
They must give these awards based on lip service. Obama DID give a
nice speech in Berlin apologizing for Americas's mistakes and such.
That kind of drivel goes over big with Europeans.
Other than that, the guy is as useful as a poopy popsicle.
He has done squat to deserve anything remotely resembling praise.

Posted by: MosinM9159 | October 9, 2009 10:15 AM

I thought the concept and logic behind receiving an "award" was that
there have to be recognized accomplishments?? Where are they?

Crafty politicians are the committee members for making Obama a
patsy...now Obama must bend to the will of other nations and pull out
troops from Afganistan (and possibly Iraq) otherwise he looks even
more undeserving than we know he is already.

Posted by: Exiledpatriot | October 9, 2009 10:15 AM

I voted for Obama, I support him and I admire his vision and values,
but I can NOT say that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. It's not
even close. Even if his actions in the last nine months qualify him
for the prize, which I think is a still a stretch, he was only in
office 12 DAYS before the nomination deadline!!!!!! Maybe the
obviously politically-motivated, agenda-centric Nobel Peace committee
should have waited at least a year. This really seems like a "slap in
the face" to past winners.

Posted by: Juraco | October 9, 2009 10:15 AM

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!

If they think he was worthy of the Nobel Peace prize by Feb 1st, he
should be King of the World by New Year's Day.

Posted by: ddmail | October 9, 2009 10:16 AM

I tried to take the poll vote No, but it will not take it,but I;l be
da---if I vote yes just to see what it does

Posted by: getreal121 | October 9, 2009 10:18 AM

The Nobel Prize for Al Gore for his extremist manipulation of
statistics and exaggeration of every possible conclusion in that
terrible movie, An Inconvenient Truth, passed over a truly worthy
nominee, Irena Sendler.
Now we get B.H.Obama, who so far has done nothing but talk, talk,
talk, talk; providing no leadership but letting everyone else in his
party take the heat for chaos; getting the Nobel Prize for peace. His
policies will bring real war, and the end will not be good for anyone.

Posted by: eagleEd | October 9, 2009 10:18 AM

It has been really, really fun to watch the heads of the Right Wing
Nuts explode, over this announcement.
They, who cheered when America lost the Olympics, are now in "boo hoo"
mode over the Nobel Peace Prize Award to The President of the United
States.
Predictable as it is... it's been a joy to behold their reaction.
Gotta Luv It.
Congratulations, President Obama. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: eryanwhite | October 9, 2009 10:19 AM

Are you kidding me? The Nobel Prize has really lost it's credibility
and prestige from this day forward. It should be awarded to men or
women who have devoted a LIFETIME to achieving peace, not some pop
star version of it.

Posted by: sah2 | October 9, 2009 10:19 AM

Apparently making pretty speeches is enough to win a Nobel prize,
whereas actually liberating millions of Muslims in Iraq and
Afghanistan, significantly degrading a global terrorist organization,
forcing another country to abandon its nuclear program and providing
unprecented levels of aid to Africa to fight AIDS is not? These are
all things that President Bush actually ACCOMPLISHED.

Posted by: Illini | October 9, 2009 10:20 AM

The folks on ABC's This Week got it right last Sunday. They said of
Obama and were quoted at http://SirensPromise.com :

Obama tried to get Dave Paterson out of the race [for governor] in New
York, and he says no.
They tried to get Andrew Romanoff out of the race for Senate in
Colorado; he says no.
They try to get Joe Sestak out of the race in Pennsylvania for Senate;
he says no.
The argument is that “no harm in trying,” that is the job of the White
House….
Then George Will said:
That’s just at home, Abroad…
He has said to Israel, “stop the settlements;” they didn’t.
He said to the Palestinians “engage the Israelis;” they didn’t.
He said to Saudi Arabia “some gesture please toward Israel;” they
didn’t.
He said to Iran do this, that, and the other thing; they obviously
haven’t.
To Honduras he said “Please restore your president;” they didn’t.
To India and China, “Please restrain your greenhouse gases;” they
won’t
To NATO, “Please take some of our Gitmo terrorists;” they won’t.
“NATO, please send troops to Afghanistan;” they won’t.
Saying “No” to the president is getting to be a habit….

Posted by: rmm-boston | October 9, 2009 10:21 AM

My vote goes to Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Posted by: theworm1 | October 9, 2009 10:22 AM

I am one of many delighted and encouraged about the future for our
country and world because of President Obama's actions and tireless
pursuit of peace and stability. I lament voices of doom that threaten
our country's progress. My hope is that more Americans will use their
influence for good; that they will recognize and advocate fair
treatment and peaceful relations for all Americans and all world
citizens.

Posted by: Eleanor-JusticeForAll | October 9, 2009 10:22 AM

Bill Clinton's head must be close to exploding, given how much time
and money he's dedicated to the Clinton Global Initiatives over the
last eight years.

Posted by: Illini | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

I am beginning to wonder whether a background in Chicago politics is
more detrmintal to a president's ability to lead than a background in
radical Moslem education, which is what schooling in Indonesia is
like. Obama's stepfather brought him to Indonesia and educated him
there during his tender years.

Indonesia slaughters Christians, mostly ethnic Chinese Christians, who
are the minority in Indonesia. There are websites created by ethnic
Chinese in Indonesia that detail this carnage. In fact, to seek
political asylum in Indonesia, all one has to do is prove one is an
ethnically Chinese Christian and has been threatened or harmed by
Muslims because the State Department recognizes in its country
conditions database that Christians are persecuted with the full
support of the Indonesian government. So how's that for a great
international background?

Actually, since my family comes from Chicago, I fear a leader's
exposure to Chicago politics and the influence from that quarter more
than I do a politician's exposure to Indonesian education and
prejudices. Chicago's ethnic hatreds and prejudices are far worse in
their own way than Indonesian prejudices because there is no way for
anyone to seek political asylum from persecution perpetrated by
Chicago politicians.

Posted by: eyemakeupneeded1 | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Congrats go out to my great President. What idiot doesn't want to
stand for peace, when our sons and daughters are at war. Shame on
those who differ. Yes, we can. Go my President, may God continue to
bless and protect you and your family. All love to President Barack
Obama.

Posted by: lexus1 | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

UNBELIEVABLE.

Posted by: mpwynn | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Apparently the right wing in this country has difficulty using "The
President of the United States" and the word "Peace" in the same
sentence. This is sad. Such negativity is not helpful - how many of
those complaining have children in Iraq or Afghanistan???
The "graph" shown here with the results of the "Peace Prize Is Bad"
poll is so skewed, that it finally confirms my feelings about the W.
Post in the last few years. Peace? Who wants Peace???

Posted by: JoyceV | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

What has President Obama actually accomplished that makes him
deserving of this award? I believe he may well have good intentions
and his vision may be sincere. Perhaps in time he may attain some
accomplishments that would support a nomination for this award. But he
has not actually accomplished anything to date, especially when you
consider that he was only in office a few weeks before he was
nominated for this award. First it was Al Gore, and now this - the
Nobel Peace prize can no longer be recognized as a serious award.

Posted by: LonghorninVA | October 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 12:41:35 PM10/9/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/323694_Sonia-congratulates-Obama-on-winning-Nobel-Peace-Prize

Sonia congratulates Obama on winning Nobel Peace Prize
STAFF WRITER 21:46 HRS IST

New Delhi, Oct 9 (PTI) Congress President Sonia Gandhi today
congratulated US President Barack Obama for being awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Party sources said Gandhi would be writing a personnel letter to the
US President soon.

48-year-old Obama is the fourth US President to win the Nobel Peace
Prize.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 12:50:33 PM10/9/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/323657_Nobel-to-Obama-a-rebuke-to-Bush-policies--US-media

Nobel to Obama a rebuke to Bush policies: US media
STAFF WRITER 21:29 HRS IST
Lalit K Jha

Washington, Oct 9 (PTI) The Nobel Committee may have stunned the world
by picking US President Barack Obama for the Peace Prize but the
mainstream American media has declared that the choice is largely a
"rebuke" to the foreign policies of his predecessor George W Bush.

"In one sense, the award is a rebuke to the foreign policies of Bush,
some of which the President has sought to overturn," The New York
Times said in an article posted on its website.

The Washington Post, in its lead news posted on the website early
today, said that in choosing Obama from among 205 nominees, the
committee "appeared to be continuing its rebuke of the Bush
administration's go-it-alone approach to world bodies and alliances,
including its decision to go to war in Iraq without UN approval.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 12:53:05 PM10/9/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/323166_Nobel-prize-an--incentive--for-Obama--world-leaders

Nobel prize an 'incentive' for Obama: world leaders
STAFF WRITER 18:58 HRS IST

London, Oct 9 (PTI) The surprise choice of US President Barack Obama
for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has evoked praise from world leaders
who hailed it as an "incentive" for him and them to do more for peace.

Some felt that the honour was aimed at encouraging the 48-year-old
American President to carry on with his diplomatic overtures to
perceived US enemies. The decision of the Nobel Committee has come as
a surprise to many as Obama has been in office for just over eight
months.

One of the first reactions came from German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who called the honour an "incentive to the president and to us all" to
do more for peace.

Expressing his "very great joy", French President Nicolas Sarkozy said
it should strengthen Obama's determination to work for peace and
justice.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 12:55:22 PM10/9/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/322909_Another-Gandhi-follower-bags-Nobel-Prize

Another Gandhi follower bags Nobel Prize
STAFF WRITER 17:36 HRS IST
Lalit K Jha

Washington, Oct 9 (PTI) Although Mahatma Gandhi was not awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize but the coveted honour has gone to several
individuals who believed in and propagated the Gandhian philosophy of
peace and non-violence globally.

Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States, is
latest in this club of Gandhian followers to have been awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize.

Prominent followers in the recent past have been Nelson Mandela, Aung
San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama.

Obama, the first African American president of the United States, has
been an avid admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. Only recently he told a group
of students he would like to have dinner with Mahatma Gandhi.

The Father of the nation Gandhi's contribution and influence in the
rise of Obama is being acknowledged too.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 1:08:04 PM10/9/09

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/59117.htm

Manmohan Singh Congratulates Obama
October 9th, 2009 SindhToday

New Delhi, Oct 9 (IANS) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Friday conveyed
his “heartiest congratulations” to US President Barack Obama on
winning the Nobel Peace prize 2009, praising his “inclusive approach
to problem solving and primacy to dialogue as an instrument of
policy”.

“I am delighted at the news of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for
2009 to you. Please accept my heartiest congratulations,” the prime
minister wrote in a letter to Obama within hours of the announcement.

“The citation for the prize admirably reflects your personal qualities
of leadership and the new perspectives that you have brought to bear
on the conduct of relations between different countries and cultures,
and on some of the most burning issues of our times,” Manmohan Singh
said. The text of his message was released by the Prime Minister’s
Office.

Pointing out that the world today is “in need of a healing touch”,
Manmohan Singh said: “Your pursuit of an inclusive approach to problem
solving, and primacy to dialogue as an instrument of policy are
setting new benchmarks for the world community. I am confident that
the world will be the better for it.”

Manmohan Singh also noted Obama’s remarks on his “real hero” — Mahatma
Gandhi.

“Peace and non-violence are part of India’s ethos. Your recent
statement that the America of today has its roots in the India of
Mahatma Gandhi, therefore, has a particularly evocative resonance in
India.”

“I look forward to working with you to advance the goals of a more
secure, equitable and just world, and extend my best wishes for your
success as the President of the United States of America,” the prime
minister said.
[LM1]

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 3:45:46 PM10/9/09

http://www.slate.com/id/2231909/?GT1=38001

The Wizard of Oslo
Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?
By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Oct. 9, 2009, at 8:52 AM ET

President Barack ObamaIt came a week late, but President Obama did win
the gold. Last Friday, the International Olympic Committee stiffed
him. Today, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He should probably leave his
schedule open next Friday, because apparently anything can happen.

It was the second time in three years that the peace prize went to
someone trying to create a new international climate. In 2007, Al Gore
shared the prize for his efforts to combat global warming. Explaining
this year's selection, the committee credited Obama not for concrete
accomplishments but for atmospheric ones. "Only very rarely has a

person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and

given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His
diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the
world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared
by the majority of the world's population."

Having worked at Time magazine when it occasionally named a Person of
the Year who evoked a similar "Huh?" reaction, I recognize this
language: It the sound of words groaning for a rationale. The
committee can, of course, pick whomever it wants. But in his 1895

will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the

person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity

between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies

and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

"Shall have done," seems a tricky piece of language to write around.
This makes the committee's statement sounds more like a wish list.
It's not that Obama has done nothing. It's that so much about his
presidency is preliminary. (I'm not counting the beer summit.) Other
recipients—Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, and Lech Walesa—seem more
aptly to hit the "have done" mark. Others who might not be household
names, like Muhammad Yunus, make sense on inspection.

On the other hand, Obama may fit the bill more than some other
recipients. At least he hasn't actively been engaged in making
warfare, as were previous recipients Henry Kissinger and Yasser
Arafat. Then again, Obama is considering whether to send more troops
into Afghanistan, one of America's two wars.

Obama took office less than 10 days before the Feb. 1 deadline for
Nobel Prize nominations. It was not a weak field. This year there were
205 submissions, more than ever. Obama was not a part of the pregame
speculation, which had centered on human rights activists in China and
Afghanistan and political figures in Africa. Human rights activists in
China must be particularly miffed, since the Obama administration has
downplayed China's bad human rights record.

The committee of five Norwegians has a more relaxed standard than
Saturday Night Live, which recently poked fun at Obama for his lack of
accomplishments, and Arizona State University, which declined to award
him an honorary degree because of his inexperience.

Obama is not the first president, sitting or former, to win the award.
In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt won the award. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson
did. In 2002, Jimmy Carter took home the prize. Today's announcement
may test the empathy of Bill Clinton, who has devoted his post-
presidency to global health and peace initiatives.

The news came as such a shock that White House Press Secretary Robert
Gibbs responded to CBS News White House Correspondent Peter Maer with
one word: "Wow." Gibbs phoned the president at 6 a.m. to give him the
news.

The award has essentially been given for the president's speechmaking
ability, which means his political handlers made the right call by
sending him to Berlin during last year's election. The prize
highlights the juxtaposition between the 44th and 43rd presidents:
from a verbally challenged leader who seemed at time to revel in
shunning world opinion to a wordsmith who came to office promising to
embrace the globe.

The award will feed into the automatic sorting mechanism of politics.
Conservatives who scoffed that Obama's Olympic defeat meant a drop in
prestige should, by the same logic, herald this as an even greater
spike in the same. They won't, because no one gets a prize for
consistency.

Other parties that benefit from the prize are the producers at Fox
News, who now know what they're going to talk about this weekend.
Pundits win because the Nobel committee has validated the idea that
speeches and atmospherics are really important. The award also offers
the opportunity for all of us elites to do what we do best, which is
miss how regular people might react. While we're talking about how the
Nobel committee has jumped the shark, some people might like that a
president who they elected, in part, to improve America's image in the
world has been rewarded for it.

One debate will be whether Obama should turn down the prize, as
Slate's Mickey Kaus suggests. That would be a slap to the committee,
but since awards are being given for atmospherics, let's consider the
atmospherics of such a move. Obama could easily write the justifying
language: He's honored and humbled but he has merely articulated the
common aspirations of all mankind. As it is mankind's global
challenge, no one man can claim a prize with so much work left to be
done. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task
remaining before us. (Ben Rhodes and Jon Favreau could certainly find
the language.)

In the quarters where his speechmaking and diplomatic flair are
praised, such a performance will only enhance his reputation. His
critics will be dumbfounded. The arrogance rap will fade. Obama would
immediately become the favorite for next year's Nobel Prize for
Humility.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 3:48:20 PM10/9/09

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090220001&lang=e

Amnesty International Press Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, February 20, 2009

Amnesty International Shocked, Dismayed by U.S. Secretary Clinton's
Comments That Human Rights Will Not Top Her China Agenda

Human Rights Organization Urges Her to Repair the Damage Before She
Leaves China

Contact: AIUSA media office, 202-544-0200 x302, lsp...@aiusa.org

(Washington) -- T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA advocacy director
for Asia and the Pacific, made the following statement in response to
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments to reporters that
human rights will not be at the top of her agenda in her first visit
to China:

"Amnesty International is shocked and extremely disappointed by U.S.
Secretary Clinton's comments that human rights will not be a priority
in her diplomatic engagement with China.

"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully
stand up to China on human rights issues. But by commenting that human
rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton
damages future U.S. initiatives to protect those rights in China.

"The Chinese people face a dire situation. Crackdowns on Tibetans,
Uighurs and religious groups such as the Falun Gong are widespread,
resulting in thousands of political prisoners--some of whom have been
executed. Half a million people are currently in labor camps. Women
face forced abortion and sterilization as part of China's enforcement
of its one-child policy.

"It's not too late for Secretary Clinton to do the right thing for the
Chinese people. Amnesty International urges Secretary Clinton to
repair the damage caused by her statement and publicly declare that
human rights are central to U.S.-China relations before she leaves
Beijing."

In a letter sent to Secretary Clinton before her trip to Asia, Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch, along and other organizations
insisted that she raise important human rights concerns with Chinese
officials on her visit.

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots
activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists
and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights
worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates
and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever
justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

For more information about human rights in China, please visit:
www.amnestyusa.org

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 3:55:26 PM10/9/09

http://www.amnestyusa.org/china/page.do?id=1011134

China Human Rights

Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights
violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently
enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are
unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their
grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment
of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the
Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups,
including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong
practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-
sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of
Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases may result in
lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in
the world. Review our annual report on China human rights violations.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2008&c=CHN

2008 Annual Report for China
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Head of State Hu Jintao
Head of government Wen Jiabao
Death penalty retentionist
Population 1,331.4 million
Life expectancy 72.5 years

More information on China Human Rights

Growing numbers of human rights activists were imprisoned, put under
house arrest or surveillance, or harassed. Repression of minority
groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, continued. Falun
Gong practitioners were at particularly high risk of torture and other
ill-treatment in detention. Christians were persecuted for practising
their religion outside state-sanctioned channels. Despite the
reinstatement of Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases,
the death penalty remained shrouded in secrecy and continued to be
used extensively. Torture of detainees and prisoners remained
prevalent. Millions of people had no access to justice and were forced
to seek redress through an ineffective extra-legal petition system.
Women and girls continued to suffer violence and discrimination.
Preparations for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing were marked by
repression of human rights activists. Censorship of the internet and
other media intensified.

Death penalty

Death penalty statistics continued to be regarded as a state secret,
making it difficult to assess official claims that the reinstatement
of Supreme Court review had reduced the number of executions. Based on
public reports, Amnesty International estimated that at least 470
people were executed and 1,860 people sentenced to death during 2007,
although the true figures were believed to be much higher.

In June, the Supreme People's Court stipulated that first-instance
death penalty cases must be held in open court and that courts must
move towards public trials for appeals in capital cases. However,
death penalty trials continued to be held behind closed doors, police
often resorted to torture to obtain "confessions", and detainees were
denied prompt and regular access to lawyers. Death sentences and
executions continued to be imposed for 68 offences, including many non-
violent crimes such as corruption and drug-related offences.

Justice system

People who peacefully exercised their rights such as freedom of
expression and association remained at high risk of enforced
disappearance, illegal and incommunicado detention or house arrest,
surveillance, beatings and harassment.

An estimated 500,000 people were subjected to punitive detention
without charge or trial through "re-education through labour" and
other forms of administrative detention. Progress on legislation to
reform "re-education through labour" remained stalled in the National
People's Congress. Police extended the use of "re-education through
labour" and another form of administrative detention, "enforced drug
rehabilitation", to "clean up" Beijing in the run-up to the Olympics.

For an estimated 11-13 million people, the only practical channel for
justice remained outside the courts in a system of petitioning to
local and higher level authorities, where the vast majority of cases
remained unresolved.

Torture and other ill-treatment
Torture in detention remained widespread.

•Yang Chunlin, a human rights activist from Heilongjiang, was detained
on 6 July for "subversion of state power". He had supported the legal
action brought by over 40,000 farmers whose land had been confiscated
without compensation. Yang Chunlin had helped to gather signatures for
a petition entitled "We want human rights, not the Olympics" signed by
many of the farmers. Police repeatedly refused him access to his
family and lawyer on the grounds that his case "related to the state".
Yang Chunlin was tortured, including on numerous occasions by having
his arms and legs stretched and chained to the four corners of an iron
bed, and being forced to eat, drink and defecate in that position.

•Shanghai housing rights activist Chen Xiaoming died of a massive
haemorrhage shortly after being released from prison on medical parole
on 1 July.

Human rights defenders

While space for civil society activities continued to grow, the
targeting of human rights defenders who raised issues deemed to be
politically sensitive intensified. The authorities criminalized the
activities of human rights activists by charging them with offences
such as damaging public property, extortion and fraud.

Human rights defenders and their relatives, including children, were
increasingly subject to harassment, including surveillance, house
arrest and beatings by both government officials and unidentified
assailants. Lawyers were particularly targeted, and an increasing
number had their licence renewal application rejected.

•Defence lawyer and human rights activist Gao Zhisheng remained under
tight police surveillance throughout the year after his conviction in
December 2006 for "inciting subversion". Between 24 June and 4 July
and again between 22 September and early November, he was held
incommunicado and tortured in unknown locations, before being returned
to house arrest in Beijing.

•Human rights lawyer Li Heping was abducted by unidentified
individuals in late September, beaten for several hours and told to
stop his human rights work. He was then released.

•Several activists died either in detention or shortly after their
release.

Freedom of expression

The Chinese authorities maintained efforts to tightly control the flow
of information. They decided what topics and news stories could be
published, and media outlets were sometimes required to respond within
minutes to government directives. The authorities continued to block
websites and to filter internet content based on specified words and
topics.

Around 30 journalists were known to be in prison and at least 50
individuals were in prison for posting their views on the internet.
People were often punished simply for accessing banned websites.

Despite a temporary loosening of regulations applying to foreign
journalists in China in the run-up to the Olympics, control over both
foreign and Chinese journalists remained tight, and many Chinese
journalists were imprisoned for reporting on sensitive subjects. In
April, the Ministry of Public Security reportedly ordered the
screening of all those attending the Beijing Olympics, with 43
categories of people to be barred, including some based on political
or religious beliefs.

Violence and discrimination against women

Women suffered discrimination in employment, education and access to
health care. The trafficking of women and girls remained widespread,
particularly from North Korea (see below). Domestic violence continued
to be prevalent and was said to be a primary cause of suicide among
women in rural areas.

It was reported in May that dozens of women in the Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous Region in south-west China were subjected to forced
abortions under the supervision of local family planning officials, in
some cases in the ninth month of pregnancy.

Repression of spiritual and religious groups

Millions of people were impeded from freely practising their religion.
Thousands remained in detention or serving prison sentences, at high
risk of torture, for practising their religion outside of state-
sanctioned channels. Falun Gong practitioners, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan
Buddhists and underground Christian groups were among those most
harshly persecuted.

During the year over 100 Falun Gong practitioners were reported to
have died in detention or shortly after release as a result of
torture, denial of food or medical treatment, and other forms of ill-
treatment.

Underground Protestant house church meetings were frequently disrupted
by the police, participants often detained and beaten, and the
churches sometimes destroyed.

•Hua Huaiqi, a Beijing-based house church leader, was sentenced in a
closed trial in June to six months in prison for obstructing justice.
He was reportedly beaten in jail. His 76-year-old mother, who
protested against her son's treatment, was herself sentenced to two
years in prison for destruction of public and private property after
her cane struck the headlight of an oncoming police car.

•Members of China's unofficial Catholic church were repressed. An
elderly Catholic bishop, Han Dingxiang, died in custody under
suspicious circumstances after more than 20 years in jail. He was
quickly cremated by local authorities.
•Religious adherents of all beliefs had difficulty getting legal
counsel, as lawyers willing to take up such sensitive cases were often
harassed, detained and imprisoned.

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region

The authorities continued to use the US-led "war on terror" to justify
harsh repression of ethnic Uighurs, living primarily in Xinjiang
Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), resulting in serious human rights
violations. Non-violent expressions of Uighur cultural identity were
criminalized. Uighur individuals were the only known group in China to
be sentenced to death and executed for political crimes, such as
"separatist activities".

China increasingly successfully used the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization to pressurize neighbouring countries, including
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, to co-operate in forced returns
of Uighurs to China.

There was an increase in the number of Uighurs detained abroad who
were forcibly sent to China, where they faced the death penalty and
possible execution, including Uighurs with foreign nationality.

•Ismail Semed, who was forcibly returned to China from Pakistan in
2003, was executed on charges of "attempting to split the Motherland"
and possession of firearms and explosives.

•Ablikim Abdiriyim, son of Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer, was tried in
secret and sentenced to nine years in prison on charges of
"instigating and engaging in secessionist activities". According to
official sources, these activities consisted largely of asking Yahoo's
"Uighur-language webmaster" to post articles on its website. However,
both Yahoo! and Alibaba, the Chinese internet company that operates
Yahoo! China's services, have stated they do not provide a Uighur-
language web service. Ablikim Abdiriyim was reported to have been
tortured and otherwise ill-treated in prison, and was said to have had
difficulty recognizing family members during a visit in December. The
authorities continued to deny him access to medical treatment.

•The authorities pursued a policy of large-scale Han Chinese migration
to XUAR to address alleged labour shortages, while large numbers of
young Uighur women and girls -- reportedly more than 200,000 -- were
sent to work in factories in eastern China, often coerced by local
authorities and under harsh conditions with low pay.

Tibet Autonomous Region and other ethnic Tibetan areas

Freedom of religion, expression and association of Tibetans continued
to be severely restricted. The State Administration for Religious
Affairs established government control over the identification and
training of Tibetan Buddhist teachers throughout China. Peaceful
expressions of support for the Dalai Lama continued to be harshly
punished. Efforts to pass information abroad about crackdowns against
Tibetans were harshly punished.

•Some 40 Tibetan children were detained by police in Gansu Province
for writing pro-Tibetan independence slogans on walls. Eyewitnesses
said that four of the boys were bruised and dazed, and that one of
them was repeatedly taken away at night, returning in the morning
appearing battered and unable to speak.

•Runggye Adak, a Tibetan nomad who during a cultural festival publicly
called for the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet, was sentenced to eight
years in prison for "inciting to split the country" and "severely
disrupting public order". Three others were jailed for 10, nine and
three years on charges of "colluding with foreign separatist forces to
split the country and distributing political pamphlets" for their
efforts to send information to overseas organizations about Runggye
Adak's arrest.

North Korean refugees

Approximately 50,000 North Koreans were reportedly hiding in China,
living under constant fear of deportation. Each month hundreds of
North Koreans were believed to have been forcibly repatriated to North
Korea without being given access to UNHCR offices in China. A majority
of the North Koreans in China were women, many of whom had been
trafficked into China and whose primary means of avoiding forcible
return to North Korea was being sold into marriage to Chinese men.
Children born to North Korean refugee women in China are effectively
stateless and face difficulties gaining access to education and health
care.

•Kim Yong-ja, an undocumented North Korean woman, reportedly committed
suicide in detention because she feared forcible return to North
Korea. She was among 40 North Korean refugees arrested in December
near Qinhuangdao, Hubei Province.

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Tens of thousands of people demonstrated for political and human
rights reforms on the 10th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to
Chinese sovereignty in July. Hundreds of overseas Falun Gong
practitioners were denied entry to Hong Kong in the run-up to the
anniversary. In December, the Standing Committee of the National
People's Congress ruled it would consider permitting direct elections
for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
in 2017, not 2012.

Violence against women

Cases of domestic violence increased 120 per cent in the first three
months of the year -- a rise attributed to a greater willingness to
report such abuses to the police. Activists urged further amendments
to the Domestic Violence Ordinance aimed at criminalizing perpetrators
of domestic violence and bringing same-sex couples within its scope.

Discrimination against lesbians and gay men

Lesbian and gay activists criticized a January ruling by the
Broadcasting Authority that a television programme portraying same-sex
relationships was biased and unsuitable for family viewing. In July,
the Court of Final Appeal ruled as discriminatory a law which
criminalized same-sex sexual relations in public, but did not
criminalize heterosexuals for similar conduct.

Asylum-seekers

Asylum-seekers charged with immigration offences continued to be
detained pending the outcome of their asylum case. In May, a local NGO
reported that many asylum-seekers held in immigration detention
facilities had been stripped in front of other inmates, humiliated by
immigration officers and denied adequate medical care.

Twenty-nine asylum-seekers held at Castle Peak immigration detention
centre went on a three-day hunger strike in October to protest against
their prolonged detention. Support groups said some had been detained
for nearly a year, while the authorities claimed most had been there
for about a month.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:02:46 PM10/9/09

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/020/2007

Open Letter to Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National
People's Congress on the reform of Re-education through Labour

Download: HTMLPDFIndex Number: ASA 17/020/2007

Date Published: 18 October 2007
Categories: China, Asia And The Pacific

In this letter Amnesty International urges the National People's
Congress (NPC) to ensure that any legislation adopted to replace "Re-
education through Labour" (laodong jiaoyang, RTL) complies fully with
international human rights standards, including the right to fair
trial.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/020/2007/en/728b12dc-d364-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/asa170202007en.html

http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/020/2007/en/70f0eaa7-d364-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/asa170202007en.pdf

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:08:39 PM10/9/09

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/008/2007

China: Internal Migrants: Discrimination and abuse. The human cost of
an economic 'miracle'

Download: HTMLPDFIndex Number: ASA 17/008/2007
Date Published: 1 March 2007

Categories: China, Asia And The Pacific

This report examines discrimination against internal migrants in China
and violations of their rights in the areas of health care, education
and employment. It finds that China's hukou system provides the legal
basis for such discrimination by conditioning the enjoyment of a wide
range of rights and benefits on citizens' hukou designation, a status
inherited from one's parents at birth. Amnesty International calls on
the Chinese government to take immediate effective action to eliminate
all forms of discrimination against internal migrants which are
prohibited under international law.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/008/2007/en/c0c38728-d3af-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/asa170082007en.pdf

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/002/2007/en/dom-ASA170022007en.html

.Document - China: Remember the Gulja massacre? China's crackdown on
peaceful protesters

Web Action WA 003/07 AI Index: ASA 17/002/2007

Start date: 01/02/2007

Remember the Gulja massacre?
China’s crackdown on peaceful protesters

Another Tiananmen-style crackdown on peaceful protesters happened 10
years ago. But this time, the Chinese authorities were able to keep
the events hidden from the world.

Rebiya Kadeer, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, exposes the tragedy

I have never seen such viciousness in my life...military dogs were
attacking peaceful demonstrators. Chinese soldiers were bludgeoning
the demonstrators……bodies, some alive, others dead, were being dragged
across the ground and dumped all together into dozens of army trucks.

Rebiya Kadeer describes scenes of footage taken at the bloody Gulja
massacre on 5 February 1997 and subsequent days. She believes she was
shown the footage by the prefectural police chief to intimidate her
into stopping her investigation.

Watching the police footage, Rebiya Kadeer realized that this massacre
had been another Tiananmen-style crackdown on peaceful protesters. But
this time, the Chinese authorities were able to keep the events hidden
from the world.

I am speaking out so that we do not forget those who lost their lives
in Gulja and to call for accountability on the part of the Chinese
authorities.
- Rebiya Kadeer

Ten years later, Rebiya continues to tell the story of the massacre in
Gulja; and she continues to fight for the rights of China’s mainly
Muslim Uighur community who have been systematically persecuted since
the 1980s.

Read Rebiya’s vivid testimony on the immediate aftermath of the Gulja
massacre [Link to ASA 17/001/2007]

Rebiya Kadeer, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, is a
Uighur human rights activist and former prisoner of conscience. In
November 2006, she was also elected president of the World Uighur
Congress (WUC) in Munich. She lives in exile in the US.

In 1999, before her sentencing to eight years in prison on charges of
“"leaking state secrets”", Rebiya was a prominent businesswoman and
member of the Chinese National People’s Congress After nearly six
years, she was released from prison on medical parole in March 2005
and allowed to leave China.

While still in custody, Rebiya was warned that if she engaged with
members of the Uighur ethnic community or spoke publicly about
"sensitive issues" after her release, her "businesses and children
will be finished". Despite numerous threats, she continued her human
rights work.

Consequently, Rebiya’s family members who stayed in China were
targeted by the Chinese authorities. In November 2006, three of her
sons were made to pay heavy fines on politically motivated charges.
One of them received a prison sentence of seven years after he was
reported to have been severely beaten, with risk of further torture or
ill-treatment. Take action! [http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/
engasa170602006]

Uighur community

Uighur’s are a mainly Muslim ethnic minority who are concentrated
primarily in China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

Since the 1980s, the Uighurs have been the target of systematic and
extensive human rights violations. This includes arbitrary detention
and imprisonment, incommunicado detention, and serious restrictions on
religious freedom as well as cultural and social rights. Uighur
political prisoners have been executed after unfair trials.

In recent years, China has exploited the international “"war on
terror”" to suppress the Uighurs, labelling them “"terrorists”",
“"separatists”", or “"religious extremists”".

Gulja massacre

On 5 February 1997, peaceful demonstrations took place in the city of
Gulja (Yining) in XUAR.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, lost their lives or were seriously
injured. Large numbers of people were arrested during the
demonstrations and their aftermath. Many detainees were beaten or
otherwise tortured. An unknown number remain unaccounted for.

During the crackdown, the Uighur community living in the XUAR was
targeted. Read more [http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/
engasa170052005]

According to local sources, the demonstration was sparked by growing
levels of repression of Uighur culture and religion in and around
Gulja. This included the banning of traditional Uighur social
gatherings, called meshreps, which were organised from 1994 in an
attempt to revive cultural and Islamic traditions. Uighur community
leaders in and around Gulja also organised local Uighur football teams
in an unofficial league, but these were also closed down by the
authorities and sports facilities were destroyed.

Take action now!

1) Join the global vigil

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Gulja massacre, join the
vigil in front of Chinese Embassies/Consulates on 5 February 2007.
Contact your nearest Amnesty International office for more information
[http://web.amnesty.org/contacts/engindex]

2) Free Uighur writer Muhammed Tohti Metrozi [LINK to page in Feb
issue of Wire]

3) Family members of Rebiya Kadeer are still being targeted by the
Chinese authorities - Join the Urgent Action network [http://
web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa170602006]

Uighur demonstrators face the police, Gulja, 5 February 1997. ©
Private

Rebiya Kadeer is greeted with flowers as she is reunited with her
family in the USA after her release from prison in China.
© AI

Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 0DW, London, United Kingdom

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:16:44 PM10/9/09

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/obama-address/1163263

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/asu-stiffs-obama-claim-to_b_185296.html

Dawn TeoArizona Politics
Posted April 11, 2009 | 12:14 AM (EST)

ASU Stiffs Obama, Claims Too Inexperienced For Honorary Degree

TEMPE, ARIZONA - Universities typically confer an honorary degree on
commencement speakers, particularly those who have reached the
pinnacle of their career or achieved the top of their field. Arizona
State University (ASU), though, says it will not confer an honorary
degree on this year's commencement speaker, President Barack Obama,
because "his body of work is yet to come."

ASU Media Relations Director Sharon Keeler says, unlike other
universities, the processes for selecting commencement speakers and
honorary degree recipients are independent. She says that honorary
degrees are given "for an achievement of eminence" and that Obama was
not considered for an honorary degree because his body of
achievements, at this time, does not fit within that criteria.

Writing two best-sellers? Not outstanding. Developing one of the
largest grassroots organizations in the world? Nothing special.
Becoming the first African American President of the United States?
Good, but nothing to write home about.

A local paper published an editorial within hours of the news,
exhorting ASU to give the honorary degree to Obama:

Arizona State University has handed out honorary doctorate degrees to
pioneering scientists and college presidents, titans of oil and
computer microchips, newspaper publishers and generous donors, a
foreign communist educator and a successful movie director.

But others had much still to accomplish. Barry Goldwater received his
honorary degree in May 1961, three years before his Republican
nomination for president and only eight years into his three decades
as a U.S. senator. Sandra Day O'Connor was similarly recognized just
three years in her 25 years on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The editorial called it an "odd gap" that the nation's first black
president would not be deemed worthy of an honorary degree.

According to the ASU State Press, ASU President Michael Crow told the
committee that "significant contributions to education and society
over the course of a person's career merit consideration for an
honorary degree."

If being a U.S. Senator and President of the United States -- the so-
called leader of the free world -- is not enough to be deemed as
having made significant contributions to society, Obama also has a
long list of contributions to education. The first bill Obama
sponsored in Congress was the HOPE Act. He developed comprehensive
plans for students to receive education benefits in exchange for
public service. Not to mention that he was the first African American
president of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional law at an
ivy league university, and, among many other accomplishments, served
as a community organizer where established an adult education program
and a college preparatory program in inner-city Chicago. It is hard to
see how these achievements fail to merit honor.

The ASU Honorary Degree Committee is made up of six members from
across the campuses and is chaired by Dr. Laurie Chassin, a psychology
professor. Keeler said Obama was not considered by the committee for
an honorary degree and may not have even been nominated. According to
university procedures, nominations may be submitted by members of the
university family (including its 60,000+ students or even alumni) at
any time during the academic year.

UPDATE: The ASU Honorary Degree Committee is co-chaired by Christine
Wilkinson and Laurie Chassin. However, Laurie Chassin is currently on
a year-long sabbatical and is not involved in evaluating this year's
nominees.

Are you an ASU student or alumnus? HuffPost wants to hear from you.
What are people saying on campus? As an alumnus, will this effect your
decision to donate to your alma mater? Write us at submissions
+A...@huffingtonpost.com.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:23:05 PM10/9/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25obama.html?_r=1

Obama, in Berlin, Calls for Renewal of Ties With Allies
Miguel Villagran/Associated Press

Senator Barack Obama spoke at the Tiergarten in Berlin on Thursday.
More Photos >

By JEFF ZELENY and NICHOLAS KULISH
Published: July 25, 2008

BERLIN — Senator Barack Obama stood before a sea of cheering admirers
on Thursday and sought to inspire fresh cooperation among American
allies to defeat terrorism and other threats, introducing himself as a
leader who could summon other nations to join the United States in
confronting the world’s next challenges.

On a perch steeped in history, Mr. Obama said it was time to reprise
the spirit that conquered communism, and use it to heal divisions and
forge closer partnerships to deal with nuclear proliferation, global
warming, poverty and genocide. Without naming President Bush or going
into detail about European disenchantment with the Iraq war and other
policies of the current administration, he suggested the United States
would become a better partner, but called on European countries to
uphold their responsibilities.

“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot
stand,” Mr. Obama said, putting a new twist on the cold war calls to
bring down the barrier that divided Berlin. “The walls between the
countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The
walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and
Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear
down.”

The German police estimated that more than 200,000 people came to hear
him speak from the base of the Victory Column in the Tiergarten, a
sprawling park in the center of the city. Berliners waved American
flags — provided by the campaign — throughout the address, offering
precisely the visual message that Mr. Obama’s aides wanted to beam
back home: a candidate who could restore the world’s faith in strong
American leadership and idealism.

He looked out toward the Brandenburg Gate, where President Ronald
Reagan once implored the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev to “tear
down this wall” and end the cold war.

The setting of the speech, as well as the size of the crowd, seemed to
place Mr. Obama among a litany of American leaders who have stood
before him, even though he is simply a first-term United States
senator.

“I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before,” Mr.
Obama said. “Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president,
but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow
citizen of the world.”

In his 30-minute address, Mr. Obama did not overtly criticize Mr. Bush
or his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, but he did offer a
gentle dose of criticism of his own nation. That, too, drew loud
cheers from the crowd.

“I know my country has not perfected itself,” he said. “We’ve made our
share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the
world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how
much I love America.”

As he offered a glimpse of an active foreign policy, should he be
elected — mentioning Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma in his address — he
signaled an intention to leave behind what Mr. Bush’s critics see as
often-misguided unilateralism in favor of greater cooperation. Yet Mr.
Obama also suggested that he would expect the cooperation to flow both
ways, urging Europe to be more supportive of sending additional NATO
troops to Afghanistan, a politically unpopular stance in Germany.

“No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such
challenges alone,” Mr. Obama said. On the other side of the Atlantic
on Thursday, Mr. McCain campaigned in Ohio, where he belittled Mr.
Obama’s grasp of foreign policy and criticized him for traveling to
Germany to deliver the address.

“I’d love to give a speech in Germany — a political speech or a speech
that maybe the German people would be interested in,” Mr. McCain told
a crowd in Ohio, “but I’d much prefer to do it as president of the
United States rather than as a candidate.”

Republicans called Mr. Obama’s visit presumptuous, but in his first
trip to Berlin he was treated with unusual deference. Local newspapers
and television stations chased him around town, offering minute-by-
minute updates of his whereabouts. Hundreds of people lined streets at
several points around town as his motorcade passed by.

Campaign volunteers holding clipboards shouted to passers-by, “Stop
here, registering American citizens to vote!” Bratwurst-and-beer
stands shared space with vendors who were selling an array of Obama
products, including a T-shirt that declared, “The World For Obama
’08.”

Manfred Krause, 65, a retired citizen of the former East Germany, said
Mr. Obama’s address brought back memories of the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr.’s quieter visit to East Berlin in 1964, when he was a
student. As Mr. Krause waited for Mr. Obama’s arrival on Thursday, he
said, “I thought, here is someone coming from the same place.”

The response to Mr. Obama has been so warm that the coordinator for
German-American relations in the foreign ministry here, Karsten D.
Voigt, sought to scale back expectations. He reminded Germans in
interview after interview that Mr. Obama would have to support
positions unpopular with the German public, like a stronger presence
engaged in more fighting for the Bundeswehr, the German army, in
Afghanistan.

First and foremost, Mr. Obama was well received because he is not Mr.
Bush, who is unpopular in Germany. But Mr. Obama said a new president
in the United States would not take away the responsibility for the
countries to increase their partnership.

“No doubt, there will be differences in the future, but the burdens of
global citizenship continue to bind us together,” Mr. Obama said. “A
change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this
new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more
— not less.”

In Washington, Mr. Bush also gave a speech on America’s role in the
world on Thursday, and there were some striking thematic parallels
between his and Mr. Obama’s.

Mr. Bush talked about hope. He sought to revive the spirit of NATO,
the Berlin Airlift of 1948 and the Marshall Plan for a new era and a
new war against extremism. He championed the victims of political
oppression in places like Darfur, Iran, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But Mr.
Bush’s address was not televised, while Mr. Obama’s was broadcast live
on all the cable news networks. Throughout his address, Mr. Obama said
that the path of history — the Berlin Airlift and the cold war fight
against communism — offered hope for a future in dealing with
eliminating nuclear weapons, dealing with Iran and resolving the
conflict in the Middle East.

“This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of
extremism that supports it,” Mr. Obama said. “This threat is real, and
we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it.”

While in Berlin, Mr. Obama met for about an hour with Chancellor
Angela Merkel at the Federal Chancellery. Later, he held a session
with Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. While Mr. Obama talked
about the Iraq war in private sessions, aides said, he made only a
passing mention of it in his speech.

The address received overwhelmingly positive attention from the German
news media, which has frequently gushed over Mr. Obama for his aura,
or as the large-circulation Bild daily put it on Wednesday, the
“political pop star.”

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:29:56 PM10/9/09

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/10/09/what-obama-should-do-with-his-nobel-peace-prize.aspx

What Obama Should Do With His Nobel Peace Prize

Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the
time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at
least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem
and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that
he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his
potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't
have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet
another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the
Nobel Committee feels dissed? ... P.S.: It's not as if Congress is
going to think, well, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize so let's pass
health care reform. But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-
farfetched. ... 2:48 A.M.

http://www.slate.com/id/2221750/?obref=obinsite

Morocco Makes Peace With Its Past
Proof that an avowedly Islamic regime can move from authoritarianism
to democracy.
By Anne Applebaum

Posted Monday, June 29, 2009, at 8:00 PM ET

RABAT—If you want an antidote to the photographs of policemen beating
demonstrators and girls dying on the streets of the Iranian capital,
take a drive through the streets of the Moroccan capital. You might
see demonstrators, but they're not under attack: On the day I visited,
a group of people stood outside the parliament politely waving signs.
You might see girls, but they will not be sniper targets, and they
will not look like their Iranian counterparts: Though there is clearly
a fashion for long, flowing head scarves and blue jeans, many women
would not look out of place in New York or Paris.

Welcome to the kingdom of Morocco, a place that, in light of the last
two weeks' events in Iran, merits a few minutes of reflection. Unlike
Turkey, Morocco is not a secular state: The king claims direct descent
from the prophet Mohammed. Nor does Morocco aspire to be European:
Though French is still the language of business and higher education,
the country is linguistically and culturally part of the Arabic-
speaking world. But unlike most of its Arab neighbors, the country has
over the last decade undergone a slow but profound transformation from
traditional monarchy to constitutional monarchy, acquiring along the
way real political parties, a relatively free press, new political
leaders—the mayor of Marrakesh is a 33-year-old woman—and a set of
family laws that strives to be compatible both with sharia and
international conventions on human rights.

The result is not what anyone would call a liberal democratic
paradise. One human rights activist painted for me a byzantine
portrait of electoral corruption involving "mediators" who "organize"
votes on behalf of candidates. Others point out that if the
demonstrators I saw at the parliament had been Islamic radicals or
Western Saharan guerrilla leaders, rather than trade unionists, the
police might not have been quite so blasé. Though women have legal
rights, cultural restraints remain. A tiny fraction of the population
reads newspapers, even fewer have Internet access, and somewhere
between 40 percent and 50 percent of the country is illiterate in any
case. As a result, election turnout is very low. Political posters
feature symbols, not words.

Yet in at least one sense, Morocco truly stands out: Alone in the
region, the Moroccan government has admitted to carrying out political
crimes in the past and has set up a "truth commission" along South
African and South American lines. Beginning in 2004, the commission
investigated crimes, held televised hearings, and paid compensation to
some 23,000 victims and their families. The crimes in question—
arbitrary arrests, "disappearances," torture, executions—occurred
during the reign of King Hassan II, who died in 1999. The truth
commission is the creation of his son King Mohammed VI. But although
this acknowledgement of wrongdoing was made possible by a generational
change, it did not require a regime change. There was no revolution,
no violence. The king is still the king, and he still has his
collection of antique cars.

The result of the truth commission's work is a kind of social peace.
Not everybody likes the monarchy, but even its opponents concede that
the break with the past is real: If nothing else, people feel it's
safe to speak openly, safe to form civil rights groups, safe to
criticize the electoral process, even safe to complain about the king.
Saadia Belmir—a Moroccan judge and the first female Muslim member of
the U.N. Committee Against Torture—told me that despite obstacles, "we
can now build the future on the basis of our good understanding of the
past." Controversially, perpetrators were allowed to fade into the
background. But the crosscurrents of anger and revenge that might
otherwise have marked the young king's reign have subsided.

Related in Slate

Tamara Cofman Wittes presented a gloomier view of democracy in
Morocco, President Bush's favorite case study. David Plotz surveyed
the hipster rulers of the Middle East and found them promising. Anne
Applebaum dispatched from a bunch of people trying to figure out
democracy promotion and argued that some voting is better than no
voting at all.Is this a model for others? The Moroccans think so, and
they have quietly "shared their experiences" with African and Middle
Eastern neighbors. Belmir told me an informal group had been working
on setting up a truth commission in Togo; others hint at Jordan,
though of course that's unofficial. They all hasten to point out that
their formula—slow transformation under the aegis of a (so far)
popular king—doesn't apply everywhere. One thinks wistfully of the
shah of Iran and of what might have been.

Still, watching the extraordinary range of clothing and skin colors on
the Moroccan streets, one takes away at least one thought:
Transformation from authoritarianism to democracy is possible, even in
an avowedly Islamic state, even with an ethnically mixed population,
even with the presence of a jihadist fringe. More important, it is
possible to acknowledge and discuss human rights violations in this
culture, just like everywhere else. Just because much of the Arab
world lacks the political will to change, that doesn't mean that
change is always and forever impossible.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 9, 2009, 4:45:47 PM10/9/09

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/edits/Nobel-wins-an-Obama/Article1-463288.aspx

Nobel wins an Obama
Hindustan Times
October 09, 2009

First Published: 21:34 IST(9/10/2009)
Last Updated: 21:36 IST(9/10/2009)

Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary

efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between

peoples”. Going by the Nobel jury that sat over some salmon and
schnapps in Oslo (this award being the only Nobel that’s decided by
Norwegians instead of Swedes), if the trust put in Mr Obama translates
into action, he should easily win the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize also.
Usually, an award marks an institution recognising the worth of an
individual or entity. But there are occasions (usually flagged under
the overused term, ‘historic’) when the institution itself can bolster
its own standing — or should we say public image — by awarding someone
whose clout in terms of brand equity is much larger than its own. The
Nobel Committee’s decision to award Mr Obama this year’s Peace Prize
can only be explained along these lines.

Even in ‘traditional’ circumstances, the Peace Prize is considered the
doctored Vegas slot machine among all the Nobel categories. The fact
that past winners have included missionaries of peace like Henry
Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres, makes the Nobel Peace Prize
the darling of the op-ed pages. Mr Obama is yet to generate such
controversy. In fact, he is yet to prove anything. In office as the
leader of the (still) most influential nation on Earth for less than a
year, his reputation has preceded his actions. One would have thought
that the nuanced and noble jury of the Nobel Committee would wait for
a while before deciding whether Mr Obama makes the grade. It seems
they have preferred the pre-emptive method. His campaign for nuclear
non-proliferation finds mention in his Nobel citation. Many in India
would like to see whether the prize will now nudge him to get more
proactive on this front — and thereby make New Delhi think seriously
from now on about posting lobbyists in Scandinavia.

We congratulate Mr Obama. After all, it is no fault of his that he’s
been foisted with an award that he doesn’t deserve — at least, not
yet. If nothing else, the Nobel Peace Prize now can be seen for what
it is: a brand-building exercise for the Nobel Committee. The award
also makes us understand at last, even if indirectly, why Mahatma
Gandhi, among a few others, did not get the precious honour.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 3:06:26 AM10/10/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoshow/5109101.cms

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 3:12:01 AM10/10/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Surprised-humbled-Obama-accepts-Nobel-Peace-Prize/articleshow/5107692.cms

'Surprised, humbled' Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 10 October 2009, 12:20am IST

WASHINGTON: In a stunning decision that caused worldwide dropping of
jaws, the Swedish Nobel Committee on Friday awarded the 2009 Nobel
Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, citing his work in nuclear
weapons elimination and international diplomacy. ( Watch Video)
The award invited universal astonishment and some amount of derision
because it appeared based more on hope and expectation than lasting
achievement or accomplishment typical for nominees. Critics pointed
out that Nobel Committee's deadline for nominations was February 1,
just 11 days after Obama's inauguration.

But the Nobel committee statement that accompanied the award
announcement read ''Obama has as President created a new climate in
international politics,'' although it evidently took into account his
work in the months since he took office and perhaps even his exertions
as senator and presidential candidate.

''Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position... Dialogue
and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the
most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free

from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms

control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now
playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic
challenges the world is confronting,'' the committee gushed in the
statement.

Obama himself put the award in perspective while admitting he was both
surprised and humbled by it. He said he did not feel he deserved to be
in the company of so many great transformative figures of peace (his
idol, Mahatma Gandhi, was denied the peace prize by the then
imperialist Nobel committee).

''I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishment, rather as
an affirmation of American leadership of all nations,'' Obama said in
brief media appearance in the White House Rose Garden, seeking to
deflect some of the criticism for what many feel is a award he is yet
to earn and has come too early.

"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just
been used to honor specific achievements," Obama said, adding, "It's
also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And
that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for
all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."

The US President also put a lighter spin on the Friday morning
surprise saying ''this is not how I expected to wake up'' and relating
that after telling him he had won the Nobel Prize, his daughters
reminded him that it was their dog Bo’s birthday today and there is a
long weekend coming up.

While the award may have surprised the diplomatic world outside US, it
roiled domestic politics. Republicans didn’t waste time congratulating
the President; instead, they ridiculed him, saying he was not going to
get any award for job creation or rescuing the economy.

It got even uglier after Democrats shot back and accused Republicans
of being anti-American and throwing their lot with terrorists. Obama
acolytes also reminded Republicans of the unseemly cheering from their
rank and file when Chicago lost its Olympic bid.

Indeed, there were gasps of surprise in the room as the Nobel
spokesman announced the award for Obama, ironically recalling similar
astonishment when Obama’s hometown Chicago lost its 2016 Olympic bid
last week.

Obama is the third sitting president to get the Nobel Peace Prize
after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom got it well
into their presidency after significant peace-making achievements.

Jimmy Carter got the award after his presidency for his work in the
middle-east and Al Gore got his post vice-presidency for a lifetime of
work creating environmental awareness.

In contrast, Obama is in the middle of a protracted conflict in the Af-
Pak theatre that could get even more serious if he heeds the call from
his generals to send up to 60,000 more troops.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 3:29:46 AM10/10/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Nobel-Peace-prize-for-Obama-too-fast-Walesa/articleshow/5106099.cms

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:11:35 AM10/10/09

http://www.zeenews.com/blog/10/blog228.html

Serendipity
Vineet Sharma

‘NOBEL’MAN OBAMA…& a blind me

BARACK OBAMA, the God, the Savior, the Christ won the Nobel Peace
Prize…The world is a better place to live in now!

These are the kind of fanatical reactions one comes across when it
comes to the current US president, Barack Obama winning the Nobel

BARACK OBAMA, the God, the Savior, the Christ won the Nobel Peace
Prize…The world is a better place to live in now!

These are the kind of fanatical reactions one comes across when it
comes to the current US president, Barack Obama winning the Nobel
Peace Prize. I remember similar demi-god worships when he was running
in the race for becoming the president (I really believe America voted
for their first Black president as they weren’t ready for their first
woman president).

There has been media frenzy around this man ever since I have come
across his name on TV. He might be a good leader, visionary and a
humanitarian, but please give me a break. He surely is ordinary in his
work till now, to say the least.

The Iraq war still goes on, Uncle Sam’s troops still parade the
streets of Afghanistan with their tanks and guns (would you really
believe that Afghans are absolutely so incapable of thought that they
need the US watchdog even now?).

The US of A still holds the biggest nuke arsenal on the face of this
planet and ironically the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize goes to the man who
heads the state, for his “efforts for a nuclear free world”. Are we
really as dumb and blind as we currently seem to come across?

Agreed, he is one of those rare ones, who invited Iran for talks. But
is that enough to say that it is a CHANGE that has altered the history
of the world? As per my last updates, the relations are still as
jumbled as they were before.

Mr Obama’s efforts to make India sign the non-proliferation treaty
surely give me the chills, wouldn’t you be worried if a super-rich
sage would come up to your doorstep tomorrow, with millions of
followers and ask you to give-up all YOUR money so that the world
would be a less materialistic and more humane place to live in.

Now I’m not an avid follower of world politics, but if one was to tell
me that Barack Obama has done more work in bringing peace to this
world than Mahatma Gandhi, I’d really have to slap you on both the
cheeks (I’m not a Gandhian either).

What about the drone attacks that the US carries out in Afghanistan
and Pakistan? What about the fact that the “efforts” towards a nuclear
free world have resulted in N-tests by North Korea? What about the
problem of Cuba?

It is just his first year in office and the giving away of big awards
and trophies just stinks of diplomatic hypocrisy and an over eagerness
of the world to please a man who is the darling of a media that is
simply banking on TRPs.

But then, I’m just an ordinary guy, writing about an extraordinary
change. Barack Obama. (gotta admit that the man is so big that he
wouldn’t even know I exist, but what about you? Do you still see him
as the man who will deliver you from all that is wrong in the world,
because he is OBAMA)

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:18:46 AM10/10/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/324317_PM-steers-clear-of-controversy-over-Nobel-to-Obama

PM steers clear of controversy over Nobel to Obama
STAFF WRITER 14:57 HRS IST

Raichur (Karnataka), Oct 10 (PTI) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today
steered clear of the controversy over awarding Nobel peace prize to US
President Barack Obama.

It was up to the award committee to decide on it, Singh told reporters
when asked whether he thought the US President was the apt choice for
the prestigious award.

The Prime Minister said he could not comment on the issue.

Extending his hearty congratulations to Obama, he praised the US
President for his role in "ushering in an era of peace" in the world.

"I extend my hearty congratulations to Obama" for winning the Nobel
peace prize, he said.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:22:14 AM10/10/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/323927_Dalai-Lama-congratulates-Obama-on-Nobel

Dalai Lama congratulates Obama on Nobel
STAFF WRITER 8:36 HRS IST
Lalit K Jha

Washington, Oct 10 (PTI) Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama
congratulated US President, Barack Obama, on being awarded the Noble
Peace Prize for the year 2009.

The exiled Tibetan leader, who is currently on a visit to Washington,
said in a letter to Obama written today that he was pleased that the
Nobel Committee had "recognised your approach towards resolving
international conflicts through the wisdom and power of dialogue."

The Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that Obama has "created a new
climate in international politics" where "dialogue and negotiations

are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult
international conflicts."

In his letter, the Dalai Lama said, "The Committee has rightly noted
your efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons and your
constructive role in environmental protection.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:34:58 AM10/10/09

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/obama/s-nobel-democrats-hail-republicans-slam/75656/on

Obama's Nobel: Democrats hail, Republicans slam

Press Trust of India / Washington October 10, 2009, 14:09 IST

The Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama has brought to the
fore sharp differences between the ruling Democrats and the opposition
Republicans, who reacted with skepticism over the announcement calling
it "unfortunate".

While Democrat lawmakers were quick to describe it as the reemergence
of the US as the world leader, the Republican party was very critical
of the award as in the United States the Noble Prize to Obama has been
interpreted as rebuke of George W Bush.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman of
California said the announcement "validates the president's approach
to tough trans-national challenges such as global warming and the
spread of nuclear arms."

However, the Republican Party was very critical of the award. "The
real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama
actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star
power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements
working towards peace and human rights," said Republican National
Committee Chairman Michele Stelle.

"One thing is certain – President Obama won't be receiving any awards
from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up
rhetoric with concrete action," Stelle said.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 9:36:15 AM10/10/09

http://countercurrents.org/baroud081009.htm

Obama’s Test: Democracy Or
Chaos In Latin America

By Ramzy Baroud

08 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org

Latin America stands at the threshold of a new era: one that promises
a return to political uncertainty, violence and chaos or one of
political stability and economic prosperity. Honduras is a crucial
indicator.

The possible outcomes of the Honduran crisis are likely to define the
coming era for Latin America and the US future role in that
hemisphere, and, in fact, beyond it. Indeed, the story is much more
elaborate than a daring president holed up in a foreign embassy in his
own country.

In her second visit to Asia as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
declared on July 21 in Bangkok, “The US is back.” The declaration was
disconcerting to many Asian countries, despite Clinton’s indistinct
qualifications afterwards. Asian countries, exploring regional unity
and economic cooperation are well aware of the subtle meaning of the
term. However, it’s unlikely that politically stable and economically
prospering Asia countries would allow for unwarranted outside
interferences, especially with the growing Chinese regional influence
and the election of Yukio Hatoyama the prime minister of Japan.

But how would Latin America feel about the US interference? The
outcome of the Honduran coup should sufficiently answer this
question.

Since the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the politics
and economic structures of Latin American countries subsisted as a
component of US foreign policies, regardless of who presided in the
White House. The region’s economies seemed, at times, a laboratory for
economic theories hatched at various US academic institutions. Many
Latin American countries existed, and a meager existence at that,
between US interventions, self-seeking local oligarchy and wilderness
and chaos wrought by military dictatorships. In many instances, these
three components were intrinsically linked.

But US influence in that region, as in the rest of the world, began to
fade. The neoconservative wars in the Middle East and South Asia were
but desperate, now failed attempts at salvaging some of the dwindling
influence.

The former Bush Administration left Latin America to its own devises
as US military adventures elsewhere took a toll on the country,
militarily, economically and politically, at home and abroad. But as
Clinton promised a return to Asia, the Obama administration attempted
a return to Latin America as well, a region that is significantly
different from yesteryear, as a new form of popular socialism was
taking hold (in Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere) without wholly
disturbing the economic patterns that long governed these countries.
While many didn’t welcome President Hugo Chavez’s outspokenness, few
in Latin America, except for a few remaining US allies, considered him
a threat. To the contrary, the new age has promised greater
cooperation among all economic sectors between Latin American
countries than any other period in the past. A new Latin America was
making its debut, more equitable than before, politically stable, and
economically promising, if not, in some cases, prosperous.

Indeed, the US returned to a different reality, a return that, at
first was welcomed, even by Chavez himself. Obama spoke a language
that soothed much fears and fostered a sense of promise.

“At times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we
seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior
partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual
respect and common interests and shared values,” declared Obama on
April 19, at the Summit of the Americas, to the pleasure and relief of
his audience.

Did that mean no more coups, military interventions, economic
sanctions, political intimidation and all forms of coercion that
defined much of the two hemispheres’ relationship of many years?
Certainly, Latin American leaders, or most of them, hoped so.

But then, the democratically elected President of Honduras, Manuel
Zelaya was overthrown on June 28. It was a classic Latin American
junta move. The popular leader was escorted in his pajamas and
deported to another country. The coup leader, Roberto Micheletti lead
a series of draconian measures, starting with the installation of a
new government of allies and cronies – with the blessing of the local
oligarchy – and ending with the declaration of emergency decree
limiting civil liberties. After several attempts and many dramatic
episodes, Zelaya returned to his country and was holed up in the
Brazilian embassy, in Tegucigalpa, surrounded by a military that
merely represent the very poor country’s very rich rulers: the
oligarchs and the generals.

In some way, the coup in Honduras helped highlight the new order in
the continent, as displayed in the unity of many Latin American
countries, the steadfastness of its regional organizations, and the
growing influence of the democratically elected governments. But it
also highlighted the precarious position of the US administration:
condemning the coup on one hand (as did President Obama, and clearly
so) and condemning Zelaya’s courageous action (as did Hillary Clinton,
and clearly so.) Clinton described Zelaya’s action as “reckless.” She
was not alone, of course as the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of
American States, Lewis Amselem said Zelaya’s return was “irresponsible
and foolish.” Zelaya should stop “acting as though he were starring in
an old movie,” he counseled. Worse, US Republicans, who see the coup
leaders as trusty allies reminiscent of their allies of the past, are
flocking to the Honduran capital in dangerous attempts at validating
the coup leaders as legitimate statesmen.

Between Obama’s anti-coup stance, and his own Department of State’s
anti-Zelaya rhetoric (and Republican giddiness over the prospects of
their country’s ‘return’ to Latin America), the US position lacks
clarity, a dangerous notion at a time when Latin America expected a
clear US divorce from the past, and “engagement based on mutual
respect and common interests and shared values.” President Obama may
be sincere, but he must ensure that he acts upon his promises, not for
Latin America’s sake, but for his own country’s future relationship
with that part of the world. As for Latin America itself, the
repercussions of the Brazilian embassy’s siege, and the future of
democracy in Honduras will either set a terrible precedent in an age
of hope, or serve as further proof that the ghosts of the past will no
longer haunt Latin America, no matter how much the reviled generals
toil.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many
newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book
is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's
Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My
Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press,
London), now available for pre-orders on Amazon.com.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 9:50:51 AM10/10/09

http://countercurrents.org/wagenvoord071009.htm

It’s Time We Got Over Barack Obama

By Case Wagenvoord

07 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org

It’s been a week since Senate Finance Committee killed the public
option in the healthcare “reform” bill and nary a whimper has come
from the White House.

Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassy assured the public that the committee did it
a tremendous favor since government is nothing but a "predator" that
would feed on corporate profits in its fanatical obsession to bring
affordable health care to the poor and disenfranchised who don’t count
anyway.

It should come as no surprise. The sad truth is that the public option
was on life support the first time Obama brought it up during his
campaign.

Maybe progressives will finally realize that it’s time they got over
Barack Obama. Some still hope that he will turn a corner and start
kicking ass and taking names as he ramrods a progressive program
through a corporately-owned Congress.

It’s not going to happen. Even as early as July, 2008, it was obvious
that Barack Obama was just another charming corporate Democrat who had
the good fortune to run against the Cheney administration. Compared to
that bunch, even the Jack the Ripper would have looked good. It also
helped that his long-in-the–tooth opponent chose a total ditzoid as
his running mate.

The sad fact is that both the White House and Congress are carbuncles
on the corporate ass, and whither the ass goest, so go they.

So here we are, shut out and shivering in a dark ally, hoping against
hope that the fat cats partying inside might throw us a stale crust or
a well-chewed hunk of gristle. But the door never opens and the cold
continues to seep into our bones.

So, what to do? Well maybe it’s time to think about a third party (and
a collective cringe goes up from the left as, like Banquo’s ghost, the
specter of Ralph Nader materializes.)

Fear not, for this would be a third party with a difference. The fatal
mistake that has been made by third parties in the past is putting up
a candidate for president. People prefer a politically-correct hack in
the White House to an unknown third-party candidate. Should a third
party candidate, such as William Jennings Bryant, garner some
popularity, the Democrats would co-opt him and neutralize his message.

The key to success for a third party would be to avoid the White House
like the plague and to concentrate its efforts on the House of
Representatives. It would be much easier to sell a third party to a
congressional district than to an entire country. The idea would be to
pack the House with enough third-party representatives to gum up the
works until some meaningful progressive legislation was on the books.

So what would this third party’s platform be? Simple: the
decorporatization of America.

What we need is rudeness! Forget the politeness or the dry recitation
of facts and statistics. This party would have to roar, its rhetoric
would have to soar. Poetry would have to flow from its lips as it
demonized the corporate world and revealed it for the blind, bumbling
monster that it is.

Arundhati Roy sums it up nicely when she asks, “What happens now that
democracy and the free market have fused into a single predatory
organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost
entirely around the idea of maximizing profits?” She goes on to say
that, “(W)hat we need is a feral howl, or the transformative power and
real precision of poetry.”

It would be a party that would not consider its day complete until it
had said something to send Glen Beck into a paroxysm of spittle-
sprayed rage.

From this simple plank, the decorporatization of America, many
splinters would fly. Our wars are corporate, the devastation of our
environment is corporate, our poverty is corporate, our shrinking
middle class is corporate, and the underfunding of our schools is
corporate. The list goes on and on. Every running sore on Liberty’s
face can be traced back to a corporate policy.

With such a platform, we could redirect public anger to the real
source of its problems: the corporations. We could put to rest the
many red herrings the corporate media throws up to deflect this anger.
The “illegal” immigrant “problem” is a shining example of this.
(Listen folks! That Mexican with the leaf blower strapped to his back
didn’t close your factory, he didn’t deny your child health care, he
isn’t foreclosing on your home, he didn’t get you son killed in one of
our corporate wars. It’s the bastards in their corporate boardrooms,
who are paying him peanuts to keep their lawns nicely manicured, that
did it.)

So, what to do? A while back, I suggested a 28th Amendment to the
Constitution stripping corporations of their personhood and denying
them any rights under the 14th Amendment or the Bill of Rights. With
this amendment, corporation would have no rights; they would only have
obligations enumerated by their charters, and these charters could be
revoked should they fail to live up to them.

This would enable us to cleanse corporate corruption from Congress.
Corporations and their PR hacks have deftly painted bribery as an
exercise in free speech protected by the Bill of Rights. Sorry, guys,
but free speech is a right enjoyed only by “natural” persons, not by
legal fictions. Thank you very much, but we’ll go with public
financing of our election campaigns from now on.

Out of this amendment would flow the realization that it’s a misnomer
to call corporate property “private” property. Private property is
that which is possessed by natural persons. The ownership of corporate
property is so diffuse that its really quasi-private property and
subject to strict public control.

It’s a wild dream, one that would take generations to realize. But it
is a dream that must be dreamt, and the dynamic that drives it is a
simple question: What kind of world do we want to leave for our
children and our grandchildren. When my first granddaughter was born,
I did some math and realized that her children will probably live into
the twenty-second century.

What will their inheritance be?

And when the right starts screaming “Socialism,” we reply, “Damn
straight!”

Case Wagenvoord has a BA in Political Science and an MA in Liberal
Studies. He blogs at http://belacquajones.blogpsot.com and welcomes
comments at Wagen...@msn.com.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 2:23:09 PM10/10/09

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/justso/entry/two-minute-nobel-for-barack

Two Minute Nobel for Barack Obama?
Abantika Ghosh Friday October 09, 2009

Being the first black president of the United States of America has
big perks. Sometimes as big as the Nobel Peace Prize. That too within
less than a year in office and without any significant achievements to
show! It certainly pays to be Barack Husain Obama.

Obama’s first year in office (not over yet) was devoid of any earth-
shattering peace initiatives or milestones. For one, the year saw the
26/11 mayhem but minus rhetoric, there has been little else that has
changed in the US attitude to Pakistan. What peace are we talking
about?

The specific example cited by the Nobel Committee – promoting nuclear
non-proliferation in Iran - is yet to actually yield concrete
results. This is like awarding a student first prize even before the
papers are checked just because he made an effort – good or bad
remains to be decided.

And Obama is already anointed for the gold medal and the $1.4 million
prize money. Which raises some questions. Are the standards of the
Nobel Committee being compromised?

Most others who have got the peace prize in particular have had to
prove themselves over substantially long periods or have had
achievements striking enough. Take Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, The
International Committee of the Red Cross (which has three prizes to
its credit), Yasser Arafat, Muhammad Yunus…the list is fairly long.

Even by the standards of US presidents – four of them have got the
prize – Obama seems to have got it fairly easy. Theodore Roosevelt got
the prize (for brokering peace between Russia and Japan) in 1906, five
years after he had become the President of the USA. Jimmy Carter won
it in 2002 as an ex-president for ``decades’’ of work. Woodrow Wilson
who won it in 1919 had an important role to play in the signing of the
Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War One.

If there is indeed a dearth of deserving candidates any given year
why can’t the prizes be given as and when deserving candidates surface
– there may be annual announcements – just to preserve the prestige
and sanctity associated with process of distributing the prizes? The
Committee has done that on numerous occasions earlier. It certainly
sounds like a better proposition that to lower it to a level where it
almost reeks of being a PR exercise rather than any real effort to
honour excellence.

Nevertheless, congratulations Mr Barack Obama for your instant Nobel.

Rated 4.7/5 (83 Votes)

Comments:
Agree (5)

Disagree (4)
Sikander Kirar says:
October 09, 2009 at 06:28 PM IST

i agree with you,it's too early to give Obama such a big honour. i
simply can't recall anything of much significance he has done in the
last 10 months which should get him a Nobel prize for Peace.
Nothing much has changed since he took the oath as US President. All
the issues are there intact like Iran, North Korea Nuclear
ambitions ..Terrorism..Taliban ... Americans in Iraq and Afganistan.

Agree (3)

Disagree (3)
Aarya says:
October 09, 2009 at 06:51 PM IST

There were about 200 other nominees. It looks like they are all
fighting more than two wars. I had heard Osama Bin Laden was the first
choice to win but lost since he had declared a holy war against China
just a few seconds before the final decision was taken.

Agree (5)

Disagree (0)
E. D'Souza says:
October 09, 2009 at 07:06 PM IST

The people of America should have been given the Noble Peace Prize for
electing a black president for the first time ever in its more than
200 years of American independent history. In recent years it was only
Mother Teresa who was aptly given the award for her humanitarian
work.

Agree (2)

Disagree (4)
Amit Deshpande says:
October 09, 2009 at 07:53 PM IST

Surprising that Barrack Obama has got the Nobel prize for Peace. It is
definitely over the top to give it to a person who has until now has
not even been able to get a fair majority to pass a bill about health
care which will be in favour of the poor and needy of America.
He has merely mentioned to reduce the stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
In that case Atal Bihari Vajpayee should be given the Nobel Prize for
Peace, since he was the one to declare as soon as India conducted the
nuclear tests that India would support dismantling of nuclear weapons
in the world.
And Atal Bihari Vajpayee did not even send troops to other nations to
continue to fight a fanatical war. He took the risk of releasing
prisoners of national importance for the sake of a few hostages.
There would be many suggestions as to who deserved the Nobel Prize
more, but one thing is sure Obama doesnt seem to be deserving it at
least for now.
This will do more harm than good for Obama's PR

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)
Siddharth M J says:
October 09, 2009 at 07:56 PM IST

It is clear that Mr. Obama got the Nobel prize for the seat that he
sits on. It would only be unjustful for the rest of the nobel
lauretaes but I cant help but mention the Swiss Academy's bias.
Gandhiji have been outrageously thrown out of the list of probable
candidates for the Peace Prize a couple of times, and now to hand it
over to someone who's dream is to dine with the Mahatma; is ironic.
Toady is the word.

Agree (2)

Disagree (1)
VB says:
October 09, 2009 at 08:23 PM IST

The fact that Kissinger got the Nobel Prize for Peace, while Gandhi
was denied it more than once, is proof that the prize in this category
is essentially comic relief in an otherwise serious business. The
subjectivity involved in the selection of the awardees for Peace,
Literature and even Economics makes it almost impossible to have an
unambiguous award. One way to ensure a reasonable degree of
objectivity would be to award the prize only after see the
contributions have stood the test of time. In this respect Obama's
prize may have been premature. But it's still better than some of the
previous awards, several of which have been highly political and worse
than ridiculous.

Agree (5)

Disagree (3)
S C Vaid says:
October 09, 2009 at 08:32 PM IST

It is very encouraging surprise news that President Obama has been
awarded Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. A charming genius has been working
for 'change' to steer the world toward peace, the world without
nuclear weapons.
His sincerity to pursue his goals, should not be questioned. He has
stepped up the peace initiatives in the face of opposition, both at
home and abroad.
The Nobel Committe found his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation of peoples', worth the prize -
this decision of wise, forward thinking authorities should not be
contested.
President (not black president) is not tending sheep, he has to deal
with quite a number of wolves and we should support all his efforts
based on positive future vision to reach real and lasting peace.

Agree (5)

Disagree (3)
Karthikeyan S says:
October 09, 2009 at 08:46 PM IST

I some what disagree with Abantika's view on Obama getting the coveted
nobel peace price. I feel that the nobel comitte or the norweign govt
has taken a wise decesion. I agree that obama still has to prove his
peace initiatives, but read between the lines, by conferring obama
with nobel peace prise, it has been ensured that OBAMA won't be
another BUSH. Before taking any decesions on american interest OBAMA
will think twice on using the military. remember half of the world's
problem will be solved if america concentrates on its domestic issues.
By giving nobel to OBAMA, at least war with iran or north korea has
been put aside. OBAMA and his team will think twice before resorting
to military solution. I salute the nobel comittee in having the vision
for a great and peacefull future. In fact i suggest next year nobel to
be given to the people who took this decesion.

Agree (1)

Disagree (3)
leonardo says:
October 09, 2009 at 08:52 PM IST

I completely agree by Abantika.coz on the one hand US dictates other
nations to compromise on their security in the name of nukes. US
should lead by destroying their missiles, that are roughly 10,000.
Whether her security is prior to other nations security. She must set
up an example by relinquish her nukes first, then her dictation makes
sense.

Agree (4)

Disagree (4)
MKU says:
October 09, 2009 at 10:15 PM IST

Very aptly said Ms. Ghosh. Obama getting Nobel Peace Prize was a pure
slapstick on the legacy of long list of high-fliers in the past. This
event has given a very legitimate reason for the past achiever to
discredit theirs own. This committee decision has indeed appalled the
world for undermining the benchmark achievers of the past. As a matter
of fact, it indeed reflects poorly on the standards and reality of
this particular prize, viewed in this world with utmost reverence. I
think, the noble prize committee would have attained a greater honor
if they would have gone without conferring one (if they had no other
deserving candidate). However, it was indeed quite pre-mature and
credulous to honor Obama with one. The real surprise is that. I am not
saying he is a bad candidate, but at least let this man have an ample
opportunity to demonstrate his entitlement to the peace prize( just
like many others have over the years)…. and also let him prove
his unremitting efforts for the world peace… at least for the
reasonable amount of time before declaring him to worthy. We all know
how first year of any presidency is not easy for any
head…it’s the phase of ‘trial &
error‘…it’s a smacking & painstaking scrap
between election manifestations and gruesome reality waiting to
bite ....how fair is it to confer something so NOBEL so prematurely is
the question?

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
MUBARAK PATEL says:
October 09, 2009 at 10:22 PM IST

Unlike other American Presidents of recent pass,
Presdient Barack Obama is totally different. He
is for "PEACE" and "PROGRESS" everywhere in the
world. He is standing for values for which Super
Power America is formed. People of the world are
tired of "WARS" and "DESTRCUTIONS" and loss of
precious human lives everywhere. President Barack
Obama is for "talking" and "walking" together with
everybody. People of the world should support him
with both hands to bring ultimate "peace" on the
globe. President Barack Obama is for 'humanity'
and all mankind. He greatly deserves this honour.
May God help him achieve "PEACE" on the earth.
Congratulations President Barack Obama. You really
deserve this highest honour.

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
Vivek Bohara says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:08 PM IST

What? Can I read this again? Obama- Nobel Peace prize? I am sure there
is something wrong!! Someone sending more troops to war is winning
noble peace prize????? I desperately need a headache tablet and after
that I'm off to Kings cross to platform 9 3/4 and get my train to
harry potter land where things will be little better.

Agree (2)

Disagree (1)
ps says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:14 PM IST

It's almost like ' let's get this thing done before this guy turns
into another bush'. Very premature. You know what, he got this because
not starting any new war.phewww...

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
Dr. D. Prithipaul says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:21 PM IST

Maybe there is reason to criticize the early recognition of Obama as
deserving the Nobel for Peace. Yet it is surprising that the media,
everywhere, have not commented on his initiative to eliminate the
nuclear arsenals. That he presided the meeting of the Security Council
on this issue was itself a major departure on the subject of nuclear
disarmament. That was the position taken by India: repeatedly at the
UN the Indian Prime Minister, in the 80s, pleaded for the elimination
of nuclear weaponries on these 3 conditions: that it be universal,
permanent, verifiable. Strange it is that even the media in India did
not take up Obama's initiative as an endorsement of the Indian
position. That such an initiative comes from the USA is itself a
dramatic departure from previous American assumption that it had a
divine right to be the supreme military, and consequently, to be the
moral preceptor of the whole world. It is significant that the Nobel
Comittee has taken note of the Obama promise. Now we only have to wait
and see how far will Obama will go on the road towards the destination
of universal, permanent, verifiable elimination of all nuclear
weapons. By investing themselves with the veto power at the Security
Council, the former colonial powers who did so much harm to their
colonized peoples, and then assumed the role of moral protectors
chaperoning the welfare of the world, will have to divest themselves
of their role as "bagula bhagats". In the meantime the third
rate politicians of India would do well to ponder why they have
allowed Naxalism to balloon to becoming a threat to the law and order
of the whole nation. They should go back to reading the story of the
Mahatma in Noakhali. Their deafness to the problem which generates
Naxalism is, to say the least, disconcerting. The Naxals succeed in
pakistanising India. Why should India use the military against its
under-privileged class?

Agree (1)

Disagree (0)
premji jairam babaria says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM IST

Noble prize doesnt mean the greatest of all.Prizes are also
manipulated.I dont mean that noble prize given to Obama is
manipulated .As per my assessment every poor man of the world is
deserving noble prize because ,he suffers silently the pangs of
hunger.But MrObama`s case is different than other winners of noble
prizes.

Agree (3)

Disagree (2)
Prof. Ramesh Sinha, Freelancer says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM IST

Nobel to Obama came as wind fall gain as one fails to convincingly
assess his achievements required for this high brand prize. Anyway
Abantika's remark is well defined it as 'two minute Nobel'. During
previous years the reward used to be asessed by even common men due to
winners outstanding contribution in any field. I agree with the writer
that that awarding of nobel be suspended in the year when no deserving
individual surfaces. However I join hand with her that 'let us
congratulate Obama for the achievement'. I also congratulate Abantika
for her bold comment, ofcourse with humility.

Agree (4)

Disagree (5)
Irfan Bangalore says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:16 AM IST

Idiot.... Just ignore these self proclaimed blogger (experts). U r
still wet behind ears and u think u could write a blog. I am not
saying he deserves it but he has done that many many couldn't do. Even
Respected Mrs. Clinton.

chalee maaimsahab blog lekhne

Agree (1)

Disagree (1)
Prem Nizar Hameed says:
October 10, 2009 at 01:00 AM IST

Let us hope that an American President holding the Nobel Peace Prize
will not indulge in any war or atrocities at least for the next three
years. I think the Nobel committee might have taken a thought
provoking decision by looking forward to a peaceful world in the
offing. Now the Prez will think twice, unlike his predecessor, before
he orders his military forces to show a war mongering reality show on
someone’s land. And let us also hope that he will control his
spy agencies from fingering the external affairs.

On the other hand, his intentions are good. And if the past offers
some inspirations to move forward or some lessons to learn, we should
take them with us for the present and for the future. Otherwise leave
them behind forever. Obama might have gone through this. And he seems
to be in the White House to remove some black spots from the minds of
people at home and abroad. Optimism is the essence of his speech.
Abraham Lincoln once told he had destroyed his enemies by making them
friends. And his bold step helped eradicate slavery. Obama seems to
follow him. Of course any outcome is not expected overnight. In
politics, political opportunism is dangerous. Even if he and his like
minded are sincerely on the move towards peace and tranquility, the
hardliners from every part of the world await chances of their wrong
steps .Religious interferences some times deviate the process of a
good proposal or they come as stumbling blocks. People who are
committed to the peace initiatives must be brave to take up all such
challenges, if they really want to translate their vision. All the
peace loving citizens of the world hope that the long standing
conflicts may come one by one in the funeral queue with an epitaph.

Agree (2)

Disagree (2)
Niharika says:
October 10, 2009 at 06:32 AM IST

Not sure why the author chooses to be cynical. Probably has no
understanding of the hostile opposition the President faces in the US
by the rabid right who just wants to see him fail at all costs. We
need to encourage and uphold his intentions in a world relentlessly
bent on hostility even if they are only just a vision at this stage.
It is a light to the world and let us instead applaud that light.

Agree (0)

Disagree (4)
Sri says:
October 10, 2009 at 07:42 AM IST

As the joke on Twitter goes, BO got the Nobel for not being George
Bush. Given the damage his predecessor had done to most of the nations
that he set his eyes upon, the committee must have been impressed by
the fact that BO didn't do much in the first 9 months. By giving this
award, they are trying to put pressure on him to refrain from doing
anything silly like Dubya.

Agree (2)

Disagree (3)
Professor Dharanidhar Sahu says:
October 10, 2009 at 07:48 AM IST

Some of the scientists who got the Nobel Prize this year for Physics
and Chemistry had done their good/citable work several decades ago.
They are fortunate, however, to have survived that long to be eligible
for the prize. The Nobel Committee members justified such delay
stating that twenty years or more are required to show the afficacy
and applicability of their scientific achievements. If that is their
stand, President Obama should not have been chosen for the Nobel Prize
for Peace, because he is just beginning the process, because he has
not achieved any of the goals he had set, fulfilled any of the
promises he has made during his 9-month tenure. President Obama is not
to blame for not fulfilling his promises at such a short period.
Chronic problems take time to get solved. He is also not to be blamed
for being chosen for such a coveted international honour. But the
people who thought it proper to honour him were perhaps too eager to
please an American President who happens to be powerful and reasonable
and good, a politically-correct mixture of Black and White, and, as if
that was not enough, carries a Muslim middle name. These selectors
should have known that the Prize is an embarrassment for President
Obama, because he knows pretty well that he does not deserve it. Thank
you.

Agree (4)

Disagree (3)
S.M.Singru says:
October 10, 2009 at 08:06 AM IST

Your criticism of Obama being awarded the Nobel is totally
unjustified.I have been following Obama's policies and statements
closely for two years now & I think people like you deliberately
choose to just speak something "different & anti-system"
to appear to be original. Obama has taken the bull of nuclear
disarmament by horns. He is the first major western leader to show an
open mind towards understanding what the moslems in different part of
the world feel towards world issues.The problem with Indian journalism
is that many of them prefer to settle for a pseudo approach in the
quest of creativity.

Agree (2)

Disagree (4)
vijay says:
October 10, 2009 at 08:20 AM IST

It is a real shame. The Peace Prize has been irreparably damaged by
giving to a person with no accomplishment. It can only make sense if
Nobel board is being sarcastic.

But it is clearly a political decision; to appease Fatalistic
Communist States and Armageddon-seeking Mullahs. Obama is the both
closet Mullah (Hussein is his middle name) and a closet Commie (talks
of average people but helps only the Corrupt Elites -> Classic Commie)
and therefore passes the test.

Its a sad day for really qualified people. And there were many
deserving people, here's a short list of runner-ups:

- Hu Jia, current being tortured in jail by the Communist China for
fighting for human rights.

- Wei Jingsheng, spend 17 years in Communist Chinese jail for fighting
for Democracy.

- Sima Samar, she run a girls school during the brutal PakISI-taliban
rule. Obviously reject to protected Muslim feelings.

- Aid workers in Darfur. Again rejected to protect the Arabs and their
brutal "culture".

What’s next? So as long the award is for FUTURE HYPOTHETICAL
ACTIONS the why not give him the Nobel of Medicine (for finding
immortality), Nobel for Physics (for Time Travel), Nobel for Economics
(for ending World poverty) and Nobel for Chemistry (for create
infinite energy). I'm sure he has covered those topics in his speech
(or will in the future).

Though, he does deserve the Oscar for Best Actor.

Agree (1)

Disagree (3)
Aditya Joshi says:
October 10, 2009 at 09:39 AM IST

It's a shame that this has happened. Awarding someone a Nobel Prize
for his "vision" for peace? It's a first for the Nobel Prize
committee.
Obama hasn't done anything for almost a year, and I know he won't do
anything in the future either. God bless America :\

Agree (1)

Disagree (4)
fox says:
October 10, 2009 at 09:51 AM IST

its a big big and i repeat a big joke to give obama a nobel, its like
anyone whi has noble ideas gets a nobel. then why not laloo prasad to
tun around the financial position of the railways, why not the raj and
bal thackerays who say bombay- im sorry mumbai is only for marathi
manus. indians are not short of noble ideas. why not prabhakaran and
saddam who gave thier lives to protect their special interests and
community, why miss out osama - who came on the scene with a bang to
announce the start of taliban rule. alfred nobels soul must be
struggling for peace by thinking after obama who's next now. god bless
his soul. congrats to obama, just wait and see the fun now, the list
of awards has just begun, the list will be unending now for him. dont
be surprised to know that every country will be in the race to give
and award to obama to join in his rewarding journey..... and they
say : aur caravan badta gaya .....

Agree (2)

Disagree (4)
Sarit Das says:
October 10, 2009 at 09:57 AM IST

I agree with Abantika that Obama got Nobel Peace a bit early. I must
say it is not too late. Actually Barak Obama still has a global
humanitarian facet that did not belong to other american presidents we
know. He is trying to do something positively for peace and capable of
doing more in terms of nuclear disarmament or commitment for
greenhouse gas reduction in Copenhagen. So, giving away Nobel Peace
Prize is nothing but an encouragement to Obama for his initiatives
towards selfless human development and preservation of nature. He
deserves this to fight against all other negative political interests
within America and around the world, in this era of economic crisis.

Agree (2)

Disagree (2)
Yogesh Bhobe says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:01 AM IST

Prez Obama gets this Nobel prize with one year of office and the
father of our nation who through satyagrah and non violence means got
freedom to this wonderful country was neglected for years.

Agree (0)

Disagree (4)
Jotendra kumar says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM IST

If a non- vegetarian stops eating non veg and eats veg for one day, he
or she will get a noble peace prize. But a vegetarian who eats veg the
whole life will not get a noble peace prize. Salutations to the noble
prize committed and the world press for such clarity in thoughts

Agree (3)

Disagree (3)
Mahesh Govind Karmalkar says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM IST

Dear sir, the chinese may have proposed his name in the exchange of
denying Dalai Lama the rightful meeting. Also, the committee is
playing to the gallary of cheap world gimmick-seeking-instant-nirvana
seekers. Obama may be extra-orinary, but certainly not in the league
of Gandhiji, Mandela or for that matter, Yasser Arafat.

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
AMIT AGARWAL says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM IST

I believe the writer needs to do a little more research on Mr Obama.
He has done away with the european missile shild programme - which is
a very significant move in weapons reduction in usa and russia.

By arranging a peace deal {still in progress} between Iran and israel
- whereby usa guarantees both countries against attacks from each
other - he has eleminated the weapons race in west asia with one
master stroke.

also his inaugural speech and the speech in cairo significantly
reduced the apathy of the musilm world towards the west

he has also focussed his attention towards the real centre of
terrorism - Pakistan - which does involve military action now - but
benfits global peace in the long run.

all this in jus 9 months in office - a woman takes 9 months to bring a
new life to earth - Obama took 9 months to bring a new hope of peace
to this world - he deserves every bit of the oscar he has been
awarded.

email me for ur comments

Agree (3)

Disagree (1)
Barun Banik says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM IST

U Bengalies are always digging at the negative side of a event or
person. Please let starts Yes, instead of telling No.

Agree (1)

Disagree (3)
rajeev samanto says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM IST

does obama really deserve this prestigious award?what he has done is
yet to be seen.he is still in honeymoon period of his term.to give him
this award was surprising. i think the award was given to please some
people/country. i hope now that when obama has got the award he will
justify it by making the world free of nuclear arms.

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)
ranjit says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM IST

this is soo folish to giev oobama to present nobel prize. gust eight
month's what he did only
speeches so why?

Agree (1)

Disagree (4)
Vinal Gandhi says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM IST

I agree with the author. The prize seems to have been given to Obama
as there was no other candidate. And in such case, no Peace Prize
should have been announced. In any case, the impartiality of Nobel
Committee has never been proven! The Peace Prize given to Israel-Egypt
premiers and Gandhiji being ingnored are just two examples. This
latest episode proves that in today's world, nothing is above fixing!

Agree (2)

Disagree (4)
Aniruddha Joshi says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM IST

I am absolutely in favour with what Abanthika has mentioned here. I
think the defination of peace should be changed. Peace means what is
happening in Iraq, Afghanistan daily. Peace is what Taliban is doing
in Pakistan, peace is what ISI and LET doing in India, peace is the
incidence of 26/11 in Mumbai, peace is even after having concrete
proofs against pakistan for helping terrorism in India and across the
world giving them financial and miltary aid. So lets start a new
defination of peace in the Obama era thanks to the Nobel comittee.
Anybody of any race wants to achieve Nobel prize, try and become the
president of peaceloving America.

Agree (1)

Disagree (3)
S Shiva Shankar says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:22 AM IST

It has been an utterly undeserving choice. It shows the partisan
attitude and partiality of the Nobel Prize Committee towards the
United States. On the lighter side, one person who should thoroughly
deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for last year is Osama Bin Laden as Al
Qaeda had not done any significant terrorist activities in the last
year.

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
Swapnil khade says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM IST

Its not like Obama got the nobel for the achivements...he got the
Nobel for initiating a Nobel Cause,which itself is a achivement...it
will take some time to get some concrete results but start is also
important sometimes...
And about instant award,i dont think Obama got this award for becoming
president of US ,he may have been in office for 8-10 months but he is
working for the same for atleast one decade ...so be positive..

Agree (2)

Disagree (2)
RrW says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM IST

Very right...this Obama has probably the best astrological stars lined
up in the right positions and everything seems to be in his
favor.Probably his past karmas were so great that he is getting things
in life almost free without much effort and achievement.

Agree (3)

Disagree (3)
Padam says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM IST

its very surprising , everywhere its double speak on any corner. If he
is a real man he would reject it instantly.

Agree (1)

Disagree (1)
Dr Manoj Sharma says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM IST

Dear Avantika...
why r u so worried about the nobel meanwhile everybody knows that
Americans have only rights for these.All the Nobel going to them.If
Obama didn,t do anything for piece now he has to do this becoz he got
nobel for the work...ha ha ha.

Agree (3)

Disagree (0)
Prabhakar says:
October 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM IST

All kudos to Obama for Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure even his staunch
critics can't questions his intentions or approach so far and at the
same time his staunchest of supporters could not list his actual
achievemnets for peace, which could be justify (for common man like
me) Nobel Peace Prize for Obama. Is Nobel Peace prize for intentions
or achievements?
Also another thing which goes beyond my (may be many more like me)
till when this world will look at America for doing everything,
specially when America has always cared just for America and no one
else. I am not saying what America has done is wrong. What I want to
say - America as a nation is like any other nation.
Not sure when but hope sooner then later .. every nation has to
understand - everyone has to take care of their own, rather than
looking just to one.

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)
ajinkya says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM IST

I totally agree with author....... Good

Agree (2)

Disagree (0)
Manoj Rathi says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM IST

I believe the Nobel prize never had any standards. The hight of
hypocrisy is not awarding one to Mahatma Gandhi; when he is the father
of non-violence (aka peaceful resolution of conflicts). Its always
been for the wealthy nations of the world barring few exceptional
exceptions.

Agree (2)

Disagree (2)
KK Vermani says:
October 10, 2009 at 01:35 PM IST

The award has been given more for political reasons than actual ground
work. How can a country President be given such an honour when he
gives huge funds to our neighbour who uses the same to perpetrate
terror in our country.

Agree (1)

Disagree (2)
sam roy says:
October 10, 2009 at 01:41 PM IST

Hi,

There is no reason to contemplate or mull over the standards of Nobel
Peace Prize. Its an absolutely rubbish award given to world leaders of
prominence, irrespective of their efforts for world peace. Clinton got
it even though he ordered missile attacks in parts of Africa and West
Asia, now Obama gets it without doing anything worthwhile. Even
better, along with Clinton, Arafat and Simon Paris got it for doing
nothing apart from ordering ceasefire. Now if Bush Junior (George W.
Bush) gets it for building good relations in South America or bringing
an end to a tyrannical regime in Afghanistan it would be the icing on
the cake. :) :)

Agree (0)

Disagree (1)
Ramamurthy.N says:
October 10, 2009 at 01:46 PM IST

I fear the committee selects awardeeds for Nobel prizes is packed with
secular politicians from India.

Agree (2)

Disagree (4)
MADAN MOHAN says:
October 10, 2009 at 03:52 PM IST

Only shows How cheap the Nobel peace prize has become . By giving the
prize to this gentleman - they have belittles the Nobel community . It
is nothing but a political stunt . All he has been doing with
packistan aid is encouraging terrorists . Probably there was a
misunderstanding in this year committee .They read it as peace
breaking prize .US with CIA is know to create trouble all over the
world .
This is what is going to happen in all the so called awards - even
Bharat Ratna - which has lost its charm over the years.

Agree (3)

Disagree (3)
Vikash Anand says:
October 10, 2009 at 05:00 PM IST

Barack only barks
Nobel Prize to Obama is like waning popularity of noble prize. I
completely agree with author’s argument. Former Indian prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee did a lot to make peace with Pakistan.
Vajpayee’s endeavor is far more than Barak`s tiny (not
distinguishing) initiative. Barack has nothing done to bring peace in
the word. For example, recently US have granted $7.5 million to
Pakistan. Mr. American president knows better where this amount will
go (for spreading terrorism or Infrastructure building).As far as
nuclear proliferation is concerned it is totally
discriminatory.Success of ill intentioned NPT is never possible.

Agree (2)

Disagree (3)
bhola nath singh says:
October 10, 2009 at 05:14 PM IST

well said ,it came as a surprise to everyone ,i am shocked how could
he got even nomination just within 2 weeks of joining of his office
(nominations were done in february )even after 1 year he has not done
so much that anyone can count ,merely lobbying for nuclear disarmament
cannot provide you a noble prize ,its not that i am behaving like a
cynic ,i am happy for obama but i dont think that there was no one
else better than him ,we have to keep one thing in the mind that this
year committee had a record 205 nominations for peace prize,so really
it was really tough to chose obama ,there may be two possiblities for
this award ,either there was no one influential other than obama or
committe wanted to increase the popularity (already it is so popular)
of noble peace prize, it seems so ironic,isn't it ? its true that
obama became president and flaunted with extraordinary ideas on every
perspective and being an excellent orator he can imoress anyone but he
is facing tough time now,it wouldhave been fair that commitee had been
decided to give noble prize sometime later in the future ,really it
was too early to give him prize like this ,i think he has got his best
prize that any one can get in it life in his first chance ,its like
hitting goal in first shot of the football match ,hitting birdie in
golf.many people got this prize after serving for lifetime and also
some of them didnot get that after serving it for the lifetime
(gandhiji didnot get that ).so what i think that it was too early to
honour mr .obama ,but thinking positively this can be great source
motivation for him ,therfore he can increase his peace process and he
is the man one who can change the 'americanism' phrase from the mind
of people of the world.all the best for you obama and many many
congratulations ...hope u have been shocked as we were afterhearing
the news or may be be you had that kind of information after all you
are president of 'AMERICA'.

Agree (4)

Disagree (2)
MASOOM RAHMANI U.S.A. says:
October 10, 2009 at 05:18 PM IST

The Nobel Peace Prize for Mr. Obama does not look to make a bad
decision or a decision taken in haste. The reason that Obama has taken
a principled stand for the maintenance of world peace from the very
beginning of his political career. He fought the election of the U.S.
President on the issue that he was always against the Iraq war and
never supported it and that after winning the election the first thing
he was going to do that he was going to end the Army Operation in Iraq
and was going to withdraw the troops from Iraq.He was always in
support of closing the Guantanamo Bay which was giving a very bad
image to U.S.A. with regard to torturing the detainees and thereby
sending a bad signals to the world of violating the human rights. Mr.
Obama's speech in Egypt addressing the Muslim world that U.S. is not
against Muslims or against Islam which helped generating a feeling of
good will and good gesture amongst the Muslims community as a whole
alienating the violent and extremist groups from the Muslim support.
In the same speech Mr. Obama assured the Muslims that he is very
sincere in resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict which had been
for a long time a root cause to disturb the peace in the Middle East
and there by causing great frustrations to the Muslim world. Mr. Obama
happens to be the first U.S. President who talked about resolving the
Kashmir issue which is also a very long standing dispute and is
causing tensions not only between India and Pakistan but through out
the Muslim world. It was due to Mr. Obama's policy of rigorous
diplomacy and constant engagement which convinced Pakistan's
democratic Government to conduct Military Operations in Tribal areas
and Swat Valleys which was an epic center of Taliban activities and
helped killing many Taliban commanders and Militants thereby
controlling the area which was never done before in 9 years rule of
General Musharraf in Pakistan and eight years of Presidency of Mr.
Bush.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 5:28:21 PM10/10/09

http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/11/stories/2009101133330100.htm

U.S. to work with India for peace in South Asia

WASHINGTON: Describing India as an important ally of the U.S., the
White House said the Obama Administration would work with the country
to bring peace in the South Asian region.

"I think it goes without saying that India is an important ally,"
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told journalists here on Friday
evening.

The Obama Administration is keen to strengthen and deepen its
relationship with India, an emerging regional and global power.

- PTI

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 5:44:52 PM10/10/09

http://www.hindu.com/nic/indousstmt090720.htm

Text of India - US Joint Statement (July 20, 2009)

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton today committed to building an enhanced India- U.S. strategic
partnership that seeks to advance solutions to the defining challenges
of our time.

They agreed to strengthen the existing bilateral relationships and
mechanisms for cooperation between the Government of Republic of India
and the Government of the United States of America, while leveraging
the strong foundation of economic and social linkages between our
respective people, private sectors, and institutions. Recognizing the
new heights achieved in the India - U.S. relationship over the last
two Indian and U.S. Administrations, they committed to pursuing a
third and transformative phase of the relationship that will enhance
global prosperity and stability in the 21st century.

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton will chair an “India-U.S.
Strategic Dialogue” that meets once annually in alternate capitals.
This dialogue will focus on a wide range of bilateral, global, and
regional issues of shared interest and common concern, continuing
programmes currently under implementation and taking mutually
beneficial initiatives that complement Indian and U.S. development,
security and economic interests.

Secretary Clinton looks forward to welcoming Minister Krishna for the
first round of the Strategic Dialogue in Washington, D.C. in the
coming year.

Advancing common security interests

Recognizing the shared common desire to increase mutual security
against the common threats posed by international terrorism, Minister
Krishna and Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the commitment of both
Governments to build on recent increased coordination in counter-
terrorism. Secretary Clinton invited Home Minister Chidambaram to
visit Washington in the near future. External Affairs Minister Krishna
and Secretary Clinton also reaffirmed their commitment to early
adoption of a UN Comprehensive Convention against International
Terrorism which would strengthen the framework for global
cooperation.

Defence co-operation

Noting the enhanced co-operation in defence under the Defence Co-
operation Framework Agreement of 2005, External Affairs Minister and
Secretary Clinton reiterated the commitment of both Governments to
pursue mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of defence.
External Affairs Minister Krishna announced that both sides had
reached agreement on End Use Monitoring for U.S. defense articles.

Seeking a world without nuclear weapons

India and the United States share a vision of a world free of nuclear
weapons. With this goal in sight, Minister Krishna and Secretary
Clinton agreed to move ahead in the Conference on Disarmament towards
a non-discriminatory, internationally and effectively verifiable
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. India and the United States will also
cooperate to prevent nuclear terrorism and address the challenges of
global nuclear proliferation. A high-level bilateral dialogue will be
established to enhance cooperation on these issues.

Civil nuclear co-operation

Building on the success of the India –U.S. Civil Nuclear Initiative,
on July 21, India and the United States will begin consultations on
reprocessing arrangements and procedures, as provided in Article 6
(iii) of the 123 Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation between
India and the United States.

Global institutions

Secretary Clinton affirmed that multilateral organizations and
groupings should reflect the world of the 21st century in order to
maintain long-term credibility, relevance and effectiveness, and both
Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton expressed their interest in
exchanging views on new configurations of the UN Security Council, the
G-8, and the G-20.

Pursuing sustainable growth and development

As members of the G-20, India and the United States have pledged to
work together with other major economies to foster a sustainable
recovery from the global economic crisis through a commitment to open
trade and investment policies. Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton
reaffirmed the commitment of both Governments to facilitating a
pathway forward on the WTO Doha Round.

They pledged to co-operate to not only preserve the economic synergies
between the two countries that have grown over the years, but also to
increase and diversify bilateral economic relations and expand trade
and investment flows. The two sides noted that negotiations for a
Bilateral Investment Treaty would be scheduled in New Delhi in August
2009. They resolved to harness the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of
the private sectors of both countries with a newly-configured CEO
Forum that will meet later this year.

Education

External Affairs Minister Krishna and Secretary of State Clinton
affirmed the importance of expanding educational cooperation through
exchanges and institutional collaboration, and agreed on the need to
expand the role of the private sector in strengthening this
collaboration.

Space, science and technology and innovation

Recognizing the great potential in India-U.S. science and technology
collaboration, the two sides have concluded a Science and Technology
Endowment Agreement, and signed a Technology Safeguards Agreement that
will permit the launch of civil or non-commercial satellites
containing U.S. components on Indian space launch vehicles. Both sides
welcomed India’s participation in the FutureGen Project for the
construction of the first commercial scale fully integrated carbon
capture and sequestration project and India’s participation in the
Integrated Ocean Development Project, an international endeavour for
enhancing the understanding of Earth and Ocean dynamics and addressing
the challenges of climate change.

High technology co-operation

Noting the high potential that exists due to the complementarities in
the knowledge and innovation-based economies of the two countries, it
was agreed that the agenda and the initiatives in the bilateral High
Technology Cooperation Dialogue should continue, with the objective of
facilitating smoother trade in high technology between the two
economies reflecting the present strategic nature of the India-U.S.
relationship.

It was also agreed that working groups would be formed to focus on new
areas of common interest in nano-technology, civil nuclear technology,
civil aviation and licensing issues in defence, strategic and civil
nuclear trade.

Energy security, environment and climate change

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton pledged to intensify
collaboration on energy security and climate change. Efforts will
focus on increasing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean
energy technologies through the India-U.S. Energy Dialogue and a
Global Climate Change Dialogue.

Both sides also agreed to launch a process of bilateral scientific and
technological collaboration to support the development, deployment and
transfer of transformative and innovative technologies in areas of
mutual interest including solar and other renewable energy, clean coal
and energy efficiency, and other relevant areas.

India and the U.S. affirmed their commitment to work together with
other countries, including through the Major Economies Forum, for
positive results in the UNFCCC Conference on Climate Change in
Copenhagen in December 2009.

Global issues

The two sides noted the valuable engagement between both Governments
on global issues of common concern such as strengthening democracy and
capacity building in democratic institutions as co-founders of the UN
Democracy Fund.

The two sides agreed to develop a Women’s Empowerment Forum (WEF) to
exchange lessons and best practices on women’s empowerment and
development and consider ways to empower women in the region and
beyond.

Conclusion

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton reaffirmed that the excellent
relations between India and the United States rests on the bedrock of
kinship, commerce and educational ties between the Indian and American
people.

Secretary Clinton thanked External Affairs Minister and the people of
India for their warm reception and hospitality.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:05:44 PM10/10/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Obama-emails-Harvard-mate-Delhi-lawyer-about-Nobel/articleshow/5110265.cms

Obama emails Harvard mate, Delhi lawyer about Nobel
PTI 10 October 2009, 06:43pm IST

NEW DELHI: It was a surprise email for Supreme Court lawyer Surat
Singh from his "friend" US President Barack Obama, saying that he
honestly did not feel that he deserved to be a Nobel laureate.

Singh, who studied alongwith Obama at the Harvard Law School 21 years
ago, was earlier also invited by the US President for his inaugural
ceremony in Washington on January 20 this year.

"This morning, Michelle (wife) and I awoke to some surprising and
humbling news.

"...To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of
so many of the transformative figures who've been honoured by this
prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire
world through their courageous pursuit of peace," Obama wrote in the
email to Singh.

The US President said that he was grateful to Singh that he "stood
with me thus far, and I am honoured to continue our vital work in the
years to come".

Obama also explained to Singh why he said in his remarks after the
announcement that the award comes as a "call to action, a call for all
nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st
century".

"...I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not
just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a
means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama wrote.

"This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not
belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people
around the world who have fought for justice and for peace," Obama
wrote.

In his reply to the "most delightful news", Singh said the Nobel Prize
brings the responsibility of not only working towards welfare of
America but also towards the welfare of the entire world population.

"Right since your Harvard days when you got elected as the President
of Harvard Law Review in February 1990 we expected great things from
you. You have not only fulfilled our expectations but rather surpassed
them.

"...since you already surpassed our expectations in the past, we don't
know what to expect from you next," Singh wrote in his reply.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:13:21 PM10/10/09

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_obama-to-celebrate-diwali-at-white-house-on-october-14_1297195

Obama to celebrate Diwali at White House on October 14
ANI Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:02 IST Email

Washington: US president, Barack Obama, would celebrate Diwali "the
festival of lights" along with other members of the community at the
White House next week.

"At the East Room ceremony, the president will observe Diwali, or the
"Festival of Lights," a holiday celebrated across faiths," the White
House announced last evening.

It came along with the announcement that Obama on October 14 will also
sign an Executive Order restoring the White House Advisory Commission
and the Interagency Working Group to address the issues concerning the
Asian American and Pacific Islander community.

Though Diwali celebrations in the White House were started by George W
Bush, the former US president never personally participated in the
celebrations, leaving his top administration officials to grace the
occasion.

Diwali was also not celebrated in the main White House, but in the
building attached to it. This is for the first time that the festival
would be celebrated in the East Room of the White House, with Obama
himself present there to celebrate the
festival of lights.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 10, 2009, 6:15:55 PM10/10/09

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_nobel-peace-prize-to-obama-draws-huge-criticism-from-pakistanis_1297267

Nobel peace prize to Obama draws huge criticism from Pakistanis
ANI Saturday, October 10, 2009 14:24 IST Email

Washington: The decision to confer the Nobel Peace Prize on US
president Barack Obama has not gone down well in Pakistan,
particularly amid massive discontent over the US strategy to expand
its presence in the country.

The US being engaged in an 'unpopular' war in Afghanistan along the
Pakistan border, and the relentless missile strikes by US drones in
the lawless tribal areas along the Afghan border, is largely working
against the Obama Administration and giving rise to anti-America
sentiments among the Pakistanis.

According to a recent survey, about 80% of Pakistanis are against
their government's decision to support the US operation against
militants based inside the country's boundaries.

While Obama enjoys a global goodwill, he is not seen differently from
his predecessors in Pakistan, particularly due to the paranoia
surrounding the expansion of the US Embassy in Islamabad and the
alleged presence of a private US Security Company, Blackwater.

While some are hugely critical of Obama's revamped Af-Pak strategy,
some believe that the prestigious peace award has mainly to do with
his 'charisma'.

"It seems like the decision revolves around his charisma and all the
hype surrounding his presidency, and the euphoria after the Bush
years. Closing Guantánamo was a good start, but you really need more
results," The Christian Science Monitor quoted Rabia Shahid, a law-
college lecturer in Lahore, as saying.

Common Pakistanis, who earn their bread on a daily basis, may not know
about the intricate issues such as the Af-Pak policy, but they hate
Obama for reasons only they know.

"Everyone I know curses Obama, and if he was here in front of me, I
would curse him, too," said Nasir Ali, an Islamabad taxi driver.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 11, 2009, 8:08:10 AM10/11/09

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1694.html

Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 43, October 10, 2009

President Obama in the Eyes of the American Left
Sunday 11 October 2009, by Sam Webb

(The following commentary by Sam Webb, the Chairman of the Communist
Party of the USA, on the first 100 days of President Obama, is highly
significant in understanding the American Left’s view on Obama. —
Editor)

After the first, perhaps over-analysed, hundred days of the Obama
administration, it is fair to say that President Obama is a reformer
and we are entering an era of reforms, possibly radical reforms.

Some on the Left (ignoring the Right-wing talk-shows and their
fantastic claims about Obama’s socialist pedigree) mockingly dismiss
the new President and his reform inclinations, saying that his main
mission is merely to save capitalism. Even if that is true, and there
is no reason to doubt it, what does it tell us—that he is neither a
politician of the Left nor an advocate of socialism? Well, we already
knew that.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, too, had no aspirations to change the
foundations of capitalist society. But he realised that in order to
preserve capitalism it had to be modified (and, yes, it can be
modified), and he had to respond to the anger and yearnings of
millions of Americans caught in the web of a seemingly intractable
economic depression.

Given the contemporary economic crisis, Obama appears to be of a
similar mind, though he comes to the White House with deeper
democratic and reform sensibilities than FDR.

So far, Obama’s presidency has not only broken decisively from the
Right-wing extremist policies of the Bush Administration, but has also
taken measures, domestically and internationally, that go in a
progressive direction.

Whether this continues and takes on a consistently progressive, pro-
people, radical reform character isn’t a sure bet, however. Much like
with the New Deal of the 1930s, it will be the outcome of contested
and fluid processes stretching over time, taking multiple forms, and
pivoting around the expansion of citizenship rights (socialised health
care, for example) and the reconfiguration of the role of the
government to the advantage of the working people.

Socialism may be an objective necessity for our country, an appealing
idea to many ordinary Americans (a recent Rasmussen poll found that 20
per cent favoured socialism over capitalism and another 27 per cent
were unsure which was better), and a vision that we on the Left want
to vigorously popularise, but it isn’t yet on the immediate political
agenda. Clearly, neither the current balance of forces nor the
thinking of millions of Americans is at that point.¨

We are still in a democratic, increasingly anti-corporate, phase of
struggle. In the course of this, political conditions could mature
over time to the point where more advanced solutions—such as military
conversion to peace-time and green production, a shorter work week, a
“war” on poverty and inequality, public democratic ownership of
critical economic sectors, and depending on the dialectics of
struggle, socialism—come to the fore of the people’s agenda.

But that is ahead of us. Currently, the level of mobilisation of the
diverse coalition that elected Obama doesn’t match what is necessary
to win his Administration’s immediate legislative and political
agenda, let alone ensure more far-reaching reforms.

A favourable alignment of forces exists, to be sure. But political
majorities are consequential only to the degree that they are an
active and organised element in the political process.

Moreover, the opposition is formidable. Right-wing Republicans
suffered a crushing defeat, but no one should write them off; they
have consolidated their grip on the Republican Party, are well-funded,
and are clever at exploiting popular grievances and resentments.

Finance capital will attempt to minimise losses to its balance-sheet,
rob the public where it can, and restructure the regulatory
environment along lines that favour speculation and a casino economy.

Other powerful sections of big capital—energy, military, health care,
pharmaceutical and other giants of corporate America—will also
fiercely resist measures that collide with their political and
economic interests.

Finally, there are political groupings of considerable influence in
the Administration and the Democratic Party which, while supporting
Obama, will use its influence to cut down on the sweep and anti-
corporate character of his initiatives.

Thus, the struggle of the nation’s progressive majority—the working
class, the racially oppressed, women, young people and others—is two-
sided.

On the one hand, it has to battle stop-at-nothing Right-wing
extremists and their backers who are intent on defeating Obama and the
people’s coalition that supports him.

It has also to struggle (but in a constructive, unifying way) within
the multi-class coalition that Obama leads, to put their essential pro-
working-class and democratic stamp on the reform process and the
political direction of the country.

And herein lies the role of the Left. Its main task, as it has been
throughout our country’s history, is to assist in reassembling,
activating, uniting and giving a voice to common demands that unite
this broad majority as well as draw in other people who didn’t vote
for Obama.

The Left’s political analysis, solutions to today’s pressing crisis
and a vision of socialism, rooted in a democratic ethos and practices,
and not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century,
will receive a fair and favourable hearing from millions of Americans
to the degree that Left activists are active participants in the main
labour and people’s organisations struggling for vital reforms today—
jobs, health care, retirement security, quality public education,
equality and fairness, immigration reform, a foreign policy of peace
and cooperation, and a liable environment and sustainable econoky.

Those who narrow down the role of the Left to simply being a critic of
every move of the Obama Administration and/or insist on Left demands
as the only basis of broad unity limit the Left’s capacity to be a
part of a much larger coalition that could make America “a more
perfect union”.

(Courtesy: Amity—organ of ISCUF)

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 11, 2009, 8:30:12 AM10/11/09

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1667.html

Mainstream, Vol. XLVII, No 41, September 26, 2009

Obama Drops a Missile Bombshell
Saturday 26 September 2009, by M K Bhadrakumar

With his eight-month presidency seemingly weakening, United States
President Barack Obama struck. A familiar pattern in his political
career is repeating. His decision on September 10 to scrap the plans
of his predecessor, George W. Bush, to build a land-based anti-missile
shield in the heart of Europe overlooking Russia’s western borders may
appear justifiable, but is nonetheless a stunning national security
reversal.

It was to be a missile defence system of unproven technology, paid for
with money that America could ill-afford to waste, and conceived
against a threat that probably doesn’t exist. Still, missile defence
is a Republican obsession that goes back to Ronald Reagan and the
“Star Wars” system. The Republicans shall not flag or fail and they
shall go on to the end. They shall fight on the seas and oceans, in
the air, on the beaches and landing grounds, in the fields and in the
streets, in the hills, and face they shall not surrender. They shall
attack Obama for blinking in the face of Russian blackmail.

Obama has opened another front just when his healthcare plan is on the
frying pan and he is barely coping with the war in Afghanistan. Maybe
he can make financial and diplomatic capital out of dropping the
missile defence plan. The anti-missile shield needed to be developed
at enormous cost and he can use the savings elsewhere. The plan was a
bone of contention with Russia and he can now advance nuclear arms-
reduction talks with Moscow and even count on the Kremlin not to cast
a veto in the United Nations Security Council on a new round of
sanctions against Iran.

Not only Central Europe and Ukraine and Georgia but also Iran will
huddle in heightened anxiety to ponder the implications of what Obama
has done. His decision rests on the argu-ment that the threat posed by
Iran is currently in the nature of short-and intermediate-range
missiles that is best countered through a reconfigured system of
smaller SM-3 missiles based on proven and cost-effective technologies
that can be deployed using the sea-based Aegis system as early as
2011.

The revised approach envisages that as technologies evolve, the future
threats can be met in a phased manner, while the US currently counters
any threat much sooner than the previous programme.

Significantly, Obama concluded with an offer to Moscow. “Now this
approach is also consistent with NATO’s [North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation’s] missile defence efforts and provides opportunities for
enhanced inter-national collaboration going forward,” he said. The
announcement comes hardly a week before Obama’s scheduled “private”
meeting with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in New York on
the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session.¨

Equally, on the eve of Obama’s announcement, new NATO Secretary
General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, called for an “open-minded and
unprecedented dialogue” with Russia to reduce security tensions in
Europe and to confront common threats. He revealed that NATO officials
would travel to Moscow to hear the Kremlin’s views on how the NATO
should develop strategically in the long term.

“We should engage Russia and listen to Russian positions,” he said. He
underscored the need for an “open and frank conversation [with Moscow]
that creates a new atmosphere” that would lead to a “true strategic
partnership” in which the alliance and Russia collaborated on issues
such as Afghanistan, terrorism and piracy.

Rasmussen concluded: “Russia should realise that NATO is here and that
NATO is a framework for our trans-Atlantic relationship. But we should
also take into account that Russia has legitimate security concerns.”
He offered that the NATO was prepared to discuss Medvedev’s proposal
for a new security architecture in Europe. Rasmussen had just visited
Washington.

The Russian Foreign Ministry lost no time in responding to Obama’s
announcement on missile defence. “Such a development would be in line
with the interests of our relations with the United States,” a
spokesman said. He subsequently refuted suggestions of any quid pro
quo behind the US decision. He said any sort of grand bargain with the
US was “not consistent with our [Russian] policy nor our approach to
solving problems with any nations, no matter how sensitive or complex
they are”.

However, the fact remains that Obama’s decision, while significantly
boosting US relations with Russia, also puts pressure on the Kremlin.
The “Iran Six” process1 over Iran’s nuclear programme enters a new
phase on October 1. The big question is whether Moscow would actually
veto a UN Security Council resolution if push came to shove. The
crunch comes just a week after the Obama-Medvedev meet when the US
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns comes
face-to-face with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

True, the last exposition of the Russian position given by Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov a week ago was unequivocal. He made it clear
Moscow wouldn’t block any new rounds of tough sanctions against Iran
and he dismissed a US timetable for securing progress from Iran as
regards ending its uranium-enrichment programme.

Lavrov said: “I do not think these sanctions will be approved by the
United Nations Security Council... They [Iran] need an equal place in
this regional dialogue. Iran is a partner that has never harmed Russia
in any way.” Lavrov added that even an expected US move to drop plans
to station a missile-defence system in Eastern Europe wouldn’t be seen
as a concession to Russia, as, according to him, such a move would
merely correct a previous US mistake.

But then, a week is a long time in politics. Four days after Lavrov
spoke—and two days before Obama spoke—Medvedev said: “Sanctions are
not very effective on the whole, but sometimes you have to embark on
sanctions and it is the right thing to do.” The West’s Russia hands
promptly perceived a “subtle shift” in the Kremlin’s position, whereas
the US-Russia differences over Iran are far too deep and fundamental
to be easily sidestepped.

Obama’s decision will stimulate thinking in the multipolar world
within the Kremlin. As a top scholar on the NATO at the Russian
Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy, Vladimir Shtol, pointed out
gently, any US rethink of the missile defence system would probably be
the result of economic pressures connected with the global crisis, and
not a political deal with Russia. “I don’t believe the US would ever
fully back out of the missile shield, because it is in their long-term
interests and closely connected with their strategy in Europe,” Shtol
said.¨

The realists in Moscow will note that even as Obama spoke in
Washington, Dennis Blair, America’s intelligence boss, was releasing
the latest National Intelligence Strategy report of the US, which is
compiled every four years. The report specifically warned that Russia
“may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence that
complicates US interests”.

On September 8, Russia signed defence agreements with Georgia’s
breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, allowing Moscow to
maintain military bases there for the next half-century. The Russian
military headquarters in Abkhazia will be in the Black Sea port of
Gudauta, which ensures that even if the pro-US regime in Kiev forces
the closure of Sevastopol, Moscow will thwart US attempts to turn the
Black Sea into a “NATO lake”.

Put in perspective, therefore, Moscow will carefully weigh Obama’s
“overture”. The litmus test will be the US’ willingness to abandon the
NATO expansion. The Eastern European countries’ integration into
Western Euro-Atlantic structures was contrary to the understanding
held out to former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Russia
is not the Soviet Union, but Cold Warriors cannot grasp this. Moscow’s
concept of national sovereignty and its claims of special interests in
the post-Soviet space provoke negative feelings in the West.

Moscow sees no reason to settle for the role of a junior partner when
it estimates that the US is a declining power and the locus of world
politics is shifting eastward. Besides, Washington pursues a policy of
“selective engagement, selective containment”. Over Afghanistan or
Iran, Washington needs Russian support, while the problem of the post-
Soviet space remains acute and Russia feels excluded from the Euro-
Atlantic security arrangements pending, while a “demilitarisation” of
relations between Russia and the West remains elusive.

The smart thing for Obama will be to cast his decision on missile
defence within a working format of “resetting” ties with Russia rather
than as a move that deserves a quid pro quo over Iran. Moscow will
only assess Obama’s decision as a pragmatic step necessitated by the
US’ economic crisis. Meanwhile, Russia will cooperate on fresh START
(Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) talks or help out the US in
Afghanistan, which is in its interests too.

(Courtesy: Asia Times)

Note

1. The “Iran Six” nations are the permanent members of the UN Security
Council—the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China—plus
Germany.

Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian
Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South
Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait
and Turkey.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 11, 2009, 1:54:09 PM10/11/09

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_why-wasn-t-gandhi-bestowed-with-the-nobel-prize_1297557

Why wasn't Gandhi bestowed with the Nobel Prize?
PTI Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:02 IST

New Delhi: Many ardent fans of Mahatma Gandhi have won the Nobel Peace
Prize with the latest being US president Barack Obama, but why was not
the 'Apostle of Peace' bestowed with the honour despite being
nominated five times?

Though he was shortlisted thrice, the selection committees had given
different reasons why Gandhi was not conferred the honour, like "he
was too much of an Indian nationalist" and that he was "frequently a
Christ, but then, suddenly an ordinary politician".

One of the committees was also of the view that he was "no real
politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a
humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace
Congress".

Gandhi, who showed the world that anything can be achieved through
'Satyagrah' (passive resistance) and non-violence, was nominated for
the award in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and finally a few days before he
was martyred in January 1948.

When Gandhi was first nominated in 1937, the selection committee's
adviser Prof Jacob Worm-Muller was critical about him. "He is
undoubtedly a good, noble and ascetic person -- a prominent man who is
deservedly honoured and loved by masses.

"There are sharp turns in his policies which can hardly be
satisfactorily explained by his followers...He is a freedom fighter
and a dictator, an idealist and a nationalist. He is frequently a
Christ, but then, suddenly an ordinary politician," he had commented,
according to the Nobel Foundation.

Worm-Muller also referred to Gandhi's critics in the international
peace movement and maintained that he was not "consistently pacifist"
and that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns
towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror.

He was referring to Non-Cooperation movement in 1920-1921 when a crowd
in Chauri Chaura attacked a police station, killed many of the
policemen and then set fire to the police station.

Worm-Muller was also of the view that Gandhi was too much of an Indian
nationalist. "One might say that it is significant that his well-known
struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of
the blacks whose living conditions were even worse," he said in his
report to the selection panel.

Though Gandhi was nominated for the Prize in 1938 and 1939, he made it
to the shortlist for the second time only in 1947 after India gained
independence. Freedom fighters Govind Vallab Pant and B G Kher were
among those who nominated him.

The then Nobel Committee Advisor Jens Arup Seip's report was not as
critical as that of Worm-Muller but panel chairman Gunnar Jahn wrote
in his diary: "While it is true that he (Gandhi) is the greatest
personality among the nominees -- plenty of good things could be said
about him -- we should remember that he is not only an apostle for
peace; he is first and foremost a patriot.

"Moreover, we have to bear in mind that Gandhi is not naive. He is an
excellent jurist and a lawyer," Jahn said.

For the third time in 11 years, Gandhi was shortlisted in 1948, but he
was assassinated in January the same year which prompted the panel to
seriously think whether he can be bestowed with the honour
posthumously.

As Gandhi was not awarded the prize in 1948, the committee decided to
give no award that year on the ground that there was no "suitable
living candidate".

Committee's adviser Seip wrote a report on Gandhi's activities during
the last five months of his life.

"Gandhi, through his course of life, had put his profound mark on an
ethical and political attitude which would prevail as a norm for a
large number of people both inside and outside India. In this respect
Gandhi can only be compared to the founders of religion," he said.

The committee explored the possibility of a posthumous award but it
had its own doubts.

"According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that
time, the Nobel Prize could, under certain circumstances, be awarded
posthumously. Thus it was possible to give Gandhi the prize. However,
Gandhi did not belong to an organisation."

"He left no property and no will. Who should receive the prize money.
The Swedish-prize awarding institutions were consulted but their
answers were negative. Posthumous awards, they thought, should not
take place unless the laureate died after the Committee's decision has
been made," it says.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 11, 2009, 5:42:22 PM10/11/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Nobel-peace-committee-overlooked-US-wars-says-Chavez/articleshow/5113841.cms

Nobel peace committee overlooked US wars, says Chavez
AP 12 October 2009, 02:17am IST

CARACAS(Venezuela): Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said President
Barack Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Chavez believes Obama didn't make any notable accomplishments to merit
winning the prize, saying that rather than promote peace the US
president is continuing the warlike policies of predecessor George W
Bush.

Chavez and Obama had a cordial first encounter at a summit in April,
but the Venezuelan leader has become increasingly critical of Obama.

In a newspaper column, Chavez said the Norwegian Nobel committee
"forgot about his determination to continue battles in Iraq and
Afghanistan."

Chavez also criticised Obama for pursuing an agreement that would
allow the US military to increase its presence at Colombian bases.

,,,and I am Sid Harth

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 12, 2009, 8:58:22 AM10/12/09

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aZ2VnmfckdrA

Nobel Is Like Oscar for Not Finished Movie: Alexandre Marinis
Commentary by Alexandre Marinis

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- It’s ludicrous that President Barack Obama won
the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated less than two weeks
after taking office.

You have to wonder if this nonsense inaugurates a new era for the
Nobel prizes, one in which words trump deeds and intentions outrank
actions. Giving the new U.S. president this prestigious award is like
handing the best picture Oscar to an unfinished movie or presenting a
gold medal to Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt after he’s taken only a
couple of steps in a race.

We human beings must be filled with great despair. We are so desperate
for a new global order -- especially after Sept. 11, the Iraq War and
the financial crisis -- that we cling to hope and lavish praise on
aspirations for peace.

Alfred Bernhard Nobel’s wishes, outlined in his will, couldn’t be
clearer. He set aside funds to be “annually distributed in the form of
prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred
the greatest benefit on mankind.”

Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20. The Nobel nomination deadline was a
scant 12 days later, on Feb. 1. As far as I know, Obama was still a
presidential candidate during at least part of “the preceding year.”
Did his election campaign bestow that much good upon humanity? Hardly.
In fact, political campaigns can get pretty ugly. Now we know the same
can be said of the Nobel Prizes.

Playing Politics

The peace award isn’t handled like the other Nobel prizes. It is
decided in Norway, whereas the awards for economics, literature and so
on are made in Sweden. And while the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
chooses the five-member committees that select Nobel winners in
physics, chemistry and economics, the peace laureate is picked by a
committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament. That explains why the
peace award has been the most controversial of the Nobel prizes.

Choosing Obama had to be a purely political decision. Otherwise, it
makes no sense. Nobel’s will says the peace award must be given “to
the person who shall have done the most or the best work for
fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Clearly, Obama doesn’t meet the requirements. With fewer than nine
months in office, he hasn’t done nearly enough to say he’s done more
and better work to promote peace than anyone else.

Unfulfilled Promises

Obama has yet to fulfill his promises relating to global peace such as
closing Guantanamo Bay, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, improving
conditions in Afghanistan or prosecuting those who tortured enemy
combatants. He’s already increased U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan,
and he may increase the military headcount there by tens of
thousands.

It’s hard to believe all of the other 204 people nominated for the
prize accomplished less for world peace than Obama did. If so, the
world is in much worse shape than I thought.

Consider Zimbabwe’s prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, for example,
who struggled for years to end president Robert Mugabe’s menacing
dictatorship. Or look at Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, who has
dedicated herself to finding a peaceful solution to the almost five-
decade-long conflict between the country’s government and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces, known as FARC.

Obama could have followed the example of North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho.
After being informed that he’d won the 1973 Peace Prize jointly with
then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for bringing about a cease-
fire in the Vietnam War and a withdrawal of U.S. forces, Tho refused
to accept the honor. His rationale was simple: there was still no
peace agreement.

Obama, on the other hand, had no such qualms and gratefully accepted
his $1.4 million prize, which a spokesman said will be given to
charity.

‘Deeply Humbled’

Acknowledging his shortcomings, though, Obama declared he was
“surprised and deeply humbled” by the decision. “I do not view it as a
recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of
American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all
nations,” he said.

And that’s the only reasonable explanation for the choice. It was a
clever solution envisioned by the Nobel committee to constrain the
world’s most powerful leader to act in a certain way, putting world
peace first. Historically, peace has rarely been the main foreign
policy goal of the U.S.

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt amended the Monroe Doctrine to
assert the right of the U.S. to intervene militarily in Latin America
to stop the spread of European influence in the region. Two years
later, Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In the next 10
years Roosevelt’s Corollary, as it became known, was used to justify
U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Dominican Republic.

Let’s hope Obama won’t dishonor his prize.

(Alexandre Marinis, political economist and founding partner of
Mosaico Economia Politica, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions
expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Alexandre Marinis in Sao Paulo
at amar...@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 11, 2009 21:00 EDT

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 12, 2009, 1:40:19 PM10/12/09

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/66005/Column:%20The%20Raisina%20Insider/Obama%27s+Nobel,+bad+news+for+India?.html

Obama's Nobel, bad news for India?
Saurabh Shukla
October 12, 2009

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was one of the first amongst the world
leaders to congratulate the US President Barack Obama for winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. But while the world is surprised at Obama winning
the Nobel and amid bouquets and brickbats there is a shade of
skepticism as in strategic terms, Obama's Nobel may not be the best
news for India.

Obama has won the prize because of his efforts towards nuclear
disarmament. And the Nobel peace prize Committee said, "It attached
special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without
nuclear weaponsâ€¦the vision of a world free from nuclear arms has

powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations."

Obviously with a Nobel around his neck, the US President may even
press further asking countries to sign up to the nuclear non-
proliferation treaty, which India has refused to join calling it
discriminatory.

Besides, Obama may also press for the ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been lying on the back
burner, and India has refused to sign the treaty and now the heat may
be on New Delhi. The US efforts have already begun at a recent special
meeting of the UN Security Council on non-proliferation chaired by
Obama, the US underscored the need to strengthen the international non-
proliferation agreements and the UN body also passed a resolution to
that effect.

India had expressed its reservations and even though publicly South
Block is allaying fears that these efforts are not directed against
India, but privately officials are worried that the US would put
pressure on those countries outside the international non-
proliferation order to join the order. A mission Obama wants to
accomplish. And now that he has won the Nobel, there will be moral
pressure on the US President on putting his hawkish non-proliferation
agenda to practice, which may not be good news for India.

Prime Minister's aide headed to Poland

The key aide to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, his Private Secretary
Jaideep Sarkar is headed to Poland as the new Indian Ambassador. The
quiet bespectacled Bong is Manmohan's eyes and ears but it seems even
his boss felt that an Ambassadorial assignment early on his career
will give him a head start. The 1987 batch Indian Foreign Service
officer also holds a Masters in Business Administration and is
expected to leave later this year. Insiders say that his replacement
may come from within the Prime Minister's Office and the name of
another IFS officer Virender Paul is being considered for the post.

Meanwhile, a lookout is also on to find a replacement for MEA's
administration boss Dinkar Khullar who is leaving for Vienna. The
grapevine has it that it is a battle of Ashoka between some senior
officials slugging it out for the coveted post. Ashok Tomar,
Additional Secretary in the ministry and Ashok Mukherjee who is
currently Deputy High Commissioner in London are the frontrunners.
Since Administration fares high on the priority of both External
Affairs Minister SM Krishna and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, the
two would want a balanced officer to fill the post considering that
the division is key to their plans to transform the Foreign office.

Dead Pakistani diplomat was the ISI man in Delhi

The world of spooks is all about mystery and deceit even if they come
wrapped in the finery of diplomacy. And even though the diplomatic
sources are attributing the death of a senior Pakistani diplomat M.
Khan Afridi to an accident, reportedly because of electrocution in his
bathroom on October 11. The conspiracy theory is already doing rounds
on the death of the Pakistani political counsellor. Considering that
the diplomat was residing in a modern apartment in tony Vasant Vihar
locality of Delhi it is hard to believe the electrocution theory given
that the apartment did have miniature circuit breakers which
automatically switch off the current in the case of a short circuit.
Insiders say the diplomat reportedly belonged to Pakistan's spy
agency, the inter services intelligence directorate which is infamous
for its close liaisons with terror groups active in India, but lately
differences were reported among the ISI top brass on their
intelligence gathering abilities and the diplomat knew a bit too much,
so was that the cause? The guessing game is on but the mystery has
only turned murkier.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 12, 2009, 1:49:51 PM10/12/09

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/comment_for-obama-india-isn-t-special_1297826

For Obama, India isn't special
Arati R Jerath
Monday, October 12, 2009 3:02 IST

Much is being made of US president Barack Obama's decision to host
prime minister Manmohan Singh as his first state guest. But here's a
reality check: by the time Manmohan Singh touches down in Washington
on November 24, Obama will have met a galaxy of world leaders
including Pakistani president AsifAli Zardari and Chinese president Hu
Jintao.

The symbolic value of being the guest of honour at Barack and Michelle
Obama's first state banquet in the White House cannot hide the changes
that are increasingly evident in Washington's India policy under a
Democrat-led administration. Gone is the star billing that India
enjoyed with former president George Bush. Instead, as Obama reorders
American priorities in an attempt to undo Bush's unpopular legacy, New
Delhi seems to be slowly slipping off his radar.

"We are a very tiny blip for Obama," says former national security
advisor Brajesh Mishra. "My feeling is that we are back to the days of
the first term of the Clinton administration when India hardly
mattered to the Americans."

Worse, all the dreaded pinpricks from the Clinton era threaten to
reappear to bedevil the relationship. Analysts believe that pressure
on both the Kashmir and nuclear issues will return as Obama firms up
his foreign policy agenda. "The nuclear issue will be particularly
troublesome for us with all those non-proliferation ayatollahs back in
Washington," saysTP Sreenivasan, former Indian ambassador to Vienna
and the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Although both India and
the US have the same goal of disarmament, Obama's route is through
treaties that are not acceptable to us, like the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the
Fissile Material Control Treaty."

It would be simplistic to dismiss the apparent drift in Indo-US
relations as an inevitable consequence of a switchover from a
Republican administration to a Democrat one. Most analysts feel that
part of the problem lies with the Manmohan Singh government, which
seems to be out of ideas on ways of engaging the Obama
administration.

For instance, India has virtually slammed the door on the US
president's special envoy for Af-Pak, Richard Holbrooke, by refusing
to schedule appointments for him in New Delhi for the past two months.
"There seems to be a problem of chemistry with Holbrooke," says former
Indian ambassador to the US Lalit Mansingh. "He is known to be
abrasive and is not an easy man to get on with. But why do we object
if he wants to come here and brief us on his talks in Afghanistan and
Pakistan?"

The sense of confusion has been exacerbated by glaring personality
differences between the principals themselves. As Mansingh explains,
"Bush was effusive and had an emotional approach to policy-making. He
made it easy for us. Obama is more cerebral and has the capacity to
pursue different ideas at the same time. We need to engage his mind by
tossing ideas at him instead of being prickly and seeking reassurance
all the time."

Manmohan Singh's upcoming trip to Washington presents him with an
opportunity to not just put the stuttering relationship back on track,
but to breathe new life into it. While the strategic depth that Bush
envisaged for Indo-US ties may not fit in with Obama's vision for this
region, there is plenty to do on other fronts. "I believe the Indo-US
joint statement presents us with a common minimum programme by listing
out areas for cooperation like agriculture, education, the promotion
of democracy," says Mansingh.

The difficulty is that policymakers in New Delhi seem to be unsure of
what they want and how to get it. Says Rahul Roy-Chaudhary, senior
fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic
Studies, "The world is changing rapidly. We have to raise our game and
build our leverages so that we can move beyond the parapet of South
Asia."

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 2:24:38 AM10/13/09

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=313&page=7

Diplomacy

President Obama, an appraisal
Cold on India though Indians remain warm
By OP Gupta IFS (Retd)
October18, 2009

So far as India is concerned Obama has continued to behave as a non-
proliferation Ayatollah neglecting outstanding self-imposed restraints
and non-proliferation roles of all Indian Governments.

The unemployment rate in US is running high and is expected to keep
rising to 10 per cent by 2010. This coupled with continued returning
of body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan has adversely affected
popularity of Obama in opinion polls.

In article ‘Obama makes a welcome History’ in the Organiser of
November 16, 2008 this writer had opined that Democratic US Presidents
had in general been less friendly to India than Republican Presidents;
and, only time would tell whether Barack Hussein Obama would be able
to reverse this trend. Actions taken by Obama so far show that he has
continued with the democratic trend of tilting against India though we
Indians remain warm hearted towards USA.

So far as India is concerned Obama has continued to behave as a non-
proliferation Ayatollah neglecting outstanding self imposed restraints
and non-proliferation roles of all Indian Governments.

The G-8 nations at their July 10, 2009 meeting held at L’Aquila, Italy
adopted a resolution welcoming (vide Para 8) the progress that
continues to be made by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on
mechanisms to strengthen controls on transfer of enrichment and
reprocessing items and technologies to Non-NPT countries. NPT means
Non Proliferation treaty. India is a non-NPT country. No doubt, India
was given exemption by NSG but whether this exemption will be
applicable to subsequent NSG procedures remains a debatable point.

At its 6191st Meeting held on September 24, 2009 at New York presided
over by US President Obama and attended by 14 other Presidents/PMs the
Security Council vide Resolution 1887(2009) unanimously decided to end
nuclear weapons proliferation and ensure reductions in existing
weapons stockpiles as well as control on production of fissile
materials for explosion. Para 4 reads: “Calls upon all States that are
not parties to NPT to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon
States” Para 7 of this resolution reads: “calls upon states to refrain
from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to sign and ratify CTBT.”
Para 8 reads: “calls upon the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a
Treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices.” Among others this SC meeting was
attended by Presidents of China, France and Russia and British PM. So
pressures on India to sign NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and sign
CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and FMCT (Fissile Material
Control Treaty) are going to build up courtesy our ‘strategic partner’
USA. These multilateral irritants in bilateral Indo-US relations have
been created by the Obama Administration. India has been called upon
to join NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

India does not find place in the inner financial core of the G-8.

Addressing the Indian-American community in early 2008 Obama had said:
“I believe that India is a natural partner for America in the 21st
century and that the US should be working with India on a range of
critical issues from preventing terrorism to promoting peace and
stability in Asia... And that is why I will move forward to build a
close strategic partnership between the US and India when I am
President of the United States.” Well Obama is seen lacking on his
these promises.

Here it is pertinent to recall that Obama has strong views on non-
proliferation, which was evidenced by two killer amendments he had
moved in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee while approving the
infamous Hyde Act. In this Committee he had suggested (Senate
Amendment 5169) that supply of nuclear fuel to India should be actual
need based of an imported nuclear reactor (Section 103(b) (10) of the
Hyde Act) so that India is not able to create its strategic reserves
from imported fuel. Obama also suggested ensuring that US should not
facilitate nuclear exports by other countries to India if such US
exports were terminated. This second Obama amendment is reflected in
Section 102(13) of the Hyde Act.

In his Cairo speech (June 4, 2009) Obama very correctly said that
America is not and will never be at war with Islam but will
relentlessly confront violent extremists extensively. We did not go
(to Afghanistan) by choice; we went because of necessity.

His Pak-Afghan policy has got stalemated with fears of Afghanistan
turning into another Vietnam with scenario of exit in disgrace. Re-
take of Afghanistan by Taliban secretly supported by Pakistan will
weaken India in that part of the world. Pakistan is playing double
game with US in war against terror. Obama has followed a wrong policy
in Afghanistan which has potential to escalate violence in India
sooner than later in case inglorious exit of US and NATO from
Afghanistan materialised. Thereafter Taliban and jihadis would be free
to deploy all their resources and focus on kafir India. Therefore, it
is in long term interest of India to see that USA and NATO are not
militarily defeated in Afghanistan. A section of Pakistan
establishment wants defeat and exit of US from Afghanistan. Pakistan
will not be interested in quick defeat of Al Qaeda as its defeat would
dry up flow of US dollars. On Afghanistan, therefore, Obama and India
must think out of box solutions.

Obama should not fall in well laid out Pakistani trap of linking
Afghanistan with India’s Kashmir as by doing so USA would gain nothing
except losing goodwill of Indian people. Merger of J & K into India in
1947 was also supported by its the then local popular leaders. People
living in J & K have participated in State Assembly and Indian
Parliament elections a number of times since 1947.

Since 2001 about 1442 NATO soldiers have already been killed in
Afghanistan including 867 US, 219 British and 131 Canadian casualties
with no light in the tunnel. 68 per cent Americans believe war in
Afghanistan is a military stalemate. 61 per cent Democrats want to
reduce US troops but Republicans want to send more troops. NATO
commander US General McCrystal said the war would end in failure
without additional troops of 30,000 to 40,000. Vice President Joe
Biden is reported to favour narrowing down US role in Afghanistan.
There are about 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Obama should explore the possibility of inducting troops from such
developing countries where returning body bags do not pose much
problem to governments. This option should be explored more vigorously
as hilly terrain of Afghanistan demands that for military victory
armed strength should be at least four times that of enemy and in this
case NATO soldiers in field do not know who is enemy. So even after
adding another 40000 US troops the NATO strength would be below this
basic military requirement of four times superiority.

The US has approved civilian and economic aid of USD 1.5 billion a
year for five years to Pakistan for democratic, economic and social
programmes and also such sums as are necessary for military aid. The
US claims that aid aims at alleviating poverty and reducing economic
allurement of jihadis to unemployed youth. Well attackers of 9/11 were
neither poor nor uneducated. Jihad against kafirs is not poverty
driven but Qur’an and ideology driven. Senator John Kerry has
clarified that there is no conditionality attached to civilian and
economic aid. One is not sure whether this Kerry clarification would
not further alienate the ethnic groups (Baluch, Pashtuns, and Sindhi)
from US as one does not see any US public statement that an equitable
part of this aid will be spent in their regions too.

In order to succeed in Afghanistan Obama must make politico-military
use of ethnic differences to defeat Al Qaeda as locals know better
than NATO soldiers who is their enemy in fields. On one side of Durand
line it is Pashtuns vs Hazara etc., and, on the other side, it is
Baluch, Pashtuns, Sindhis vs Punjabi elite of Pakistan. Somehow or
other USA is seen by respected leaders of these ethnic groups more as
friend and protector of Punjabi hegemony.

It may be recalled that Baluchistan and the North West Frontier were
merged by force and fraud over ruling local leaders (Nabab of Kalat
and Frontier Gandhi) into Pakistan which keeps the pot boiling and is
the root cause of unrest in this region.

An assurance by US and the EU to Pashtuns, Baluch and Sindhis that
their democratic aspirations shall no more be overlooked by them
coupled with stronger military action in Afghanistan as at present may
go a long way to decisively defeat Al Qaeda in its den. Victory cannot
be achieved only by military divisions of US and NATO as it is not a
pure military war. It is two pronged war, military and political.

(The writer retired in the rank of Secretary to the Govt of India in
the Indian Foreign Service (1971 batch). He has served as Ambassador
to Finland, Estonia, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Tunisia and Tanzania
and; as Consul General, Dubai and Birmingham (UK). Contact: www.opgupta.org)

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 13, 2009, 1:01:47 PM10/13/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/5117933.cms

Elinor Ostrom
13 Oct 2009, 0205 hrs IST

Elinor Ostrom celebrates winning the Nobel Prize in economics at
Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana October 12, 2009. Ostrom, a
U.S. academic who proved that communities can trump state control and
corporations became the first woman to win the Nobel prize in
economics on Monday, sharing it with an expert on conflict resolution.
REUTERS

Oliver Williamson
13 Oct 2009, 0204 hrs IST

American economist Oliver Williamson poses for a photo at his home in
Berkeley, California October 12, 2009. Williamson and Elinor Ostrom
won the 2009 Nobel prize for economics for their work in economic
governance, the prize committee said on Monday. REUTERS

Barack Obama
13 Oct 2009, 0204 hrs IST

US President Barack Obama comments on winning the 2009 Nobel Peace
Prize while delivering a statement in the Rose Garden of the White
House in Washington, October 9, 2009. REUTERS

Jack Szostak
9 Oct 2009, 1522 hrs IST

Jack Szostak speaks on the phone at his home in Boston, Massachusetts
on October 5, 2009 after learning that he is one of three Americans to
win the Nobel prize for medicine for discovering and identifying
telomerase, the enzyme that renews the little caps on the end of
chromosomes whose natural fraying underlies aging and cancer.
(REUTERS)

Elizabeth Blackburn
9 Oct 2009, 1522 hrs IST

Australian-born Elizabeth Blackburn (R) has a champagne toast with
Susan Desmond-Hellmann, Chancellor of the University of California,
San Francisco, in San Francisco, California, on October 5, 2009.
Blackburn along with two other Americans won the Nobel prize in
medicine for discovering and identifying telomerase, the enzymen that
renews the little caps on the end of chromosomes whose natural fraying
underlies aging and cancer. (REUTERS)

Carol Greider
9 Oct 2009, 1521 hrs IST

Carol Greider, a professor in the department of molecular biology and
genetics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, gets a hug
from a co-worker as she arrives at a reception at her office in
Baltimore, Maryland, on October 5, 2009. Greider is one of three
Americans who won the Nobel prize for medicine on Monday for
discovering and identifying telomerase, the enzyme that renews the
little caps on the end of chromosomes whose natural fraying underlies
aging and cancer. (REUTERS)

George Smith
9 Oct 2009, 1521 hrs IST

Nobel Prize winner George Smith is photographed at his home in
Waretown, New Jersey on October 6, 2009. Smith, of the United States,
and two others will share the Nobel Prize for physics for their work
on charge coupled devices, or CCDs, used in digital imaging
technology. (REUTERS)

Willard Boyle
9 Oct 2009, 1521 hrs IST

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Willard Boyle (L) and his wife Betty
speak with a journalist in the lobby of his condominium building in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 6, 2009. Boyle shared one half of the
prize with George Smith for their work in digital sensor technology.
The second half of the prize was won by Charles Kao for his work in
fibre-optics. (REUTERS)

Charles Kao
9 Oct 2009, 1521 hrs IST

Charles Kao, a Shanghai-born British-American, is shown in this file
photo. Kao was one of the winners of the 2009 Physics Nobel Prize
winners announced at the Royal Academy of Sciences in Stockholm on
October 6, 2009. The winners were Kao, Willard S. Boyle, a Canadian-
American, and George Smith of the United States. (REUTERS)

Ada Yonath
9 Oct 2009, 1520 hrs IST

Israeli scientist Ada Yonath (bottom), professor at the Weizmann
Institute of Science, gestures as she sits in front of members of her
research team during a news conference in Rehovot near Tel Aviv on
October 7, 2009.Three scientists, one of them Yonath, who produced
atom-by-atom maps of the mysterious, life-giving ribosome won the
Nobel chemistry prize on Wednesday for a breakthrough that has allowed
researchers to develop powerful new antibiotics. (REUTERS)

Thomas Steitz
9 Oct 2009, 1520 hrs IST

2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner Thomas Steitz holds a plastic
model of a ribosome in his lab at Yale University in New Haven,
Connecticut, October 7, 2009. Steitz won the 2009 Nobel Prize in
chemistry for "studies of the structure of the ribosome'' along with
researchers Venkatraman Ramakrishnan of the U.S., who currently works
at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, and Ada Yonath of
Israel. (REUTERS)

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan
9 Oct 2009, 1520 hrs IST

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan of the United States is shown in this undated
file photo. Ramakrishnan was one of the winners of the 2009 Chemistry
Nobel Prize winners announced at the Royal Academy of Sciences in
Stockholm on October 7, 2009. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and Thomas
Steitz of the United States and Ada Yonath of Israel won the 2009
Nobel Prize in chemistry for "studies of the structure of the
ribosome''. (REUTERS)

Herta Mueller
9 Oct 2009, 1519 hrs IST

Romanian-born German writer Herta Mueller reacts after a news
conference in Berlin on October 8, 2009. Mueller, who charted the
hardships and humiliations of Nicolae Ceausescu's brutal regime, won
the 2009 Nobel literature prize for depicting the 'landscape of the
dispossessed'. (REUTERS)

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 14, 2009, 12:42:32 PM10/14/09

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262304

Obama Mia

In one stroke Obama’s become the butt of jokes and been weighed down
by the burden of expectation placed on him by the five gentleman from
Norway
Saba Naqvi

Capital Steps is a legendary political satire that has played in
Washington DC for the past 25 years. It began when a group of senate
staffers set out to satirize the people they worked for. It is biting,
sarcastic, really takes the mickey out of the politicos in Washington,
very irreverent (there are no holy cows), and updated regularly to
spoof on the latest world events.

I was fortunate to have seen a performance in June this year and
laughed my sides out. How I wished we could pull off something like
that in Delhi but all our holy cows would bleat and be offended and a
show like capital steps would be “persuaded” to shut down or tone
down.

The night I saw the performance, attended by Congressmen, senators,
journalists and academics, there were jokes aplenty and innuendoes
about “frigid” Hillary interacting with husband Bill Clinton and
freezing world leaders. There were skits on the economy, US engagement
with with Iran and North Korea, Republican scandals, George W and Dick
Cheney reminiscing about their legacy and so on.

But till this summer Barack Obama had not proved humour- worthy. So
the Capital Steps instead pilloried the ditzy Washington press core
that was so starry eyed about him. A gaggle of scribes were shown
falling over each other to get close to the president as they sang
“Obama Mia” set to the tune of the Abba classic “Mama Mia”.

Now that Obama has become a Nobel laureate, I would love to see the
show. In one stroke he’s become the butt of jokes and been weighed
down by the burden of expectation placed on him by the five gentleman
from Norway who comprise the Nobel committee.

My 10-year old daughter asked me why I was criticizing Obama getting a
prize when I usually sing praises of him. I explained in childspeak
that five men from Lapland, the land where Santa Claus comes from,
gave Obama the wrong present some months before Christmas. The kid got
the joke and grinned, “you mean they were bad elves”!

Yes, very bad elves. Till now Obama was being attacked by the right
wing that was getting more and more hysterical over policy reforms,
particularly health care, an issue that Americans get all charged up
about. Post Nobel, the man is being pilloried by the very lot of TV
hosts and journalists who support him. My favourite in the US is the
ultra liberal Bill Maher who is both delightfully funny in his
commentary and incisive in his interviews and debates. Here’s what he
had to say: “Obama said he will attend the ceremony in Oslo to accept
the peace prize if he’s not too busy with the two wars he is
conducting.”

But the best line has come from the Saturday Night Live show that
declared, “Obama won the Nobel for not being George Bush!” That’s both
funny and true. Like most Europeans (and most of the world, actually)
the earnest Norwegians were no doubt celebrating the fact that, hey,
Bush is gone.

And Obama is not merely "not George Bush". If we look at the galaxy of
world leaders, he still stands out for his civility, and the dignified
and charming manner in which he and wife Michelle carry themselves. We
have Gordon Brown of the UK being so dull and stodgy, Nicholas Sarkozy
of France being towered over by his glamorous wife, Silvio
Berlosconi’s endless saga of cheap one night stands... No wonder Obama
looks like a saint to the five men in a cold Nordic country.

The leadership standards across the globe are certainly not
inspirational. The Muslim world is ruled by despots and dictators, the
Chinese leadership incomprehensible to most of us, Africa a great
mess. Then there is Russian prime minister (formerly president)
Vladimir Putin. His countrymen apparently hold him in high regard but
he comes through as a bully to the rest of the world, fighting a cruel
war in Chechnya and always trying to bulldoze former Soviet republics.
Putin deliberately seeks the macho man image and recently posed
exposing his bare chest and strutting around like GI Joe during a
vacation where he apparently did so many manly things.

Compared to all these leaders, Obama is a gentleman (besides the fact
that he is a black man in the White House). Yet the Nobel peace prize
will remain controversial. There are some controversial and towering
personalities still on the world stage who have commented on Obama and
his Nobel. Here’s what the US baiting socialist president of
Venezuala, Hugo Chavez wrote in a column: “It’s like giving a baseball
pitcher a prize for just saying he was going to win 50 games and
strike out 500 batters…”

But the legendary Fidel Castro saw it differently although he is close
to Chavez. He described the Nobel for the American president as a
“positive move that implies criticism of the genocidal policies of
Obama’s predecessors.”

In other words, Castro also believes that Obama got the Nobel for not
being George Bush.

...and I am Sid Harth

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 6:38:29 AM10/15/09

http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/report_deserve-the-award_1297814

Deserve the award
Monday, October 12, 2009 2:00 IST

Deserve the award

I think US president Barack Obama should gracefully request the Nobel
Committee to wait forhim till he has achieved peace and harmony in
reality in the troubled spots of the world ('Shock and Awe Obama wins
peace Nobel', DNA, October 10). It would be a magnanimous gesture on
his part and would earn him greater respect and honour. Of course, if
he does request them to hold back his award then it would be a unique
thing in the history of Nobel prize.

--MV Halady, Mumbai

"I awoke one morning and found myself famous" said the English poet
Lord Byron. President Barack Obama will react in the same manner after
having won the Nobel for peace. Nobel Committee may have thought that
he deserved to win this year's Nobel, but the rest of the world is
surprised at this selection. Obama may not be a warmonger like Henry
Kissinger (US) and Yasser Arafat, who also won the Nobel, but he is no
Gandhi or Mandela either. Over the years, the Nobel Committee's
decisions to nominate people for the peace prize have been perplexing.
Mahatma Gandhi was ignored, but all his followers got the prize. The
criteria to confer the Nobel are beyond the comprehension of the
masses.

-Sumit S Paul, Calcutta

Readers' comments:

The Nobel Peace Prize was waiting for Obama. So, Obama joins Jimmy
Carter, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. For Alfred Nobel this
prize was dedicated to the person who shall have done the most or the

best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or
reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of

peace congresses. Is there a better definition of Obama's work since
he was elected when compared to Bush? Obama's Nobel is a small help to
promote humanism in a world needing it badly. It's a myth that the
prize is awarded to recognise efforts for peace and human rights only
after they have proven successful. It is often awarded to help good
behaviour. The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama's pledges to
reduce the world's number of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts
with Muslim nations and strengthen the American role in combating
climate change. The committee noted the global optimism created by his
calls for peace and cooperation. This prise rewards the dove, fighting
daily with world predators. Not only did it put in the spotlight the
greatest political turn of the 21st century, but it includes a bonus
prize. It can also be seen as "downpayment" on great expectations.
Last Friday, we were all Norwegian.

Monday, October 12, 2009 4:02 ISTMichel Gourd, L’Ascension-de-
Patapédia, Québec, Canada

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 10:55:00 AM10/15/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/332792_Majority-of-Nobel-jury-objected-to-Obama-prize

Majority of Nobel jury objected to Obama prize
STAFF WRITER 17:20 HRS IST

Oslo, Oct 15 (AFP) Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US
President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG)
reported today.

"VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression
that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to
give the peace prize to Barack Obama," the newspaper said.

In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the
Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken
office.

The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, honoured Obama
for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"The committee was unanimous," its influential secretary Geir
Lundestad told AFP on Friday.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 3:24:32 PM10/15/09

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/10/was-obama-right-to-accept-the-nobel-peace-prize.html

Opinion L.A.

Was Obama right to accept the Nobel Peace Prize?
October 9, 2009 | 10:29 am

With my mother's side of the family hailing from Kongeriket Norge,
I've gathered from personal experience that Norwegians (the ones I
know, anyway) have a super-squishy soft spot for President Obama. This
morning, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made its country's infatuation
practically official:

President Obama, who has pledged to place diplomacy ahead of
confrontation and reached out to a skeptical world with offers of
mutual understanding, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace today for
what the Nobel committee called "his extraordinary efforts to

strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"I will accept this award as a call to action, a call to all nations
to confront the challenges of the 21st century," Obama said in a White
House Rose Garden appearance. "This award must be shared with everyone
who strives for justice and dignity."

Professing humility and surprise in the awarding of the prize, the
president said, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own
accomplishments, but rather as a recognition of American
leadership. . . .

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so

many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this
prize," Obama said, suggesting that the prize has not always "been
awarded just to honor specific achievements," but also to lend some
momentum to the cause of peace.

I'm surprised, but not completely thrown for a loop. Norway, not being
much larger than the city of Los Angeles in population, is deeply
involved in world affairs to level that would suit a country the size
of, say, France. Its diplomats have actively sought out peaceful
resolutions to bloody conflicts in which Norway seemed to have had no
practical national interest (the landmark 1993 peace agreement between
Palestinians and Israelis is called the Oslo Accords for a reason --
and yes, for their efforts the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded
Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin the Nobel Peace Prize). So when the
leader of a nuclear-armed superpower, whose previous presidential
administration disregarded parts of the Geneva Convention as "quaint"
and was known for starting expensive wars it couldn't finish,
reassures the United Nations General Assembly that the U.S. should not
seek to dominate weaker nations, you can bet the Norwegian Nobel
Committee took notice. So yes, chalk this up as a nakedly political
statement, wishful thinking that the president's actions will align
with words or some other kind of naïveté, but the Norwegian Nobel
Committee had its reasons.

Enough Norse talk; click here for more reaction.

What are your thoughts on the award? Take our unscientific poll, post
a comment or do both.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 3:28:38 PM10/15/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24prexy.text.html?_r=1

Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly
Published: September 23, 2009

Following is a text of President Obama's speech to the United Nations
General Assembly on Wednesday, as released by the White House.

Good morning. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates,
ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time
as the 44th President of the United States. (Applause.) I come before
you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed
upon me, mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history,
and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and
prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it
seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany
my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me.
Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo
that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and
outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope -- the hope
that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a
leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view
America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to
misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was
due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain
critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for
the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-
Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective
inaction.

Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of
my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending
those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009
-- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations
and peoples are shared. The religious convictions that we hold in our
hearts can forge new bonds among people, or they can tear us apart.
The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever
darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it.
What happens to the hope of a single child -- anywhere -- can enrich
our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future.
No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the
exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this
message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from
Accra to Cairo; and it is what I will speak about today -- because the
time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must
embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual
respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words.
Speeches alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent
action. For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I
ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine
months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or
equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America.
(Applause.) I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are
doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within
the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values,
and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this
body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist
allies -- a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths
and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In
Afghanistan and Pakistan, we and many nations here are helping these
governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort,
while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American
combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August
to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have
made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility
for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American
troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world
without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia
announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic
warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on
a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials
for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become
the first senior American representative to the annual Members
Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace,
and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause
of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security
take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are
respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean
energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards.
We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy
partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a
leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world,
we worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international
response of over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy
back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the
crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined
with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative
that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build
their own capacity.

We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We
have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.) We have signed the
Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully
embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our
priorities here, in this institution -- for instance, through the
Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-
proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will
discuss today.

This is what we have already done. But this is just a beginning. Some
of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork
for progress in the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be
America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting
alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve
the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a
new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of
us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global
challenges.

Now, if we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not
living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we're on if
we fail to confront the status quo: Extremists sowing terror in
pockets of the world; protracted conflicts that grind on and on;
genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting
ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic
disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The
magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our
actions.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world
could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died
before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality,
put it this way -- and I quote: "The structure of world peace cannot
be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation…. It cannot be a
peace of large nations -- or of small nations. It must be a peace
which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world."

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more
true today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and
prosperity that we hold in common. Yet we also know that this body is
made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this
body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging
common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances
rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this
podium and point figures -- point fingers and stoke divisions. Nothing
is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving
ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody
can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand
more.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum
game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No
world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another
will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The
traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make
no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations
rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments,
are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead
nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to
pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of
their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that
our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down.
Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides --
coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east,
west, black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to
drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off
hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we
defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for.
Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the
rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests
of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in
the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants -- a future of peace and prosperity
that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights,
but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain
that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of
international cooperation.

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental
to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and
disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of
our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all
people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal
of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part
because man's capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we
averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But
today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity.
If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region,
and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can
hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and
that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear
energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to
move toward disarmament; and those without them have the
responsibility to forsake them. The next 12 months could be pivotal in
determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly
dissolve.

America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new
agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads
and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban
Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that
nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear
Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role
of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin
negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile
material for weapons.

I will also host a summit next April that reaffirms each nation's
responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to
help those who can't -- because we must never allow a single nuclear
device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work
to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear
smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations
that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences.
Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations --
it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up
to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections
are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all
people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran
threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights
as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will
repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater
prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to
their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore
international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons
ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their
own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear
arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be
held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that
international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be
enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of
peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world
can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their
differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the
world, this ideal remains an abstraction -- a distant dream. We can
either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and
crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is
universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the
murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On
this, no one can be -- there can be no dispute. The violent extremists
who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated
themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In
confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target
terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and
protect our people. We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to
launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by
our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in
pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue
positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new
partnerships for opportunity.

Our efforts to promote peace, however, cannot be limited to defeating
violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the
hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those
who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end
and a new day can begin.

And that is why we will support -- we will strengthen our support for
effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent
conflicts before they take hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in
Sudan through support for the people of Darfur and the implementation
of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that
the Sudanese people deserve. (Applause.) And in countries ravaged by
violence -- from Haiti to Congo to East Timor -- we will work with the
U.N. and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel,
Palestine, and the Arab world. (Applause.) We will continue to work on
that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime
Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress.
Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis
have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As
a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank
has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on
Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to
emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued
Israeli settlements. (Applause.)

The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations
without preconditions that address the permanent status issues:
security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and
Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in
peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for
all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with
contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and
realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)

As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and
Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its
many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional
initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral
negotiations.

Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us --
not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must
decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will only
lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of
insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would
acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when
we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an
insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the
Palestinians. (Applause.) And -- and nations within this body do the
Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against
Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy
and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid
by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in
Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in
the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza
who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all
God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this
is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and
security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that
call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why, even
though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will
not waver in my pursuit of peace. (Applause.)

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no
peace unless we take responsibility for the preservation of our
planet. And I thank the Secretary General for hosting the subject of
climate change yesterday.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our
responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down
our current course, every member of this Assembly will see
irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end
conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources.
Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human
beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations
will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass
on -- why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our
inheritance.

And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue
are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our
energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the
profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in
emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually
2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency, and
share new technologies with countries around the world. And we will
seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a
cooperative effort with the entire world.

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment
in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But
responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need
for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must
include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce
their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that
fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that
climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of
clean development simply will not work.

It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. I
know that. It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global
recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for
others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all
move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to
focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

And this leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a
global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to
churn, and yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills.
Across the globe, we find promising signs, but little certainty about
what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live
through the daily crises that challenge our humanity -- the despair of
an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water supplies;
the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease; or a mother
losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world's largest economies to
chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means
vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to
work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand so that global
recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the
road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that
we put an end to the greed and the excess and the abuse that led us
into this disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening
again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic
interest, however, in broader questions of development -- the
questions of development that existed even before this crisis
happened. And so America will continue our historic effort to help
people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward
the fight against HIV/AIDS, to end deaths from tuberculosis and
malaria, to eradicate polio, and to strengthen public health systems.
We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the
World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a
system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development
Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them
a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme
poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be
sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibilities.
And that means that wealthy nations must open their markets to more
goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming
international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. And
developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to
progress -- for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are
oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That is why we support
honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant
private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth
is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

Now, the changes that I've spoken about today will not be easy to
make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming
together in forums like this, as useful as that may be. For as in any
assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we
represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork
for progress in our own capitals. That's where we will build the
consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful
purposes, to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that
can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their
children. And that is why we must champion those principles which
ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These
principles cannot be afterthoughts -- democracy and human rights are
essential to achieving each of the goals that I've discussed today,
because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to
act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than narrow
interests of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the
fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be
measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass
political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They
will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly's Charter commits each of us -- and I quote -- "to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." Among
those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you
please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for
women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens
to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the
administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to
accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced
to accept the tyranny of their own people. (Applause.)

As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here
today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my
country. And that guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may
seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side
with justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those
who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who
seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who
longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each
society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each
country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in
its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been
selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our
commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are
universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the
United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up
for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.
(Applause.)

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American
people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war,
he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible
suffering, the enormous sacrifice that had taken place. "We have
learned," he said, "to be citizens of the world, members of the human
community."

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from
every corner of the world -- from Africa and Asia, from Europe to the
Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an
idealism that was anything but naïve -- it was rooted in the hard-
earned lessons of war; rooted in the wisdom that nations could advance
their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us -- for this institution will be what we make of it.
The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world -- feeding
the hungry, caring for the sick, mending places that have been broken.
But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the
ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from
this institution -- they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The
United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated
grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what
drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge
tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations
can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the
lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in
advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to
begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that
recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so,
with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we
call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people
so richly deserve.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 3:33:11 PM10/15/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/24prexy.html?ref=politics

Obama Makes Gains at U.N. on Iran and Proliferation

UNITED NATIONS — President Obama, in his first visit to the opening of
the United Nations General Assembly, made progress Wednesday on two
key issues, wringing a concession from Russia to consider tough new
sanctions against Iran and securing support from Moscow and Beijing
for a Security Council resolution to curb nuclear weapons.

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Obama, who spoke to the General Assembly on Wednesday, also
paid his respects at a memorial for United Nations staff members
killed in Iraq. More Photos >

The successes came as Mr. Obama told leaders that the United States
intended to begin a new era of engagement with the world, in a
sweeping address to the General Assembly in which he sought to clearly
delineate differences between himself and the administration of
President George W. Bush.

One of the fruits of those differences — although White House
officials were loath to acknowledge any quid pro quo publicly —
emerged during Mr. Obama’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon with
President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia, the first between the two
since Mr. Obama decided to replace Mr. Bush’s missile defense program
in Eastern Europe with a version less threatening to Moscow.

With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, Mr. Medvedev signaled
for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding
American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if,
as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make
progress.

“I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help
Iran to take a right decision,” Mr. Medvedev said, adding that
“sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases,
sanctions are inevitable.”

White House officials could barely hide their glee. “I couldn’t have
said it any better myself,” a delighted Michael McFaul, Mr. Obama’s
senior adviser for democracy and Russia, told reporters after the
meeting. He insisted nonetheless that the administration had not tried
to buy Russia’s cooperation with its decision to scrap the missile
shield in Europe in favor of a reconfigured system.

Privately, several administration officials did acknowledge that
missile defense might have had something to do with Moscow’s newfound
verbal cooperation on the Iran sanctions issue.

Whether Mr. Medvedev’s words translate into strong action once the
issue moves back to the Security Council remains to be seen. American
officials have been disappointed before by Moscow’s distaste for tough
sanctions, and Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin seemed to cast doubt
on the need for stronger sanctions just last week.

Convincing China to agree to toughen sanctions would be the Obama
administration’s next hurdle. A Chinese government spokesman
reiterated Thursday China’s long-standing opposition to increased
sanctions against Iran, and as one of the Security Council’s five
permanent members, China has veto power over decisions by the body.
But Beijing has made some exceptions to its general antipathy toward
sanctions in the past, including agreeing to a package of financial
and trade restrictions against North Korea in June.

Mr. Obama did have success with China on the issue of strengthening
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in a Security Council session
scheduled for Thursday. Russia has also agreed to support a resolution
on the matter, officials said.

In an effort to lay the groundwork for toughening the treaty, the
Obama administration circulated drafts of a resolution that “urges”
countries to put conditions on their nuclear exports, so that
international inspectors would be authorized to continue monitoring
the use of some nuclear materials even if a country withdrew from the
nonproliferation pact. That is a rare occurrence, but North Korea
declared it was withdrawing in 2003, and inspectors were thrown out.

The Obama administration hailed the pending resolution as a
significant step forward. But it would not be binding, and would
become so only if the Security Council required countries to make
their nuclear exports subject to such restrictions. Many countries
balked at that requirement, an indication of how difficult it may
prove to toughen the treaty itself when it is up for review next year.

Mr. Obama will preside over the Security Council meeting on Thursday,
and is expected to call for a vote on the draft resolution. White
House officials said they expected the measure to pass unanimously.

During his address to the General Assembly, Mr. Obama sought to
present a kinder, gentler America willing to make nice with the world.
He suggested that the United States would no longer follow the go-it-
alone policies that many United Nations members complained isolated
the Bush administration from the organization.

“We have re-engaged the United Nations,” Mr. Obama said, to cheers
from world leaders and delegates in the cavernous hall. “We have paid
our bills” — a direct reference to the former administration’s
practice of withholding some payment due the world body while it
pressed for changes there.

But even as Mr. Obama sought to signal a different tone, it was clear
that old, entrenched issues would remain, including Iran’s nuclear
ambitions and a Middle East peace process. And while much of his
language was different and more conciliatory, the backbone of American
policy on some issues remained similar to the Bush administration’s.

As Mr. Bush used to do before him, for instance, Mr. Obama singled out
Iran and North Korea, which he said “threaten to take us down this
dangerous slope.”

“I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity
and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their
obligations,” Mr. Obama said.

But, he added, “if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to

ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear
weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity
of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of

escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East —
then they must be held accountable.”

As he spoke, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sat in the fifth
row, showing no reaction.

But a glittering array of world leaders sat in the hall for Mr.
Obama’s speech, which was often interrupted by applause and the
flashes of cameras, including from some delegates.

Mr. Obama said he planned to work toward a comprehensive peace deal
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. He indicated again that he was
impatient with the slow pace of work on interim measures like a
settlement freeze. He called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to
address the tough “final status” issues that had bedeviled peace
negotiators since 1979.

“The goal is clear,” he said, “two states living side by side in peace
and security.”

But the difficulty of achieving that goal was also on full display on
Wednesday, one day after Mr. Obama held meetings with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud
Abbas, and admonished them to meet in person and negotiate a peace
deal. The two Middle Eastern leaders and their spokesmen spent much of
the day Wednesday explaining why that could not happen soon.

In an interview on NBC, Mr. Netanyahu called Israeli settlements
“bedroom suburbs” of Jerusalem and suggested Israel would not withdraw
from all the territory it occupied after the 1967 Middle East war.
Meanwhile, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told The
Associated Press that the two sides will “continue dealing with the
Americans until we reach the agreement that will enable us to relaunch
the negotiations.”

Andrew Jacobs contributed reporting from Beijing and David E. Sanger
contributed reporting from Boston.

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 3:43:51 PM10/15/09

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/24prexy.html

readers' comments

Obama Makes Gains at U.N. on Iran and ProliferationBack to Article »
By HELENE COOPER

President Obama, in his first visit to the opening of the United

Nations General Assembly, made progress on two key issues crucial to
his foreign policy.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

8 Readers' Comments

13.EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)

Ad Brooklyn September 23rd, 2009 1:52 pm

It is so amazing to have a feeling of pride when I see/hear the leader
of my country speaking to others around the world. I guess it
shouldn't be, but after the past decade or so I had forgotten it was
possible. I know problems were not fixed from this speech...words are
just words. But for #6 and others, the U.SA. has a reputation to
repair. We must first let the world know, then back it up with action.

Fulio Pen

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 3:53:57 PM10/15/09

> drag the arguments of the 20th ...
>
> read more »

As u.s. president, he is in office for less than a year, and hasn't
done anything yet, except signing his name several times. A few
officials in Sweden like him for nothing. That is it.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 16, 2009, 5:23:09 AM10/16/09

http://blogs.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=A-Prize-for-Obama.html&Itemid=86&main_category=Recto-reader&contentid=61530&blogs=1&contentid=61530

A Prize for Obama

There's absolutely nothing noble about this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Then, Alfred Nobel's prize for people who have "done the most or the
best work for fraternity between nations" has never lived up to the
dynamite man's ideal. And it has never been free of politics—or the
ideological leanings of the Norwegian arbiters—either. Still, Laureate
Obama boggles the mind and enlarges the joke further.

The question is not what he has done. We know.

He still continues to soothe the mind of the international left-
liberal fraternity.

He's still the edifying—and unifying—symbol of anti-Bush.

He's still not a poet of "America First, America the Great", though he
can still be poetic about his biography, which is an Only-in-America
narrative in the end.

He can still be the finest evangelist in world capitals, be it Cairo
or wherever.

We also know that the icon of the global left is a much diminished
hero at home. His popularity is not exactly soaring like his speeches.
ObamaCare is in a shambles. Afghanistan may not be Vietnam yet but the
"necessary" war is going nowhere near the Taliban resistance.

This award, says the Nobel citation, is for Obama's diplomacy which
"is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must
do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the
majority of the world's population."

Did we get it right, "...shared by the majority of the world's
population"?

More aptly, "...shared by the star-struck European left."

Just nine months in office, Obama gets the Nobel for being what he's
not.

He's not George W. Bush.

As Peggy Noonan says in the Wall Street Journal, the Nobel Peace
Prize, whenever it's awarded to a politician, is an "award given by
liberals to liberals. NCNA—no conservatives need apply."

That's why there was no prize for Reagan, who, along with Pope John
Paul II and Gorbachev, had ended the Cold War.

President Obama has won the award for what he may achieve. An award
for hope as envisaged by the left-liberal anti-Americans (what an
irony!)

America may have stopped romancing Obama. Elsewhere, he is still the
One—the only One.

Now let's wait till October 2010 for celebrating Barack Obama the
Nobel laureate in literature.

October 12, 2009 Posted by S. Prasannarajan

We the non-white people should not knock Obama as no white American or
European has done much for us and never will. The Nobel Committee has
always prodded politicians in the right direction, as with Nelson
Mandela and FW De Klerk of South Africa. If it exercises some pressure
on Obama to maintain the course of engagement and openness and
business unusual it would have served its purpose. Saints don't need
awards just as Swamis don't need honorary doctorates.

Vallaraman
October 15, 2009

We can not stop or avoid doing things which we ought not, just like
talking about Obama and Noble prize, Mr. Noble decided to wash his
sins for inventing dynamite by awarding prizes and the same custom,
washing sins is continued with the same motto and carried away by the
Noble committee, and there is no any wonder with their decissions. I
am also the one expecting the same award and me a man most unfamiliar
even to his neighbours and with a lot of dreams and plans for the
cause of unknown which were not disclosed so far. Please don't make a
mess otherwise I may lose my chances. Gautam Buddha and Jesus Christ
are the ones eligible for a great award, but they are lucky enough to
escape as the awards are not there in those times, but Mahatma
Gandhiji miraculously and accidentally escaped , and we Indians are
gratefully thanking the world for not dragging Mahatmaji in to this
murky business.

srinidhi
October 15, 2009

Is there a possibility that Nobel is taken back if the policies don't
yield results? The very fact that Obama got it, left not only him but
the entire world scratching heads... after all it's a vote for
CHANGE!!! Isn't it? Are you moving in your grave Sir Alfred? Shhhh
Peace....

GM Subba Rao
October 14, 2009

Obama is a true identity of a defeated America which again to save
face had planted a new face of America which will save their defeated
face from this world and save them all the embarrassment they were due
to face from the world. many lies are already proved in the past but
this new game of changing face went unnoticed and all started praising
the new America hoping to be reborn in a new get-up which will hide a
defeated face, hide all their past crimes on humanity , and will open
doors with all and subdary planting a new hope for all weaker nations
afraid of this big brother . this noble prize is a proof of this
conspiracy to fool the whole world all over again .this noble prize is
forced on obama in the same way as he was made born forcibly on this
world to clean the face of US of A.

shabbir a r
October 13, 2009

It was too early to award Obama a Noble Prize. The world has lot of
hope on him. By awarding the prize so early, he will be looked at with
lot of hope all over world. He will have to withstand the pressure of
hopes and perform outstandingly to have lasting peace. Now the word
Noble laurate in peace is attached to his name, every move of him will
be watched. If he cannot achieve the lasting peace in sustained
manner, it will affect his performance. He will be now under lot of
pressure to take bold decision for either achieving lasting peace or
to take tough measure against any terrorist or countries suporting
them. We wish him all the best

Dr Umesh K Dash
October 13, 2009

It’s really true when one sees all about Noble then one comes to the
conclusion only Mr Noble was noble. In God’s name why Obama? He also
expressed the same although he feels flattered and the right choice.
But why all this hassle about Noble prize, no one really bothers about
it and 99 % of world population don’t even know what the hell it is.
Still all the intellectuals are horny and exited about it as if they
are next in the row. If we take it for granted that it is the most
worthy prize on this planet and the prize jury must justify their
decision, THEN WHY OBAMA THE GREENHORN?
There is only one reason and that is the whole philosophy of Noble
Prize is going though metamorphose. It is better to give the prize to
a new shining star to bring more brightness. The acknowledgement
symbolic has been changed to “Acknowledgement & Motivation” and that
is what a prize should be. Now Mr. Noble doesn’t need to celebrate on
the graveyard of achievements but in the living room of dynamite
persons.

To be honest Obama is a comet which may live 4 or 8 years and has
already laid the motivation to CHANGE. Never in the history of human
race was there such a feeling and euphoria of CHANGE. It is not
interesting what and where just “CHANGE”. Lie back in your bed and
imagine just CHANGE, it will sounds like OM. If everyone accepts
CHANGE than the change will take from the roots and it will becomes a
regular part of our life, than Obama has earned the Noble Prize
Thousand time. Obama is CHANGE.

adesh
October 13, 2009

He is not doing anything right still he gets the prize. Prize for
what? For following reasons?

Rewarding terrorists states
Punishing victims of terror
Rewarding and respecting US adversaries
Rewarding socialists

Insulting friends of US
Insulting Dalai Lama
Insulting terror victims
For being trainee president

Pavan
October 13, 2009

About the blog: Recto-reader

An irreverent look at the ideas and attitudes in political culture. If
it is on the right side of the argument, it is not accidental as the
title suggests.

About S. Prasannarajan

S. Prasannarajan, Editor-at-Large, India Today, is an essayist and
critic who writes on ideas and trends in politics, international
affairs and books. Polemical and provocative, he has written
extensively on people and processes that capture the zeitgeist. He is
responsible for the coverage of national politics and books in the
magazine. He is based in Delhi.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 22, 2009, 5:35:07 AM10/22/09

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-america-weve-seen-worse-.html

America, we've seen worse

President Obama has been shouted down as a liar, been compared to
Hitler and had his right to hold office questioned. Has the political
rancor ever been this bad? Actually, yes.
By Sandy Grady

All new presidents offer peace pabulum. But in the cold sunshine of
Jan. 20, Barack Obama's voice edged with conviction: He would end the
"petty grievances" and "recriminations" that "for far too long have
strangled our politics."

Talk about bitter irony.

Nine months later, petty grievances would be genteel wrist taps
compared with the nastiness exploding on talk radio and in town hall
scream-athons.

Obama was dissed, "You lie!", by a congressional buffoon. He was
cartooned on Tea Party placards as Adolf Hitler or Batman's Joker or
an African witch doctor. Health care shouters bellowed about "death
panels." "Birthers" insisted that Obama is a Kenyan or a Muslim.
Either way, an illegitimate president in their eyes.

When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — admittedly in the first
inning of a long game — his critics reacted as though it was a DUI
arrest rather than signal of hope.

Sure, bipartisanship is a dead dream if Obama's lucky to win one or
two lonely Republican votes for health care passage in the Senate.
(Lyndon Johnson got 13 Republican senators for Medicare's final
vote.)

Is this 2009 split a hissy fit over the first post-racial president or
a society's nervous breakdown?

"The polarization between the political parties is greater than ever
before in modern history," intones respected journalist Elizabeth Drew
in The New York Review of Books.

Veteran reporters say the daily left vs. right barrage of insults
makes Capitol Hill as rowdy as a food fight in a school cafeteria —
with no adult supervision. An earlier Pew Research Center poll showed
that Obama had the most polarized approval rating — a 61 percentage
point gap between Democrats and Republicans — since tracking began
when Richard Nixon was in the White House.

Ferocious, but not the worst

Is our ideological poison worse than ever? Well, no, we've seen far
more turbulent times. Even so, I suspect there's something novel and
menacing about the noisy ferocity of 2009 politics.

It's ridiculous to compare the current Tea Party tempest to, say, the
run-up to the Civil War — when a Southern congressman caned an anti-
slavery senator almost to death and slavery tore the nation apart. And
David M. Kennedy's magisterial Freedom From Fear shows that enmity
toward Obama doesn't compare with 1930s hostility toward Franklin D.
Roosevelt, especially from such bellicose crackpots as the Rev.
Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, Gerald L.K. Smith and business tycoons
who detested FDR's New Deal. Maybe Obama should lose his famous cool
as did FDR in his Madison Square Garden rouser: "They are unanimous in
their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred!"

Our tin-pot 2009 divisiveness can't come close to the Joe McCarthy
period or the 1960s furor over civil rights and the Vietnam War. Last
month's Tea Party rally in Washington was a quaint echo of the
thunderous 1967 anti-Vietnam War march, where I saw tear-gas clouds
and troops with bayoneted rifles defend the Pentagon against scuffling
protesters.

So our uncivil disorder is spurious, minor-league trifling compared
with 1856 or 1936 or 1969. We don't even match the heated scapegoating
of the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nominations of
the '80s and '90s that still thrives in tribal Hatfield-McCoy feuding.

The non-stop echo chamber

But our 2009 partisan jostling has a new, maybe dangerous, twist — the
Frankenstein technology of cable news, the Internet, Twitter and
Facebook that created a deafening 24-hour echo chamber.

The rancor isn't worse, but it's far noisier.

After all, Roosevelt had to endure a few radio blowhards, and LBJ and
Nixon had to cope with three bland TV networks. The 1987 death of the
Fairness Doctrine plus high-tech media opened the gates of bedlam.

Now, radio-TV consumers are so divided that those on the right swear
by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, while those on the left seek out Jon
Stewart or Keith Olbermann. Thus, it was a dumb, understandable
mistake when the White House sent out Anita Dunn to attack Fox News as
a GOP ventriloquist's dummy.

But Obama's staff underestimates the Secret of the Echo Chamber: The
louder the personal barbs and invective, the higher go ratings. The
high-tech, smash-mouth style drifts down to congressional and town-
hall copycats. So we get health care blather about death panels,
government abortions, free care for illegal aliens.

"Political chaos is connected with the decay of language," wrote
George Orwell, the prophet of 1984.

Sure, defenders see the multivoice raucousness of cable news and
Internet bloggers as democracy spread wide. But the peril is
rhetorical overkill. When pundits or protesters compare Obama to
Hitler, a dictator who ignited a world war and killed 6 million
Holocaust victims, that invites trouble.

The brutal lesson of the 1960s is that a climate of hate can breed
national tragedies.

So far, we just have school food fights. Maybe we need an adult — for
example, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the Nobel Prize flap — to speak
firmly: Cool it, kids, before somebody gets hurt.

Sandy Grady, who has covered eight presidential campaigns, is a member
of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

(Summer Hitler: Altered photos at a town hall meeting on health care
in California./Danny Moloshok, Reuters.)

Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, October 22, 2009 in Forum commentary, Grady,
Politics - Forum

Comments: (4)

RJeremy (9 friends, send message) wrote: 3h 47m ago

Of course now with President Obama it's "Cool it, kids, before
somebody gets hurt." It was time to cool it 8 years ago, not just when
your man is in office.

Hypocrites.

Recommend 3

wazzamattU (0 friends, send message) wrote: 3h 4m ago

'Health care blather? Free care for illegal aliens'? Why are they
still here? They're already breeding at our expense, in our faces, and
with impunity.

Recommend 1

decrepitude (2 friends, send message) wrote: 1h ago

Funny but I don't recall such angst in the media when President Bush
was being compared to Hitler by mainstream critics or his right to
hold office was being questioned and these were the least putrid of
the daily assaults from day one. Of course then it was "patriotic" to
dissent and attack.
------------------------------------------------ -
What country were you living in from 2000-2008? Because what you just
described sure as hell wasn't the America the rest of us were living
in. In that America, criticism of the President was likened, by no
less than the US Attorney General, to siding with anti-American
terrorists.

And I'd like you to produce a comparison between Bush and Hitler
written while Bush was a sitting president by a media figure. Not some
fringe elemenet protester - someone with a newspaper column or radio
show or TV show. That's the difference between now and then - the
wholesale adoption of these tactics by a media establishment.

Until you produce that quote, I'm going to assume that you are
completely full of s hit.

Future 2012 (0 friends, send message) wrote: 12m ago

As an illiterate unwashed redneck white trash tea-bagger I realize
that we have no right to question the spin that the Democrats are
putting out.

Obama in addressing the American Nation from the “Halls of Congress”
felt he was right to ridicule and call my opposition position "a lie,
plain and simple.

I know that Obama must be true to his South Side Chicago political
craft to “call out people who challenge his positions. Obviously
because Obama feels we have “phony claims” and I am unable to
understand what is good for me.

We have learned that to get off the Obama/Garofalo enemies list we
need to be sent to a community organized Mao re-programming camp to
stop asking “WHY” of Obama policies.

We must become the “Silenced Majority”.

We welcome “Harvard Graduate” Obama’s elite snarling smack down public
rebuke of opposition who do not trust him or believe him. This is the
kind of leadership change we can believe in.

It is an ill conceived notion that the unwashed public, the un-elite,
should view a congressional bill and believe we could understand it.

The fact that the Health Insurance bill will be done in secret and the
Democrats will continue to spin that the unwashed peasants have no
right to view the Health Insurance bill because they are illiterates
with “phony claims” and are unable to understand what is good for
them.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are tone deaf. They do not respond to our
phone calls, e-mails, townhalls, or rallies. They refuse to listen to
us because we are lairs to them, but mostly because they know we do
not believe them or trust them. Harry called us evilmonger and Nancy
called us un-American.

But until we lose the secret ballot, as the Unions want, the “Silenced
Majority” can clandestinely vote in 2010 against the demonic
Whitehouse politics.

Recommend 1

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 22, 2009, 5:42:47 AM10/22/09

http://transcripts.usatoday.com/Chats/transcript.aspx?c=2077

10/22/2009 - Updated 05:40 AM ET

Ralph Peters

The Forum

Tuesday, July 14, 1:00 PM ET

Ralph Peters is a former Army officer who rose from the enlisted
ranks. He retired in 1998, after his promotion to lieutenant colonel.
As a soldier and civilian, he has experience in more than 70
countries. He’s the author of 24 books, including works on military
and international affairs, best-selling and prize-winning novels
(written under his own name or as Owen Parry), and an adventure-travel
memoir. His latest novel, "The War After Armageddon," will be
published on Sept. 15. In demand as a commentator and essayist on
security matters and the international scene, Peters has been an
opinion columnist for "The New York Post" since 2002. A member of the
board of contributors at USA TODAY, he also serves on the advisory
board at "Armchair General Magazine" and is a contributing editor for
"Armed Forces Journal." He has covered conflicts in Iraq, Israel and
sub-Saharan Africa, has published more than 800 essays, columns and
reviews, and is Fox News' first strategic analyst.

"Will foreign affairs trap Obama?"

Comment from Ralph Peters: Thanks to all readers for being concerned
citizens and participating in this small part of our ongoing national
debate. In my work, research and travels in over 70 countries on six
continents, it has struck me, again and again, that one of our
greatest strengths as Americans is to engage in healthy criticism of
ourselves and our system. In much of the world--for example, in the
greater Middle East--a culture of blaming others for every minor self-
inflicted wound paralyzes society and the political system, inhibiting
meaningful progress. A culture of blame is a doomed culture, whether
within a society or throughout a civilization. Of course, when our
self-criticism becomes purely partisan, it's destructive. But, on the
whole, the great American attitude of "I'm from Missouri. Show me!"
serves us well. To me, this brief dialogue today--hopefully conducted
in a spirit of inquiry, not partisanship--is one more small example of
why our country, for all its flaws, works.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rosa, California: How many people reminded you that a domestic-
minded Democratic president who started to tackle the Great Depression
went on to be one of the greatest wartime leaders in our history?

Ralph Peters: I don't recall any mention of FDR in the column. Nor of
Harry Truman, another Democratic president who rose to great foreign-
policy challenges. The column simply identifies a pattern that began
to emerge with LBJ. That pattern represents a significant shift from
the sophisticated world-view of FDR. Nor does the column argue that
Republican presidents have performed flawlessly in the past half-
century. It simply makes the objective observation that a pattern has
emerged since LBJ that has wounded the well-intentioned presidencies
of every Democratic president since that tragic day in Dallas when a
Democratic president who well understood the importance of the world
beyond our shores was gunned down by a leftist who had previously
defected to the Soviet Union. For the record, I'm neither a Republican
nor a Democrat. I'm an American. My votes have been about evenly split
between the parties over the years, but only for want of better
choices. I view both parties as corrupt machines than do great harm to
our republic, while ensuring that the American people don't really get
to pick candidates, but are only allowed to choose between the
candidates pre-selected by the party machines. It has, indeed, been a
long way downhill since Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Ike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh North Carolina: What is the best way to handle the "Pakistan
problem"?

Ralph Peters: There is no by-the-numbers, neat and guaranteed formula
for resolving Pakistan's many problems (a number of which affect us).
I have just enough personal experience on the ground in Pakistan to be
wary of anyone who thinks they have a fix. Of course, that doesn't
mean we should or can do nothing; however, sometimes less really is
more. The fundamental law at play is that only Pakistanis can save
Pakistan. Not all of them want to. Pakistan has never integrated
successfully since its formation in 1947. Although there is some
national identity east of the Indus River in the provinces of Sindh
and Punjab, the vast territories west of the Indus, from Baluchistan
up through Kashmir, have always remained separate in spirit and,
often, in fact. In reality, Pakistan is a mini-empire, with Sindhis
and Punjabis dominating the lesser provinces--indeed, occupying
Baluchistan. The most encouraging recent development has been broad
backing for the Pakistani military's offensive against the Taliban and
its affiliates in the Swat Valley and adjacent areas. Previously, many
Pakistanis didn't take the Taliban seriously, even regarding them as
Robin Hoods (with the woefully corrupt government in the role of the
Sheriff of Nottingham). Again, the Pakistanis must take responsibility
for their own country--we can only operate on the margins. Overall,
responsibility has been a key failing in Pakistan: for decades, one
leader after another, civilian or military, has resorted to blaming
Washington for all of Pakistan's home-made ills. The late Benazir
Bhutto was a classic example: She'd visit Washington with her Oxbridge
accent, knock back expensive wine with her private-school chums, and
talk democracy with the best of our Founding Fathers. Then she (like
others) would return to Pakistan and blame the USA for poverty--even
as she and her family and associates stole everything in sight (and
more than a few things that were out of sight). Corruption has been
the bane of Pakistan from the start. Which brings us to what little we
can do. Don't add to the corruption. Piling additional billions in non-
military aid won't help the average Pakistanis, but will largely be
stolen by the elite (whose members care nothing for the common man).
As for military aid, it must be conditioned on a continued willingness
to really fight our common enemies (to be fair, some of our military
aid has been ineffective because of our own impractical rules, but
that's another story). This long--perhaps too-long--response gives
just a hint of how complex so many such issues are. There are no
simple answers. My personal bottom lines: Pay no attention to what
Pakistan's leaders tell us--watch what they do. Do not give aid that
cannot be monitored down to the last nail and brick. And call
Pakistan's leaders out when they steal from their own citizens, then
blame us. Do not accept the suppression of dissidents just because the
Pakistani intelligence services term them "terrorists." Do not accept
Pakistan's protection of terrorists under the label of "dissidents."
And if the Pakistani intelligence services back another terrorist
attack on India, just get out of India's way. We can't fix a nation of
170 million disgruntled Muslims. It's a self-help universe. But we can
avoid worsening the problem. Then there's the idiocy of allowing our
troops in Afghanistan to depend on a long supply line through
Pakistan, making them de facto hostage of the Pakistanis, but that's
yet another story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL: Does your gut tell you Obama has the capacity to be wise
in the ways of the world? Mine does, but if I'm right, do you think he
could be setting up the bad actors for international retribution by
first pretending to play nice with them?

Ralph Peters: It's almost impossible to judge which men or women will
rise to greatness as the occasion demands--much as it's often
surprising which soldier turns out to be heroes and which disappoint
their comrades in the fight. Objectively speaking, Obama has many
advantages, from undeniable charisma to a supple intelligence. But,
until he is severely tested, neither we nor he himself can know if he
has the character of his greatest predecessors. As for setting up the
foreign bad actors by "pretending to play nice with them," no. On the
deficiency side, Obama's self-confidence verges on egomania. He's a
man who managed to talk his way up to the Oval Office, while doing
very little, and he now--perhaps naturally--believes he can talk
anyone into anything. But taking on Iran's Ahmadinejad, or China's Hu,
or a brilliant monster such as Russia's Putin is a much tougher
challenge than defeating flawed competitors in political primaries. If
that paragraph sounds harsh, let me qualify it by saying that
greatness and personal goodness don't necessarily go together. In one
of reality's many paradoxes, a man or woman's flaws may pull him or
her through when their virtues fail (for example, only George W.
Bush's often-destructive stubborness saved Iraq from abandonment and a
vast disaster). I honestly believe that President Obama came to office
clueless on foreign policy (but full of good, if naive, intentions).
He's got some hard lessons fast. Will he learn them? In a timely
manner? None of us know--and he doesn't know himself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbury, CT: Do you think President Obama is blind to the linkage of
international affairs? He waits three days to speak out on Iran's sham
election yet immediately condemns the entire Honduran government for
following its constitution. He's apologetic to Muslims in Cairo then
preaches to the Africans about corruption. Now he's trying to link a
nuke reduction to Iran sanctions. No wonder the dictators are as
stimulated as the U.S. Congress with an open checkbook.

Ralph Peters: I believe that there are two contending strains at play
in our president's foreign-policy character. On one hand, he's an
ambitious (and highly talented) pragmatist. On the other, his entire
life has been spent in close association with extreme leftist. I do
not believe that our president is an ideologue at heart, but you just
can't have had a beyond-crazy-left mother, an absent Third-World
father, two decades of sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church,
and an uninterrupted sequence of extreme-left friends and associates
(such as Bill Ayers) without absorbing some hard-left views of the
world by osmosis. Again, I do not think our president is even
conscious of how far left, how naive and dangerous, his vague foreign-
policy prejudices are. Nor is he even consistent, arguing first, in
Iran's case, for non-interference, then leaping into the noise about
the Honduran rejection of a rogue president attempting to destroy the
Honduran constitution. On the other hand, I don't expect--or want--
perfect consistency from a president. First, because the world's too
complex--there are no one-size-fits-all answers to the countless
foreign challenges we face. Second, because I want a president who can
learn while in office, not one who's imprisoned by an ideological
straight-jacket (George W. Bush, a mixed bag, certainly suffered from
an inability to evolve or admit mistakes). I wish I could be more
happy-face positive, but we do have a very naive president just now--
in a global forest full of wolves. But we all must wish him success.
He's our president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, The Peoples Republic of Illinois: As any skilled military
officer (or sales guy like me) knows, the first thing required in any
plan is an objective. Once the objective is set, a strategy is chosen
- frontal, flank, fragment, defend, develop. It is only after
objective and strategy are decided that tactics should be set. The
Obama administration seems to have a philosophy that is the exact
opposite in Afghanistan; the "surge" tactic worked in Iraq so we
should try it in Afghanistan. I can't determine what our objective is,
let alone what strategy is being used. What should our objective,
strategy and tactics be in Afghanistan?

Ralph Peters: I agree completely. In Afghanistan, no one in our
military or government (including pre-Obama) has been able to
articulate a clear, attainable end-state--nor, at present, can anyone,
including our four-star generals, explain to me how pacifying a remote
village in southern Afghanistan will deter al-Qaeda from terrorism. We
are operating on sheer inertia, force of habit. Unfortunately, our
president has trapped himself with campaign promises: Iraq was Bush's
war, therefore, it was bad; however, Obama and his colleagues needed
to "prove" that they're strong of security, too--so Afghanistan became
the good war by default. But Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has zero
strategic value to us. In 2001, Afghanistan was a cheap motel that
wasn't particular about asking for ID (although, in fact, the
Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, had been trying to get Osama bin Laden
to leave Afghanistan for over a year). Our enemy is al-Qaeda, and al-
Qaeda is not an Afghan organization. The problem is across the border
in Pakistan (lying as Afghanistan does between Iran and Pakistan, I
like to say that we've sent the fire brigade to an outhouse between
two blazing strategic mansions). Forgive me, but this problem is so
infernally complex that, in order to answer the questions of others,
as well, I'll refer you to the web site for Joint Force Quarterly. In
the latest issue, I have a long, straightforward, no-nonsense essay on
our problems in Afghanistan. The essay offers far greater depth than I
can provide here. But thanks for being engaged on this issue--the
media certainly aren't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyde Park, UT.: First as a disabled Vietnam vet and speaking from that
point of view, I believe we will likely be attacked again. From whom
would you expect that to come from? What form will it likely take?
What do you believe Obama would do in response? Second, In my past I
was a consulting engineer to DOE in the area of electrical generation
and transmission. I know without doubt that cap and trade and the
fantasy of renewable energy will never work. and It will make us even
more susceptible to pressure from the oil producing nations. Why on
earth can't Washington see this?

Ralph Peters: We will be attacked again by Islamist terrorists. We
cannot predict the time, place or scope, but the attack will come
(meanwhile, we and our clients are already under attack beyond our
borders--the feds don't get the credit they deserve for having kept us
safe at home since Sept. 11, 2001). That said, I don't think the
attack will originate from Afghanistan. It probably will have some
ties to Pakistan, but could even have a base in lawless Somalia. Al-
Qaeda is a post-modern, trans-national organization with operatives
and sympathizers in many countries, so we can't say, "Well, the next
attack will come from a cell in a Paris suburb." All that said, let's
remember that our military and intelligence efforts have been
remarkably successful--al-Qaeda has been badly battered since Sept. 11
and has been pushed onto the strategic defensive (although it still
can lash out). Al Qaeda foolishly came to Iraq after we removed Saddam
and suffered a catastrophic defeat. Right after Sept. 11, bin Laden
was a hero in much of the Muslim world. Now, thanks to the monstrous
behavior of al-Qaeda in Iraq, these terrorists are not welcome in a
single Arab country and have to duck into remote Yemeni back-country,
the Somali badlands, or the worst hillbilly regions of Pakistan. Fact
is, our troops and agents (and the feds right here) have done great
work--for which they don't get credit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston, Texas: One of the basic tenets of America is our belief in
liberty and freedom. It is what has made us strong, and we have been
described as the world's remaining power. However, our rights and
freedoms have been gradually worn away through such means as the
Patriot Act, and more recently the takeover of the American economy
symbolized by AIG and GM. Can we remain a strong world leader when we
violate our own core beliefs?

Ralph Peters: As I said in my introductory note, I feel that both
political parties are corrupt and too-often a detriment to good
governance. I must say, though, that the Patriot Act did not infringe
on the rights of law-abiding citizens in any way--but it did make life
tougher for terrorists. The media turned the Patriot Act into
something Satanic--which it wasn't. Personally, I'm much more worried
by the bipartisan bail-outs of well-connected firms. Governments,
corporations and individuals all have to pay their debts. At present,
only the individuals are forced to do so. Although capitalism does
need adult supervision, huge bail-outs for badly, even criminally,
managed firms is inexcusable. Whether AIG or California, entities must
behave responsibly. Citizens who suffer unavoidable catastrophes
deserve our help--corporations and governments who bring catastrophe
upon themselves do not deserve our help. Those who transgress must
feel pain. A kid sticks up a 7-Eleven, he goes to jail. A financial
bigwig destroys the life-savings of 100,000 Americans--and he goes to
Palm Springs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrington, NJ: Is Secretary Clinton helping or hurting U.S. foreign
policy? I can't remember a less visible or more subordinated secretary
of State since William Rogers, who served under Nixon. But at least
there was Kissinger at the time.

Ralph Peters: When President Obama nominated then-Senator Clinton as
secretary of State, he wasn't thinking about foreign policy. It was a
brilliant way to lure her away from the Senate, where she would have
had a power base of her own and a potential political launching pad. I
hope Obama will come to size up his foreign counterparts as incisively
as he nailed then-Senator Clinton: He realized that she wouldn't be
able to resist the glamor of becoming secretary of State. As the
column points out, since her confirmation, Obama has sucked power away
from State and concentrated it in the White House (just as he's doing
on the economic front, sidelining Congress). Poor Secretary Clinton
got suckered into taking a job in which she can't win, in which she
has little power and in which she has no future. Obama outmaneuvered
her. Now, can he outmaneuver our enemies?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratton Maine: Do you think the idea of replacing poppy fields with
other crops will be a successful strategy in Afghanistan, thus cutting
off the lucrative profit for the Taliban?

Ralph Peters: No. It may be a useful tactic, in the sense of giving us
local, short-term gains, while hampering the Taliban, but it won't
destroy the Taliban. Unlike al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was an intruder,
the Taliban are the home team in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan.
Now, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, with the Taliban--but we have to
have the intellectual integrity to recognize that many Pashtun
Afghanis identify with the Talibs, or at least sympathize with them.
Afghans are not "just like us" and they don't want what we want in
every case. As for "crop substitution" strategies, which I got to see
fail in Latin America in one of the many odd jobs I did for our
military, it can't be just "Plant this, instead of that." There have
to be markets for the crops, as well as roads to get the crops to
markets. In Bolivia or Peru, the narcos would fly into remote valleys
to pick up the coca paste. Nobody was going to fly in to pick up
oranges or avocados. Likewise, the buyers will come to the Afghans
growing poppies--but how do you make a living from remote apple
orchards? I'm over-simplifying a bit, but the point is that you have
to think through third- and fourth-order effects, not just tell
Afghanis "You can't grow poppies." I'm all for eliminating poppies,
but I want to do it intelligently--and I don't think it's a U.S. job.
Afghan heroin goes to Russia, Iran, Europe, but little comes here.
We're doing the work of others, as usual.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento, CA: With the CIA and other parts of the U.S. intel
community under attack by the Democrats in a hunt to discredit Bush
policies, just how badly will one of our defenses be after the
Democrats are through scapegoating them?
Ralph Peters: Any time you politicize intelligence, you damage
intelligence. Intelligence work must be conducted in a strictly
objective manner if we are to have any hope of getting it right.
Unfortunately, the intelligence community has become a convenient
scapegoat for many political failings. Another problem that many
Americans don't understand is that, while the Senate has a certain, if
imperfect, sense of integrity, the House is truly representative of
the American people--the good, the bad, the ugly, and the
bewilderingly stupid. American voters would be horrified if they
realized how ill-informed, intellectually heedless and just plain
mediocre many members of the House really are. They're more apt to
have their views of intelligence work shaped by left-wing Hollywood
fantasies than by any sense of the reality of the hardworking,
sometimes breathtakingly courageous members of the real intel
community. Now, intelligence will never be perfect--because human
beings aren't perfect. But to get it as right as possible, we need to
de-politicize it--and we need to give those intel operatives on the
front lines the confidence that we'll support them, not drag them into
court and ruin their lives and family's finances for doing their best
to keep us safe in the most miserable corners of the world. Nothing
revolts me more than a stay-at-home who self-righteously second-
guesses either our men and women in uniform, or the great Americans
out in the darkness of the intelligence world. It's not as neat and
clean as "24."

Comment from Ralph Peters: Allow me to thank all those who wrote in
for their concern for our country. I found the questions sincere,
intelligent and provocative in the best sense. I only regret that time
constraints prevented me from giving everyone the detailed, considered
answers each questioner deserved. My best regards--and my respect--to
all of you!

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 23, 2009, 6:40:11 AM10/23/09

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=174881

The News International Pakistan

History and present politics

Random thoughts
By A Q Khan

Most Pakistanis believed that the American elections were going to be
a panacea for all our ills, that as soon as Obama entered the White
House, things would change and the drone attacks would cease. But
facts show that our politicians misjudged the situation. There was a
drone attack in the tribal areas the very day President Obama took
oath. Since then the frequency and intensity of these attacks have
increased and their range has been extended.

In a recent speech in Ankara, President Obama categorically stated
that the US was not against Islam. In other words, though he could do
nothing against a religion or an ideology, he could still continue to
have innocent Muslim men, women and children killed in various parts
of the world. In short, only the outer colour has changed, the content
is the same.

As the United Nations was (is) not the independent body it claims to
be and always acts in accordance with the wishes of the USA, the UK
and other Western countries, a resolution was passed soon after the
UN's establishment to create the State of Israel on land owned and
inhabited by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. More than 50 years
have passed since then during which time thousand upon thousand of
Palestinians have been massacred and their land usurped. The
Americans, the British and the French never allow any resolution to be
passed against Israeli atrocities, forcible occupation of land and
forceful deportation of its people.

Recent statements by the US have revealed that expenditures on the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year will amount to $ 83
billion. Look at the economic situation of the USA and note the
bankruptcy of many American institutions. See also how many families
have been forced to live in small tents out in the open due to this
economic situation and the foreclosure of bank loans on their
property. Imagine if that amount of money had been spent on the
American poor.

As for Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other country posing a threat to
American security, one clear-cut warning from the USA that any act of
aggression would result in that country's total and immediate
annihilation would be sufficient deterrent. However, before any such
retaliatory action is undertaken, acts of aggression from the accused
should be unequivocally proven, the culprit(s) identified, the facts
laid before a neutral UN and their concurrence obtained. Mischievous
retribution based on blatant lies, as we saw in the cases of Iraq and
Afghanistan by President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their cronies,
should not be tolerated.

If the US continues to aggressively interfere in the affairs of other
countries, it will sooner or later have to bear the consequences, to
say nothing of the hatred against it that this behaviour causes. In
the same way, as a person never expects accidents or misfortune to
befall him/her, so too the Americans think that nothing can happen to
them because they are the world's only superpower. But God's hand
works in mysterious ways. How often do we not see racing-car drivers
die in car accidents and expert swimmers drown? We have recent
examples of people starving who previously had abundant food and in
whose mind the thought of starvation or begging for a bowl of rice had
never entered.

Although, like most religions, Christianity preaches love, brotherhood
and turning the other cheek, what is practiced in daily life is
something different. History has shown Christians to have often been
unbelievably cruel, repressive, racist and genocidal, perpetrating the
murders of millions of innocent people. Cases in point are the
slaughter of Red Indians and Latin Americans by colonists, Muslims in
Spain and the Philippines by the Spaniards, the Bosnians by the Serbs,
the Vietnamese and the Koreans by the Americans, the Palestinians by
the Israelis, the Africans in South Africa and the dropping of atomic
bombs on Japan. Although the Israelis are not Christians, they would
not be able to continue their aggression against the Palestinians
without the tacit agreement of other Western countries, the USA in
particular.

Islamic history also has some examples of violence, but there are many
instances of humanitarian treatment meted out to defeated non-Muslims.
For example, after their conquest the Crusaders massacred thousands of
Muslims in Al-Aqsa Mosque. Many authentic history books have mentioned
pools of blood in the mosque so deep that the hooves of the Crusaders'
horses were covered in it. No single Muslim was spared.

Contrary to this, Saladin, after retaking the mosque, freed all
elderly men and women prisoners and let them return to Europe. Young
soldiers were allowed their freedom upon payment of a ransom. Those
who could not pay for themselves were secretly paid for by Saladin
Ayubi's brother, who secured their release and facilitated their safe
return to Europe with foodstuff. Had Muslims followed Western
colonialist trends, the whole of Spain, India and the East European
countries would have become Muslim-majority countries. But Muslims
followed the edict of live and let live and, with very few exceptions,
did not forcibly convert or kill off the people they conquered.

Considering their own past history, the Christian nations have no
right to accuse Muslims in general of being terrorists. As is part of
Christian ethics, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 23, 2009, 6:42:21 AM10/23/09

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=184548

Sweet talk – sour lemons

Random thoughts
By A Q Khan

There was a lot of publicity and great expectations about President
Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. While not much was expected
in terms of public engagements, all attention was focussed on his
visit to Egypt and his address to students and faculty at the famous
Al-Azhar University in Cairo. I heard that speech live and, as was to
be expected, it was more rhetoric than substance.

We were given the good news that America planned to pull its troops
out of Iraq by 2012. (Weren't we given the impression during his
inaugural speech that the pullout would be almost immediate?) That
would indeed be surprising considering that, even after 60 years, the
US still has troops in Japan, South Korea and all over Europe.

Another "great disclosure" was that there was a need for two
independent states – Israel and Palestine. Have we also not been
hearing this for the past 40 or 50 years? Just the other day the
Israeli government announced that Mr Bush as president had secretly
given tacit approval of expanding Jewish settlements (on Palestinian
lands, of course). This makes one wonder what tacit promises President
Obama has given to the Israelis. Only the future will tell. One thing
he was very categorical about – the permanent mutual bond between the
US and Israel and the fact that the US was bound to ensure Israel's
security and existence. (Even if this means the killing of thousands
of Palestinians and the usurpation of more of their land. All this is
considered justified, even though the Palestinians had nothing to do
with the holocaust.)

Another surprising disclosure was admitting that military action was
not a solution to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is the
case, then why is America sending large numbers of additional troops
into Afghanistan and why is the US conducting drone attacks in
Pakistan in total disregard of our sovereignty? I seem to remember our
leaders saying that with the inauguration of President Obama, drone
attacks would ease off. We have all seen the results – even more
frequent drone attacks and the deaths of hundreds of innocent
civilians, men, women and children.

Of course, Iran's nuclear programme did not escape attack. Iran's
peaceful programme (regularly scrutinised by IAEA inspectors) is
considered to be a threat to world peace, to the USA and to the Middle
East. This while the 200 or so Israeli nuclear weapons are considered
"peaceful" and are not talked about at all. Have you ever heard a word
by any US president against Israel's nuclear programme, its weapons or
its not joining the NPT? Never! This despite the fact that Israel
showed its aggressive stance in its illegal, unprovoked pre-emptive
strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and on the Iraqi Osirak
nuclear reactor, which was being built, under IAEA safeguards, by the
French.

President Obama offered improved relations with the Muslim world,
which I believe to be no more than a "soother." Mark my words. Nothing
substantial will come of it. The rhetoric against Al-Qaeda and the
Taliban will continue, and so will that against Iran's and Pakistan's
nuclear programmes. We will be tied down economically to whatever
conditions the World Bank and the IMF see fit to foist on us.

Here are a few ideas on what President Obama preaches and what he
actually practices.

1. Withdrawal from Iraq put off for four years. (It is quite possible
that he won't be there for the final act and the matter lands up in
the hands of another President with his own agenda.)

2. More troops for Afghanistan, despite earlier indications to the
contrary.

3. More coercion and pressure on Iran to wind up its nuclear programme
despite Iran's agreement to IAEA inspections, but not a word about
Israel's nuclear weapons.

4. Reneging on promises to publish photos of the shameless, illegal
torture of hundreds of detainees in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison
camp, while he had previously promised on many occasions that he would
expose President Bush's inhuman torture practices. One wonders what is
wrong in accepting previous wrongdoings and ensuring that it doesn't
happen again. The American Civil Liberties Union had already made
known that these included rape, water boarding, electric shocks,
hanging upside down and damaging of genitals. If there was no
hesitation in showing (encouraging, as a matter of fact) the genocide
committed against the Jews in Nazi concentration camps, then why not
the same openness here to shake American conscience (or was that,
perhaps, the reason not to)? It is even more surprising when we
consider the brutality meted out to President Obama's forefathers and
fellow Africans who were kidnapped, killed or sold into slavery. There
was no hesitation in making those atrocities known. Painful for us is
the fact that many of those kidnapped were Muslims from Kenya,
Tanzania, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso,
Ivory Coast, Cameroon, etc. History has recorded the horrible
conditions under which these hapless people were shipped to the
Americas – chained and half of them dying on the way. How those sold
into slavery were made to work in the fields for 18 hours a day and
women were raped in order to create a never-ending workforce of
mulattos. It seems to be a case of disclosing the atrocities committed
by others, but keeping your own hidden.

5. While President Obama is an eloquent (rhetorical) orator, but that
on its own doesn't achieve anything. Hitler and Mussolini were also
good orators but their actions and deeds were horrendous. Remember
Napoleon Bonaparte's speech to his soldiers and the Muslim clerics of
Alexandria in 1798? What conciliatory terms he used, how he eulogised
Islam, Muslims, their history, their culture and their contribution to
civilisation. His purpose was purely to recruit traitors to overthrow
the Mameluke dynasty and to make Egypt a French colony. However, the
French were defeated by Muhammad Ali Pasha within two years and left
Egypt. President Obama will not be able to achieve anything because he
is tied down by the course set by his predecessors, by the strong
Jewish lobby and by the neocons. His promises of withdrawal of troops
in 2012 will be overturned by his successor. (I strongly doubt he will
be re-elected.) If he were sincere, he would set a date of 2010 or
2011. The Palestinian problem will drag on indefinitely, and more
Palestinian lands will be usurped to be included in the Zionist state,
thanks to US support and the cowardice and incompetence of the Arab
nations.

6. In 2002, 22 Arab states took the initiative to offer Israel full
normalisation of relations in return for Israeli withdrawal from
territories occupied illegally in 1967. This initiative has been put
on a backburner while the Arab countries are constantly being told "to
take meaningful steps and important actions to facilitate the US to
take some action." Meaningful and important in this case may be taken
to mean "don't talk about the return of the West Bank and the rights
of the Palestinian people."

I believe that President Obama, for all his good intentions and his
nice words will achieve no more than did the two Muslim presidents and
the two Muslim vice presidents that India had. It will be a "puppet-on-
a-string" show. As the Indian gentlemen in question could do no more
than be good propaganda material for the Indian government, so Mr
Obama will be for the US government. The well-entrenched establishment
is too strong to be overruled and it will allow Mr Obama hardly any
freedom to pursue his own policies freely. The election slogan "Change
we can believe in" will soon become a forgotten page of world history.
In this connection Aayats 51, 52 of Surah Maida perfectly describe the
present situation. There we read: "O believer! Do not make friendship
with Jews and Christians. They are friends to one another. If you make
friendship with them, you will be one of them. Indeed, Allah does not
guide the wrongdoers. Those who are hypocrites will rush to the Jews
and Christians and say they do this lest calamity befall them. It is
possible that Allah may give you victory or some commandment. They
will then repent for what they have concealed in their hearts."

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 24, 2009, 12:57:34 AM10/24/09

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten24-2009oct24,0,3009088.column

Obama's misguided Fox hunt

The White House is over the line when it tries to persuade other media
organizations to shun the news outlet.
By Tim Rutten
October 23, 2009 | 5:43 p.m.

One of the lessons most people carry away from the schoolyard is that
picking an avoidable quarrel with somebody who really likes to fight
generally is a losing proposition.

It's too bad nobody reminded the Obama administration of that before
it launched into its ill-advised campaign against Fox News. First of
all, even though the White House is right on the merits when it
describes Fox News as operating mainly as a surrogate for the
Republican Party, making an issue of that fact is a tactical mistake.

Fox News' core audience is a cadre of true believers whose regard for
their network of choice simply will be vindicated by criticism from
the administration. Glenn Beck -- less a commentator than a candidate
for a 72-hour psychiatric hold -- and Sean Hannity -- the sort of
bully you can find at the end of every Irish bar from South Boston to
Outer Richmond -- couldn't buy the kind of publicity the White House
has handed them gratis.

So what's the point? According to a variety of reports this week,
Obama's advisors are concerned by polls that show his personal
approval numbers remaining high but disenchantment with his major
policy initiatives growing. The president's aides apparently think one
way to reverse the discrepancy is to go after and marginalize
prominent critics, such as Rush Limbaugh, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and Fox News commentators. Without judging the wisdom of that
strategy, it's interesting to recall that Franklin Roosevelt managed
to get through a momentous presidency with virtually every newspaper
editorial page in the country against him, though he did persuade
Joseph P. Kennedy and Cardinal Francis Spellman to intervene with the
Vatican to silence Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic, anti-New
Deal, pro-fascist radio priest.

Essentially, Fox News is an inverted version of a conventional
American news operation: long stretches of editorial comment,
conservative and pro-Republican, interspersed with snippets of
normative reporting. Roger Ailes, the former GOP political strategist
who runs the operation for Rupert Murdoch, conceived that format as a
way of delivering 24 hours of programming on the cheap. Even
successful commentators don't cost all that much; producers and
reporters are, at least relatively, expensive. Ailes lucked into a
ratings success because Fox News was launched at about the same time
America began slipping into its most fevered ideological divisions
since the Civil War, a process Fox News has egged on.

Obama seems to think he can swim against that tide by persuading other
news organizations to shun Fox News. "It's not really news," White
House political chief David Axelrod said on ABC last Sunday.

"... And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours
ought not to treat them that way." On CNN, White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel insisted it's important "to not have the CNNs and the
others in the world basically be led in following Fox."

That's way over the line. The White House is perfectly free to refuse
to have its people go on Fox News shows, but it shouldn't tell other
news organizations that they ought not to follow up on Fox News'
reporting or that they ought to keep their journalists from appearing
on Murdoch's networks. The White House, moreover, does its case no
favors when it invites pro-Democratic commentators like MSNBC's Keith
Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to private briefings with the president,
even though their work is every bit as histrionic as Bill O'Reilly's.

One of the things lacking in the administration's anti-Fox News
campaign is a sense of proportion. Murdoch's cable news operation may
cast an outsized shadow inside the politically preoccupied Beltway,
but in the rest of the country, it's at best a wispy presence. As the
Project for Excellence in Journalism's Tom Rosenstiel pointed out this
week, the network's star attraction, O'Reilly, "has around 3.5 million
people watching each night, or about 1% of American adults. That would
get you canceled on broadcast television. The three nightly [network]
newscasts have about 20 million viewers."

A widely discussed media phenomenon in recent years has been the
success -- particularly among young viewers -- of Comedy Central's
nightly riffs on the news, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "The
Colbert Report." In large part, the explanation for their popularity
is that they forthrightly do what Fox News and, increasingly, MSNBC do
covertly, which is treat information as entertainment, and growing
numbers of Americans insist that they have a God-given right to be
entertained, even by the news.

That suggests that the White House could come to terms with Fox News
-- if it simply learned to take a joke.

A personal note: Jack Nelson, who died this week at the age of 80, was
a friend and colleague for more than 20 years. Like the late David
Halberstam, who so admired Nelson, Jack was one of those exemplary
journalists whose passion for truth and decency was forged covering
the civil rights movement. He carried the lessons of that experience
with him to Washington, where he was this paper's bureau chief from
1975 to 1995. During those two decades, the number of reporters and
editors employed in The Times Washington bureau more than doubled, and
on any given day, it was the best news organization in the capital.
For many who recall his regular appearances on radio talk shows and
PBS' "Washington Week in Review," he was the paper's public face -- an
informed voice that always expressed itself in reasoned tones. To his
colleagues, he was one of the journalists who set the standards we all
aspired to match.

timothy...@latimes.com

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 24, 2009, 1:05:45 AM10/24/09

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-ed-marijuana20-2009oct20,0,2849235.story

Prescription for pot
The easing of federal pressure on medical marijuana suppliers and
users is welcome news.
October 20, 2009

The Obama administration inched toward a more sensible policy on
marijuana Monday when Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. ordered federal
law enforcement agencies not to devote scarce resources to prosecuting
patients and suppliers acting in accordance with state laws that allow
medicinal use of the drug.

The new guidelines, outlined in a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys,
signal a 180-degree turn from the Bush administration's disdain for
the medical marijuana movement. Cannabis is legal, under controlled
conditions, in 13 states, yet federal law forbids the drug under the
questionable premise that it has no medical value whatsoever.

Unfortunately, Holder didn't go far enough. If it is imprudent for the
Justice Department to squander its limited time, personnel and money
prosecuting cancer and glaucoma patients in some states, then the
guidelines should be applicable to all 50. The administration
shouldn't pick and choose states in which to enforce federal law.

That said, the federal energy that has been spent criminalizing the
behavior of genuinely ill people who have found relief by using
marijuana has been an enormous waste. The flow of drugs between
Colombia, Mexico and the U.S. is a far more urgent concern. As Holder
acknowledged in his memo, marijuana distribution is the "single
largest source of revenue for Mexican drug cartels." Patients growing
their own plants and sharing the produce with others in medical
marijuana co-ops are hardly a national threat.

The new guidelines don't provide the comprehensive reforms necessary
to bring state and federal policies into alignment. Indeed, they may
just produce more confusion. The Justice Department emphasizes that
even people who scrupulously follow state laws still could be
prosecuted under the law (though such prosecutions are a very low
priority), and the new policy offers no protection in court. This
confusion isn't likely to end until Congress finally reconsiders
restrictive federal laws on medical marijuana.

Nor do the guidelines clarify the situation here in Los Angeles, where
Angelenos have embraced California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996
with a fervor that some law enforcement authorities believe is more
entrepreneurial than medicinal. Hundreds of storefronts now sell the
drug in Los Angeles in ways that City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and Dist.
Atty. Steve Cooley believe violate state law. Holder's guidelines
merely note that the Justice Department will continue to prosecute
those who "unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit."

Californians did not mean to legalize marijuana for recreational use
or to create a profitable new venue for drug sales; rather, they
removed an impediment for chronically ill people who say cannabis
helps them. That's still the goal, and the new federal rules will help
us get there.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 24, 2009, 1:08:25 AM10/24/09

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medical-marijuana20-2009oct20,0,7401028.story

U.S. backs off medical marijuana policy

The Obama administration tells federal authorities not to prosecute
users and suppliers following state laws, reversing Bush's position.

Graphic: New marijuana policy

By Josh Meyer
October 20, 2009

Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration on Monday told
federal authorities not to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana users
and suppliers who aren't violating local laws, paving the way for some
states to allow dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for some
maladies.

The Justice Department's guidelines ended months of uncertainty over
how far the Obama White House planned to go in reversing the Bush
administration's position, which was that federal drug laws should be
enforced even in states like California, with medical marijuana laws
on the books.

The new guidelines tell prosecutors and federal drug agents they have
more important things to do than to arrest people who are obeying
state laws that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute
patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying
with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug
traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to
mask activities that are clearly illegal," Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder
Jr. said in a statement.

Advocates say marijuana helps relieve pain and nausea and stimulates
appetite in patients suffering from cancer and some other diseases.

The guidelines clarify what some critics had said was an ambiguous
position by the Obama administration, especially in California, where
authorities raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years.
Some of those raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after,
as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them.

Holder had telegraphed the change in March.

On Monday, he said the guidelines were adopted, in part, because
federal agencies must reserve their limited resources for urgent
needs. One priority is countering the violent Mexican drug cartels,
which use vast profits from their U.S. marijuana sales to support
other criminal activities, the guidelines say.

The Justice Department will continue to prosecute people whose claims
of compliance with state and local law conceal operations that are
"inconsistent" with the terms, conditions or purposes of those laws,
according to Holder and Deputy Atty. Gen. David Ogden.

The guidelines urge authorities to pursue cases involving violence,
illegal use of firearms, selling marijuana to minors, excessive
financial gains and ties to criminal enterprises.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups welcomed the
decision as an important step toward a comprehensive national policy
on medical marijuana that will allow states to implement their laws
without fear of federal interference.

But many law enforcement advocates, some conservative groups and
members of Congress criticized it.

In all, 14 states have medical marijuana laws. But some, such as New
Mexico, Rhode Island and Michigan, have been reluctant to create
programs lest they be struck down by courts or shut down by federal
authorities, said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's California-based
Drug Law Reform Project.

Boyd said he hoped the new policy would spur local governments with
well-established medical marijuana programs to weed out fly-by-night
dispensaries that are in it for the huge potential profits.

"The big news outside of California is that this will get the states
off the dime," Boyd said.

In California, he said, it would "clarify the line between what is
legal and illegal and reduce some of the chaos that exists, and that's
a good thing."

But opponents warned of consequences.

"By directing federal law enforcement officers to ignore federal drug
laws, the administration is tacitly condoning the use of marijuana in
the U.S.," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the
House Judiciary Committee.

He said the decision undermined the administration's plan to attack
the Mexican drug cartels, which he said were growing marijuana in U.S.
national parks and fueling drug-related violence along the U.S.-Mexico
border.

Other states that allow marijuana for medical purposes are Alaska,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unusual in allowing dispensaries to sell marijuana and
advertise their services.

In Los Angeles, however, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said last week that
he would continue to prosecute dispensaries for over-the-counter
sales.

josh....@latimes.com

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 24, 2009, 1:11:51 AM10/24/09

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medical-marijuana19-2009oct19,0,5561435.story

Justice Department memo rules on medical marijuana

Prosecutors will not seek to arrest users who are in strict compliance
with state laws, officials say.

From the Associated Press
October 19, 2009

Washington - The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical
marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws,
under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors today.

Two Justice Department officials described the policy to the
Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use
of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in
strict compliance with state laws.

The policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration,
which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws
regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes:
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington.

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said in March that he wanted federal law
enforcement officials to pursue those who violated federal and state
law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into
practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent today
to federal prosecutors in the 14 states and to top officials at the
FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

The government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as
a cover for other illegal activity, the officials said.

The memo warns that some suspects may hide drug dealing or other
crimes behind a medical marijuana business. In particular, the memo
urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases that involve violence,
illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or
other crimes.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 27, 2009, 5:58:48 AM10/27/09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obama-offers-millions-for-Muslim-tech-fund/articleshow/5158238.cms

Obama offers millions for Muslim tech fund
AFP 25 October 2009, 12:50am IST

The White House on Friday highlighted a new multi-million-dollar
technology fund for Muslim nations, following a pledge made by
President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the Islamic world.

The White House said the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the fund, which will
provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars for selected
projects and funds.

The Global Technology and Innovation Fund will “catalyze and
facilitate private sector investments” throughout Asia, the Middle
East and Africa, the White House said. Eligible projects would advance
economic opportunity and create jobs in areas like technology,
education, telecoms, media, business services and clean technology,
the White House said.

OPIC said sample projects could help foster the development of new
computer technology or telecommunications businesses, or widen access
to broadband services. Proposals must be submitted by the end of
November, and managers of funds that make a final short list will make
presentations in January.

In his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo last June, Obama argued
that “education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st
century” and that under-investment was rife in many Muslim nations.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 2:27:16 AM10/30/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1

Op-Ed Columnist
The Tenacity Question
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 29, 2009

Today, President Obama will lead another meeting to debate strategy in
Afghanistan. He will presumably discuss the questions that have
divided his advisers: How many troops to commit? How to define
plausible goals? Should troops be deployed broadly or just in the
cities and towns?

For the past few days I have tried to do what journalists are supposed
to do.

I’ve called around to several of the smartest military experts I know
to get their views on these controversies. I called retired officers,
analysts who have written books about counterinsurgency warfare,
people who have spent years in Afghanistan. I tried to get them to
talk about the strategic choices facing the president. To my surprise,
I found them largely uninterested.

Most of them have no doubt that the president is conducting an
intelligent policy review. They have no doubt that he will come up
with some plausible troop level.

They are not worried about his policy choices. Their concerns are more
fundamental. They are worried about his determination.

These people, who follow the war for a living, who spend their days in
military circles both here and in Afghanistan, have no idea if
President Obama is committed to this effort. They have no idea if he
is willing to stick by his decisions, explain the war to the American
people and persevere through good times and bad.

Their first concerns are about Obama the man. They know he is
intellectually sophisticated. They know he is capable of processing
complicated arguments and weighing nuanced evidence.

But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important
than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with
it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate
on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly,
through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the
obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all
war presidents to some degree.

Their second concern is political. They do not know if President Obama
regards Afghanistan as a distraction from the matters he really cares
about: health care, energy and education. Some of them suspect that
Obama talked himself into supporting the Afghan effort so he could
sound hawkish during the campaign. They suspect he is making a show of
commitment now so he can let the matter drop at a politically
opportune moment down the road.

Finally, they do not understand the president’s fundamental read on
the situation. Most of them, like most people who have spent a lot of
time in Afghanistan, believe this war is winnable. They do not think
it will be easy or quick. But they do have a bedrock conviction that
the Taliban can be stymied and that the governments in Afghanistan and
Pakistan can be strengthened. But they do not know if Obama shares
this gut conviction or possesses any gut conviction on this subject at
all.

The experts I spoke with describe a vacuum at the heart of the war
effort — a determination vacuum. And if these experts do not know the
state of President Obama’s resolve, neither do the Afghan villagers.
They are now hedging their bets, refusing to inform on Taliban force
movements because they are aware that these Taliban fighters would be
their masters if the U.S. withdraws. Nor does President Hamid Karzai
know. He’s cutting deals with the Afghan warlords he would need if
NATO leaves his country.

Nor do the Pakistanis or the Iranians or the Russians know. They are
maintaining ties with the Taliban elements that would represent their
interests in the event of a U.S. withdrawal.

The determination vacuum affects the debate in this country, too.
Every argument about troop levels is really a proxy argument for
whether the U.S. should stay or go. The administration is so divided
because the fundamental issue of commitment has not been settled.

Some of the experts asked what I thought of Obama’s commitment level.
I had to confess I’m not sure either.

So I guess the president’s most important meeting is not the one with
the Joint Chiefs and the cabinet secretaries. It’s the one with the
mirror, in which he looks for some firm conviction about whether
Afghanistan is worthy of his full and unshakable commitment. If the
president cannot find that core conviction, we should get out now. It
would be shameful to deploy more troops only to withdraw them later.
If he does find that conviction, then he should let us know, and fill
the vacuum that is eroding the chances of success.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has said that counterinsurgency is “an
argument to win the support of the people.” But it’s not an argument
won through sophisticated analysis. It’s an argument won through the
display of raw determination.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 2:32:22 AM10/30/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?em

Op-Ed Contributor
Transcripts of Defeat

By VICTOR SEBESTYEN
Published: October 28, 2009
London

THE highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and
explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around
Kabul: “There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been
occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another,” he said.
“Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the
terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain
political control over the territory we seize.

“Our soldiers are not to blame. They’ve fought incredibly bravely in
adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has
little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just
disappear into the hills.” He went on to request extra troops and
equipment. “Without them, without a lot more men, this war will
continue for a very, very long time,” he said.

These sound as if they could be the words of Lt. Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, to President
Obama in recent days or weeks. In fact, they were spoken by Sergei
Akhromeyev, the commander of the Soviet armed forces, to the Soviet
Union’s Politburo on Nov. 13, 1986.

Soviet forces were then in the seventh year of their nine-year-long
Afghan conflict, and Marshal Akhromeyev, a hero of the Leningrad siege
in World War II, was trying to explain why a force of nearly 110,000
well-equipped soldiers from one of the world’s two superpowers was
appearing to be humiliated by bands of “terrorists,” as the Soviets
often called the mujahideen.

The minutes of Akhromeyev’s meeting with the Politburo were recently
unearthed by American and Russian scholars of the cold war — these and
other materials substantially expand our knowledge of the Soviet
Union’s disastrous campaign. As President Obama contemplates America’s
own future in Afghanistan, he would be well advised to read some of
these revealing Politburo papers; he might also pick up a few riveting
memoirs of Soviet generals who fought there. These sources show as
many similarities between the two wars as differences — and may
provide the administration with some valuable counsel.

Much of the fighting during the Soviet war in Afghanistan was in
places that have grown familiar to us now, like Kandahar and Helmand
Provinces. The Soviets’ main base of operations was Bagram, which is
now the United States Army headquarters. Over the years, the Soviets
changed their tactics frequently, but much of the time they were
trying and failing to pacify the country’s problematic south and east,
often conducting armed sweeps along the border with Pakistan, through
which many of the guerrillas moved, as the Taliban do now.

That war was characterized by disputes between soldiers and
politicians. As Russian documents show, the politicians ordered the
invasion against the advice of the armed forces. The chief of the
Soviet Defense Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, raised doubts shortly
before Soviet forces were dispatched on Christmas Day 1979. He told
Dmitri Ustinov — the long-serving defense minister who had been a
favorite of Stalin — that experience from the British and czarist
armies in the 19th century should encourage caution. Ustinov replied:
“Are the generals now making policy in the Soviet Union? Your job is
to plan specific operations and carry them out ... . Shut up and obey
orders.”

Ogarkov went further up the chain of command to the Communist Party
boss, Leonid Brezhnev. He warned that an invasion “could mire us in
unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic
East against us.” He was cut off mid-sentence: “Focus on military
matters,” Brezhnev ordered. “Leave the policymaking to us.”

The Soviet leaders realized they had blundered soon after the
invasion. Originally, the mission was simply to support the Communist
government — the result of a coup Moscow had initially tried to
prevent, and then had no choice but to back — and then get out within
a few months. But the mujahideen’s jihad against the godless
Communists had enormous popular support within the country, and from
outside. Money and sophisticated weapons poured in from America and
Saudi Arabia, through Pakistan.

The Soviets saw withdrawal as potentially fatal to their prestige in
the cold war, so they became mired deeper and deeper in their failed
occupation. For years, the Soviets heavily bombarded towns and
villages, killing thousands of civilians and making themselves even
more loathed by Afghans. Whatever tactics the Soviets adopted the
result was the same: renewed aggression from their opponents. The
mujahideen, for example, laid down thousands of anti-tank mines to
attack Russian troop convoys, much as the Taliban are now using
homemade bombs to strike at American soldiers on patrol, as well as
Afghan civilians.

“About 99 percent of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in
Afghanistan were won by our side,” Marshal Akhromeyev told his
superiors in November 1986. “The problem is that the next morning
there is the same situation as if there had been no battle. The
terrorists are again in the village where they were — or we thought
they were — destroyed a day or so before.” Listen to a coalition
spokesman now explaining the difficulties its forces are facing in
tough terrain, and it would be hard to hear a difference.

There are many in Washington now calling on President Obama to cut his
losses and find an exit strategy from Afghanistan. Even if he agreed,
it may not be an easy business. When Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet
leader in March 1985 he called Afghanistan “our bleeding wound.” He
declared that ending the war was his top priority. But he could not do
it without losing face.

The Soviet leadership fatally prevaricated. Foreign Minister Eduard
Shevardnadze wanted to pull out of Afghanistan immediately and blame
Kremlin predecessors for the unpopular war. So too did Mr. Gorbachev’s
most important adviser, the godfather of the perestroika and glasnost
reforms, Aleksandr Yakovlev.

But Mr. Gorbachev dithered, searching for something he could call
victory, or at least that other elusive prize for armies in trouble:
peace with honor. “How to get out racks one’s brains,” Mr. Gorbachev
complained in the spring of 1986, according to Politburo minutes. “We
have been fighting there for six years. If we don’t start changing our
approach we’ll be there another 20 or 30 years. We have not learned
how to wage war there.”

Mr. Gorbachev was also haunted by the image of the last Americans
leaving Saigon in panic: “We cannot leave in our underpants ... or
without any,” he told his chief foreign policy aide, Anatoly
Chernyayev, whose diaries have recently become available to scholars.
Chernyayev himself called Afghanistan “our Vietnam. But worse.”

Withdrawal was a long, drawn-out agony. By the time the last troops
left in February 1989, around 15,000 Soviet soldiers and 800,000
Afghans had died. “We must say that our people have not given their
lives in vain,” Mr. Gorbachev told the Politburo. But even his
masterful public relations skills could not mask the humiliation of
defeat. Indeed, it marked the beginning of the end for the Soviet
empire in Europe, as revolution swept through Eastern Europe in 1989,
and of the Soviet Union itself two years later.

In 1988, Robert Gates, then the deputy director of the C.I.A., made a
wager with Michael Armacost, then undersecretary of state. He bet $25
that the Soviet Army wouldn’t leave Afghanistan. The Soviets retreated
in humiliation soon after. Mr. Gates, we can assume, paid up. But is
there a gambling man out there who would lay money on the United
States Army withdrawing in similarly humbling fashion? And would the
defense secretary accept the bet?

Victor Sebestyen is the author of “Revolution 1989: The Fall of the
Soviet Empire.”

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 2:40:45 AM10/30/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102903921.html

On the war's front lines
Why Obama needs to send more troops to Afghanistan

By David Ignatius
Friday, October 30, 2009

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN

Here's what you would see if you traveled this week to Kandahar and
Helmand provinces, the two big battlegrounds of the Afghanistan war: a
conflict that is balanced tenuously between success and failure. The
United States has deployed enough troops to disrupt the Taliban
insurgency and draw increasing fire, but not enough to secure the
major population centers. That's not a viable position.

I visited four U.S. bases in the two provinces this week, traveling
with the military. I was able to hear from local commanders and talk
with a few Afghans. I'll describe what I learned, positive and
negative, so readers can weigh this evidence from the field. Then I'll
explain why my conclusion is that President Obama should add some
troops.

We began in Kandahar city, at the headquarters of what's known as
Regional Command South, which oversees the battle in the two
provinces. It's a city on the edge of the desert, surrounded by
jagged, slate-gray mountains. Just over the border to the east are the
Taliban's supply lines in Pakistan.

America's NATO allies have been running the war in Kandahar province,
but they have been badly outgunned. So several months ago, the United
States sent an Army brigade of about 4,000 troops with Stryker armored
vehicles. That disrupted the Taliban insurgents, but they have
responded with more roadside bombs along Highway 1, the main route
that connects Kandahar to Afghanistan's other major cities.

The day before we arrived, a large bomb destroyed a Stryker vehicle in
Arghandab, a Taliban stronghold northwest of Kandahar city, killing
seven U.S. soldiers. That loss of life cast a shadow over my visit,
and it highlighted the vulnerability of U.S. troops as they push
deeper into Afghanistan. More coalition soldiers unfortunately
represent more targets for the enemy.

Kandahar city remains insecure, especially at night. And 15 miles west
of the city, the line of Taliban control begins. Coalition forces
conduct punishing raids there, but there aren't enough troops to clear
and hold the area.

A U.S. success story in Kandahar province is Spin Boldak, a town on
the border with Pakistan. The Stryker brigade has launched an array of
economic development projects there. A recent poll showed residents
were worried far more about clean water than security. But the Taliban
continues to infiltrate fighters and supplies through "rat lines"
north and south of Spin Boldak, bypassing this small "ink spot" of
progress.

In Helmand province to the west, the story is much the same. We
visited Camp Leatherneck, where about 10,000 U.S. Marines are based
near the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah. The Marine surge, which
began last year, has sharply improved security in Garmsir and Nawa
districts, south of the capital.

But in the middle of Helmand lies a Taliban sanctuary called Marja. To
clear the insurgents there would require about 2,000 more Marines.
That's beyond the current U.S. troop ceiling, so Marja remains a
"cancerous sore in the middle of our lines," according to one American
officer. He explains: "We can't do Marja with what we have now."

The Marines in Helmand, like U.S. forces throughout the country, have
embraced counterinsurgency methods to befriend and protect the local
population. They carry cash to buy sodas and food in the local
markets. They work with the provincial government and tribal leaders
to provide services for the people. "I've bought more friggin'
pomegranates than you can imagine," says the Marine commander, Brig.
Gen. Larry Nicholson.

It's too early to be sure, but this people-friendly strategy seems to
have helped. The local provincial governor, Gulab Mangal, says
security is better now in some areas of Helmand than it has been in a
decade. "We need the Americans at this moment," he told me.

So what should Obama do? I think he should add enough troops to
continue the mission he endorsed in March to "reverse the Taliban's
gains" and improve security in Afghanistan's population centers. I
don't know whether the right number is the roughly 40,000 that Gen.
Stanley McChrystal has recommended, but it should be the minimum
number necessary. The additional troops will come at a steep political
price, at home and abroad.

The goal isn't to transform Afghanistan into a 21st-century showplace
but to buy enough time for the country's army and government to fight
their own battles. A year from now, that may seem like an impossible
mission, but the evidence from Kandahar and Helmand this week suggests
that it would be a mistake not to try.

davidi...@washpost.com

Comments

kylake62 wrote:
I will follow Guliano,Romal,Ron Paul,Bushs,including Jebbie
boy,Beck,Raush,Chimpy,Tax hike mike huckster,o'righty,and all the
rupuckes and I bet I would be following only the one elderly Ron Paul.
you other loosers are sickening me. I would go in before our president
and Ron Paul. Because I like them and respect them . These two are
more than mouth. Ron and our president are pretty much opposits but I
like both of these Men. you other flakes are worthless I believe.
10/30/2009 1:47:53 AM
Recommend (1)

kylake62 wrote:
No man,woman or child should be sent to any war zone be killed unless
they first ship all of congress over to lead the charge right behind
the president. I would love to see the repuckes all be sent to the
hottest,extreme war imaginable sence they love the honor so much. I
would love to see our congress all be sent to the deepest war in the
world and lead the charge. when all these great patriots lead I will
follow them into the deepest hellll of war that you can imagine.
10/30/2009 1:37:24 AM
Recommend (1)

kylake62 wrote:
you are just another writer that needs to be kiiicked lout onto the
blvd. jock Azez vulshuit. Send the creepy article writer and that with
a one way ticket.6-30 years from now we will be saying yeah we can
send just on more shipment of fresh blood to be spilled and we will
have victory and wow our honorable troops and then later we will say
we need a woman in office who will end the bullshuit.
10/30/2009 1:31:34 AM
Recommend (1)

kylake62 wrote:
just another bull shuit lame bunch of bull shuit. same o same o Get
deeper in and just get deeper in. no victory no progress just deeper
in. deeper in should be the name of the bull shuit here.
10/30/2009 1:23:00 AM
Recommend (1)

senbikram wrote:
David,

Please read "Seeds of Terror" by Gretchen Peters and "Seeds of
Terrorism"( the titles look alike,but these are different books)by
Amir Mir,in 3 volumes.

Understand the history;understand the driving factors of the so called
"war".

Dont be so glib and don't oversimplify.

10/30/2009 12:41:32 AM
Recommend (1)

rkerg wrote:
I think that, first, we should send to Afghanistan all the media types
who assisted Bush and Cheney in selling us that stupid useless debacle
Iraq.
10/30/2009 12:39:02 AM
Recommend (2)

walker1 wrote:
People need to remember who the USA's enemy is.

It was the Arab Wahhabis of Al Qaeda who attacked America on 9/11.

Al Qaeda has two strategic goals.

1)Restoration of the Caliphate.
This means Wahhabi control of Mecca and the Muslim world. They do this
with Saudi Arab funded Wahhabi Madrasahs around the world promulgating
there own blasphemous interpretation of Islam.

2)Possesion of an ARAB NUCLEAR BOMB.

Notice I say Arab Nuclear Bomb, not Muslim, Al Qaeda is run by Wahhabi
Arabs from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, they use what they consider to
be lesser muslims; the Taliban whether Pakistani or Afghan as pawns.

That is the way the oil rich Wahhabi Arabs treat all other muslims.
You have only to look at the work camps full of none Arab muslims in
the gulf.

Some Al Qaeda history:

i. Al Qaeda was the mutant offspring of Operation Cyclone, a marriage
of Reagan, Bush Snr and the Pakistan ISI born in Afghanistan and
Pakistan funded by Saudi Arabia.

The alcoholic Bin Laden was sent to Afghanistan by his family as a way
of weaning him off his addiction. He was employed as a petty
bureaucrat Finance Director of Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK); an
ineffective mujaheddin, mainly naïve Arab idealist with a controlling
core of terrorist from various Arab countries.

MAK, just 2000 foreign Jihadis contributed little to the war against
the Russians; that was won by the likes of Ahmad Shah Mas’ud (the Lion
of Afghanistan) and the quarter of a million native Afghan mujaheddin.

MAK's biggest asset was Madrasahs teaching the Wahhabi doctrine to the
refugee children of the mujaheddin who had escaped the war into
Pakistan but most importantly teaching them to obey those who ran the
Madrasahs.

After the Russians left the war with the Marxist Afghan government
continued for another 3 years and at the end of that, a civil war for
the remains blew up.

When the war with Russia finished, some of the Arabs returned home to
normal lives but the Arab terrorists had no where else to go, their
original countries certainly did not want them back, they had just
spent the last decade being taught how to run covert ops and make
bombs by western experts and the Pakistan ISI; I would not want them
in my country either. A few went off to the Chechen war others to the
Balkans. MAK split fratricidaly and out of it emerged Al Qa'ida with
the terrorists under Ayman al-Zawahiri and the money man Bin Laden and
they ended up in Sudan. That is a tail in itself. Others stayed in
Pakistan. Pretty soon they were kicked out of Sudan but in the
meantime:

ii. Afghanistan was a political vacuum ripe for the picking.
iii. Al Qa'ida had established financial control of a recruiting and
religio-political control structure the Madrasahs.
iv. Al Qaeda have established financial control of the quasi military
organisation; the Taliban
v. They had a financial support network from both the Arab and Muslim
world
vi. They have the infrastructure for a covert operations element; the
Al Qaeda Franchise

So Afghanistan was chosen as Al Qaeda's start point for several
reasons not least of which was that access to an Arab Nuclear Bomb.

Afghanistan gave four possible routes to Nuclear weapons:

a) Pakistan, the easiest: destabilise it, infiltrate its power
structures just as they have, control its education with the
Madrasahs, control its finances in key areas with Saudi money.
b) Russia and the former soviet empire: Use cash and buy them with
Saudi Oil money from the $140 a barrel oil bonanza.
c) China: Do a deal as above
d) Iran: Get America and or Israel to attack and then offer to do the
dirty as retaliation for their Muslim brothers, or better still bribe
and steal them in the confusion. With Iran's hatred of Al Qaeda this
would only work if America and Israel could be properly manipulated.
The Saudi masters of Al Qaeda do not like this but will do it if they
have to.

Thus began the darkest phase of the Al Qaeda plan.

PATRICIDE
All those Refugee Kids, the sons, of the true mujaheddin who had
beaten the Russians, well they were the students of those Madrasahs,
Taliban literally means "students" and they sent them into Afghanistan
to kill their own fathers and they did it laughing into their beards.

Now they have moved to the next phase of the plan; control of an Arab
nuclear bomb by taking over Pakistan:

vii Using their tried and tested Wahhabi Madrasahs they have begun to
take control of Pakistani youth giving them a ready made army of the
naive to manipulate and control
viii. They have established financial control over the Pakistan ISI
ix. They had infiltrated control elements of the Pakistan ISI
x. They have infiltrated covert elements within the Pakistani Police,
Political parties, Judiciary, civil service and Army.

The Pakistanis are just pawns for the Arab Wahhabis of Al Qaeda, just
like the Afghan Taliban were and the Wahhabis are laughing into the
Pakistanis beards too.

The threat to America is clear present and nuclear:

Bin Laden with a Nuke!
10/30/2009 12:11:22 AM
Recommend (1)

Intuitive1 wrote:
>The goal isn't to transform Afghanistan into a 21st-century showplace but to buy enough time for the country's army and government to fight their own battles.

David creates new goals as he goes along. This was never the goal. We
didn’t break it in Afghanistan (unlike Iraq), so we shouldn’t have to
fix it or help them fix it. As a Marine said in these discussion
boards today, “Nothing about Afghanistan is worth the life of a single
American...nothing.”

10/29/2009 10:44:47 PM
Recommend (4)

lockmallup wrote:
Huh? Why send more troops to country whose president’s brother is the
most prominent heroin dealer in the nation?

See all the new junkies slumped on the ground in Lafayette Park across
from the White House and passed out in your High School’s libraries ?

Guess where all that pure junk comes from to OD your sons and
daughters?

The Kandahar Syndicate is enabled by our troops run by Holbrooke,
Clinton, Obama, and Panetta.

Karzai is not only a gangster but is on the payroll of the CIA which
enabled Karzai to turn in an Afghan drug lord named Noorzai in 2005;
so that he course could take over Noorzai's drug business.

His syndicate is suspected of nailing a Chinook full of DEA agents and
troops this past week trying to muscle in on the operation. It may
also have been an inside job.

That's the sick thing about paid informants of the CIA – they turn and
burn Ignatz’s colleagues every day.

It’s not about the Taliban or al Qaeda, ladies and gents; it’s about
our governments enabling the drug running that’s killing your kids
here and there.

Americans who let leaders enable drug dealers that end up killing
their kids are nothing but cowards.

Get a grip, bring your sons and daughter back from hell.

Napalm-B all the poppy fields and plant okra seeds.
10/29/2009 8:24:16 PM
Recommend (1)

gary4books wrote:
What an intelligent report.
10/29/2009 8:13:21 PM

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 3:04:56 AM10/30/09

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686434305817635.html

ASIA NEWS
OCTOBER 30, 2009.Support Grows for Pursuit of Peace Deals With the
Taliban .Article
Text .By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV

KABUL -- The idea of talking to the Taliban -- a strategy advocated by
Afghan officials -- has become increasingly seductive as the Western
death toll in the conflict mounts.

Obama administration officials openly ponder an outreach to the
leadership of Islamist militants, something that has been long
advocated by European allies. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has already told
the U.S.-led forces under his command here that "reintegrating" lower-
level Taliban gunmen into Afghan society is as desirable as killing or
capturing them.

A group of Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, on Oct. 14, hand over
weapons in a government amnesty program.
.In his assessment of the Afghan war, Gen. McChrystal explained that
conflicts of this kind typically end with a reconciliation with
elements of the insurgency -- and, in Afghanistan, may involve "high-
level political settlements."

Afghan officials share this view. "Everyone has come to the conclusion
that fighting is not a solution to the Afghan problem," says Sayed
Sharif, director of the government's Commission for Peace and
Reconciliation. "More combat brings nothing but destruction. History
teaches us that the only solution is a negotiated one."

The Taliban, however, increasingly seem to believe that they can
regain power in Kabul through violence -- and may have no incentive to
make peace unless their recent gains are reversed by U.S.-led
international forces.

"If they think they're winning the war, why settle for a compromise?
Why accept half a loaf if you can have a full bakery?" says Stephen
Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a
member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. "In the absence of a
change in the security trajectory, it's hard to imagine any deal [with
the Taliban] that would be anything other than a codification of our
defeat," he says.

Seemingly routed in 2001, the Taliban now control a large part of
Afghanistan's countryside, killing at least 70 Western soldiers a
month in increasingly sophisticated attacks. At least 55 U.S. troops
were killed in October, making it the deadliest month for Americans in
Afghanistan since the war began.

Last year, Saudi King Abdullah tried to open a negotiating channel by
convening informal talks in Mecca that were attended by former Taliban
regime officials now living in Kabul and Islamic scholars indirectly
linked with the insurgency.

"Bringing peace is difficult and complicated, but not impossible,"
says one of the participants, Mullah Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, who
served as foreign minister in Afghanistan's Taliban government until
it was dislodged in 2001. But, he asserts, President Hamid Karzai's
administration and the foreign forces want "surrender, not peace and
reconciliation" with the insurgents.

The Mecca encounters led to more indirect contacts with the main
Taliban leadership, the so-called Quetta Shura, headed by Mullah Omar.

These discussions -- conducted without the involvement of the U.S. --
explored, as the first step, the possibility of the Taliban stopping
attacks on road crews and schools in exchange for a halt of house
raids and the release of Taliban commanders held by foreign forces.

"We had a road map for peace," says Arsalan Rahmani, a former deputy
minister in the Taliban government who is now a lawmaker in Kabul.

But in the spring, as President Barack Obama announced his intention
to send tens of thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, the Taliban
abandoned these tentative contacts, Mr. Rahmani and other participants
say.

The Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, says in an interview that
no one representing the "real" Taliban participated in these talks.
"We won't start any negotiations until the Americans leave our
country," he says.

While chances of a high-level political settlement are remote, Western
forces and the Afghan government are trying to woo lower-level Taliban
field commanders and fighters with offers of amnesty, cash and jobs.

According to Mr. Sharif, more than 8,000 insurgents, including 3,300
bearing arms, have taken advantage of this program.

Though these reconciliation deals are local, the cumulative effect
could potentially affect the entire campaign, says Juan Zarate, an
expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington who served until earlier this year as U.S. deputy national
security adviser for combating terrorism.

"If you do it well enough and with a big enough volume, this can
change the political situation, weakening the Taliban across the
board," he says.

But this reconciliation effort appears to have peaked before the
insurgency picked up steam in the past two years. Since then, many
more allegiances switched in the opposite direction, as tens of
thousands of fresh recruits joined the Taliban.

"Nobody among the Taliban is going to defect to our side today," says
Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution who headed the
Obama administration's Afghanistan policy review in the spring. "We
couldn't protect them until tomorrow morning."

—Anand Gopal contributed to this article.

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav...@wsj.com

3 hours ago..Robert Morris wrote:

.Negotiating from a position of weakness invariably results in
failure. As an example, the North Vietnamese would not seriously
negotiate an end to the hostilities in Viet Nam until the Nixon
Administration came close to bombing North Vietnam into oblivion. More
recently, the hostiles in Abnar province in Iraq finally agreed to
cooperate after President Bush made a massive committment of
additional troops and equipment into the region. Why should anyone
think that the situation in Afghanistan will be any different.
According to the author of this article, Obama's initial committment
of 20,000 troops shifted the Taliban from a negotiating posture to the
offensive. Pushing them back to the table will require a miltary
statement, get on with it!

2 hours ago KHAN SINGH replied:

.Reply to Robert: What you state is true. If you are weak, you will
lose what you have during the negotiation. So it will likely be here.
Memo to the United States. If the United States and the Taliban meet
now, the Talilban will eat your lunch and you will go home hungry. Too
bad.

Link Track Replies to this Comment ..

2 hours ago.Zachary Wheeler wrote:

.Uh, I am sorry but these animals don't want peace. What happend to
not negotiating with terrorists? Why are we even thinking of
negotiating with the guys who provided a haven for Al Qaeda? Maybe the
nitwits in Washington need to watch 102 Minutes that Changed America
and then tell us that we need to negotiate with these murderers and
that we need to pullout of Afghanistan.

1 hour ago.JR. wrote:

.Give me a break. The Taliban would have handed over Al Qaeda in
exchange for us not invading. It would have cost us zero dollars, and
zero lives, and we would have had our man. Instead, we invaded two
countries, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, become the
biggest terrorist recruitment tool ever, and 8 years later, we have no
weapons of mass destruction, no Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda is
stronger in Africa, Yemen, and Pakistan than they have ever been. Why
don't we just "stay the course?" It has been so fruitful, after all.

1 hour ago..Gregory Graze replied:

.Mr. Connolly, a few points of correction:

A) We asked the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden before we invaded and
they adamantly refused.

B) The vast majority of the civilians/non-combatants in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan who have been killed and injured have been
victims of terrorist actions, not the USA or its allies.

C) Your assertion that al-Qaida is stronger in Africa, etc. is highly
questionable.

Conceding defeat to the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan would
inspire more terrorism against the USA and its allies and put every
pro-Western regime in the Muslim world at risk.

1 hour ago..David Butz wrote:

.Most of the Taliban are probably men who think they are defending
their own country from a foreign invader. We come in with fabulous
weapons and huge amounts of money to bribe their rulers to bend to our
will, and a national policy which says preemptive strikes are morally
acceptable when undertaken by us but reprehensible when someone else
does it. We don't speak their language or herd goats. We speak about
casualties only in terms of our own forces, but "don't do body counts"
on our attacks on natives. Our own policies are controlled in part by
special interests whose motive for our being there is profit, both in
the production and logistic support of the weapons we expend, and in
consuming the black budget of the CIA.

Whatever conditions we leave under, there will be vast areas of
undeveloped, unpatrolled land remaining because there is no tax base
standing there to pay for policing. Undertaking these kinds of
enterprises produces fabulous profits for contractors and arms
suppliers, but weakens both Americas security and financial condition.

1 hour ago..Robert Morris replied:

.David, with all due respect, I would humbly suggest that you do some
reading about the history of Afghanistan, or better yet, read a bit
about what has occurred between Sept 11th 2001 and now. Your comments
appear to be made in a vaccum. Afghanistan has been a feudal, tribal
culture for thousands of years. In case you missed it, under the
Taliban, the soccer stadium in Kabul was used for daily public
executions for offenses as ciminal as playing western music. Honor
killings were a way of life. Granted, the place is backward and
corruption is common place. This is usually the circumstance when most
of the inhabitants are busy trying to merely survive. Our presence
there is providing a once in a lifetime chance for some degree of self-
determination. This never was the plan under the Soviets or the
Taliban. Incidentally, in this day and age, if we don't have a strong
CIA, we're gonners.

9 minutes ago..Carl Martin wrote:

. The Taliban does not want peace.Any "agreement' we reach with them
or Al-qaida will be be mocked & ignored before the the ink dries.

2 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this
comment + .Rahul Sharma wrote:

.Yes, by all means, let us make peace with the peaceful followers of
the peaceful religion. How can a prayer of 5 daily prayers, keeper of
bushy beard for Allah and his last, truest, and most peaceful prophet,
be a bad person?
Let us all make generous dollar contributions to Talibans who are
justly fighting for the highest moral principle, i.e., establishment
of Sharia in the whole wide world.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 3:13:24 AM10/30/09

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-afghanistan_30edi.State.Edition1.2f1c4c3.html

Editorial: Disarray undermines Obama in Afghanistan
06:35 PM CDT on Thursday, October 29, 2009

Opponents of a U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan no doubt will find
lots of fodder in this week's headlines. October has been the
deadliest month since 2001 for American forces. The CIA reportedly has
a top Afghan figure on its payroll, despite his suspected links to
drugs traffickers and the Taliban. And the Obama administration is
floating yet another revised revision of military plans to address the
deteriorating situation there.

Yes, the violence is getting worse, as should be expected after the
Taliban was left free to rebuild during the years U.S. forces were
bogged down in Iraq. But leaving Afghanistan or reducing the number of
troops is hardly the way to make the Taliban or al-Qaedastand down.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, is asking for 40,000 or more additional troops to reverse
the Taliban's ascendancy. Despite the prospects of even more U.S.
casualties, this newspaper supports his plan because the alternatives
would lead to far worse outcomes.

The Obama administration reportedly is considering options that would
grant McChrystal's request but focus on securing 10 population centers
around the country. If that means putting U.S. troops on the streets
of major Afghan cities, it's a nonstarter. The Taliban's strength is
in the countryside, and putting U.S. troops in towns and cities where
the Taliban has minimal presence would be an invitation for insurgents
to move in. Urban centers have high concentrations of cars, trucks and
buildings. If the experience in Iraq offered one lesson, it's that
cars, trucks and buildings are optimal hiding places for the bombs
that kill U.S. troops.

The best way to convey clarity and conviction is by sending a
consistent message to the Afghan people. Washington cannot credibly
urge them to crack down on corruption, oppose drug trafficking and
fend off the Taliban while the CIA appears to be feeding those same
beasts. This week's New York Timesreport that the CIA has on its
payroll the Afghan president's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, suggests
that the CIA is working at cross-purposes to the U.S. military and
State Department.

It should surprise no one that the CIA has a long list of nefarious
characters like Karzai in its pay. When such confidential information
is leaked to a major newspaper while top U.S. commanders comment on
the damage Karzai is doing, it's obvious that sharp disagreements are
festering between the Pentagon and CIA about Afghanistan's
deterioration.

Where all this is leading, we can't say. And that's the problem. The
Obama administration is conveying an image of disarray at a time when
it should be sending a clear message that America has a well-defined
mission, a clear plan to execute it and the unwavering conviction to
see it through.

Comments (2)

Posted by bobdadbob | 4 hours ago
Wrong again DMN, look where LBJ's resolve got us in Vietnam and where
Bush-Cheney's resolve got us in Iraq. The USSR also sent a "clear
message" with its invasion of Afghanistan, to no avail. You are right
that the solution is not clear but sending more US troop to this
primitive tribal land is not the answer.

Posted by IRNBTT | 5 hours ago
Obama is Obama's worst enemy here and nothing more. He's had more than
ample time to understand what's going on there. Obama and Biden mocked
the previous administration and their attempts to brief them on the
situation. Now, when decisiveness is called for, and what Obama
promised during his campaign, we get....nothing. Where has our leader
gone?

Sid Harth

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 11:40:04 AM10/30/09

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/10/30/stories/2009103053880900.htm

Opinion - Op-Ed

Nobel Prize redefines ‘peace’ in conflict-hit world
K.S. Dakshina Murthy

Was it given to Barack Obama as an individual or as U.S. President?
— PHOTO: AP

BARACK OBAMA and GEORGE BUSH: For those who argue that a U.S.
president who mouths peace is fit to win a Nobel, does it not follow
that another one responsible for a controversial invasion is a fit
candidate for prosecution?

According to the Douglas Harper Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001, the
word “peace” was first used in 1140 AD to mean “cessation of
hostilities”. It was spelt “pace.” In 1200 it also started to mean
peace of mind while the modern spelling was introduced around 1500.

Some days ago, “peace” finally passed into oblivion after holding
forth for around eight centuries. Until October 9, when United States
President Barack Obama was declared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,
it used to exclusively mean “absence of hostilities.” But no longer.
It can now mean a “state of war” too.

As President of the United States, Nobel Peace laureate Obama has been
unable to contain leave alone resolving the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict, his troops are still very much present in Iraq and there is
no sign that the U.S. and allied troops are in any position of control
in Afghanistan.

The much-enlightened Norwegian Nobel committee that awarded Mr. Obama
said he was chosen for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Dialogue and
negotiations are (his) preferred instruments for resolving even the
most difficult international conflicts, it said.

No doubt Mr. Obama brought in an air of sanity after his war-mongering
predecessor George W. Bush. He warmed the heart of most of the Muslim
world with a direct appeal to make a new beginning in relations with
the West. Instead of belligerent statements aimed at Iran by the Bush
administration, Mr. Obama proposed dialogue.

All the actions, interestingly, were a reversal of decisions taken by
the previous Bush administration. In other words, one U.S.
administration stoked fire all round while the next one attempts to
douse them. Where does that leave Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama as
individuals since the Nobel committee has chosen one of them?

When in office, George W. Bush was considered President first and so
is Mr. Obama now. Mr Obama may have a style of functioning different
from that of Mr. Bush, may be more endearing in his approach to
conflicts around the world but ultimately he is functioning as the
U.S. President.

In the nine months since Mr. Obama took office, it has become
increasingly clear that a change of individual at the helm does not
translate into an immediate change in fundamental U.S. foreign policy,
the rhetoric notwithstanding. The reason is obvious. Policies may be
mouthed by individuals, but it is conceptualised by an establishment
of which the President is only a part, though a significant one. If
Mr. Obama or Mr. Bush were tin pot dictators presiding over a banana
republic one could have possibly expected a complete about-turn with a
change of guard. But then, the U.S. prides itself as the world’s sole
hyper power with a reputed superstructure, an advanced economy and a
supersized military. As the world’s dominant democracy, decisions
cannot be entirely unilateral and on the whims of an individual even
if it happens to be Mr. Obama.

Take the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. When Mr. Obama was
installed President in January this year, the Gaza strip was under
siege, the Israeli government was constructing settlements in occupied
East Jerusalem and the Fatah and Hamas were engaged in an internecine
battle. Until now, nothing has changed, despite the conflict
ostensibly being on top of his agenda. In the first flush of victory,
Mr. Obama called on Israel to freeze settlements in Palestinian-
dominated East Jerusalem. But in September, the President backtracked
after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu. They
had merely discussed the modalities for a possible pause in settlement
activity, not a total freeze as the US President had demanded.

As for relations between the Hamas and Fatah, not only have they not
reconciled, they are now even more opposed to each other, thanks to
the U.S. pressure on Fatah chief and Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas to recommend putting off the discussion in the United
Nations on the Goldstone report which has indicted Israel for its
attack on Gaza last year. The Gaza strip meanwhile continues to reel
under a humanitarian crisis. Peace is a far cry in the region.

As writer and journalist Robert Fisk pithily remarked in a piece in
current.com, “For the first time in history, the Norwegian Nobel
committee awarded its peace prize to a man who has achieved nothing —
in the faint hope that he will do something good in the future. That’s
how bad things are. That’s how explosive the Middle East has become.”

In Iraq, U.S. troops have moved out of the cities, but they are very
much present on the outskirts waiting to move in if necessary. A
timetable for withdrawal exists, but that is until two years later. In
the meantime, violence continues. Bombs regularly go off killing
civilians across the country.

Afghanistan is no different. Mr. Obama has in fact accepted the
failure of U.S. attempts to weave in a viable nation free of violence.
More troops are necessary, conceded the U.S. President. The Taliban
continues to target U.S. and NATO troops besides perceived enemies,
including the Indian embassy, at will. Worse, the Taliban has spread
to Pakistan where its fighters are deeply involved in an escalating
insurgency. Violence is clearly spreading.

As for the diplomatic offensive against Iran, the Obama administration
has decided to hold fire for a while. But the underlying tensions
continue. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unequivocally
stated his country will not abandon its nuclear programme to appease
western critics.

In this context, was the Nobel Prize for Mr. Obama as an individual or
as U.S. President? Since Mr. Obama is organically linked to the
presidency the corollary is that the prize has gone both to Mr. Obama
and the U.S. presidency. In which case, yes, it was George W. Bush who
led the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but in his role as U.S. President. In
other words, one U.S. President embarks on a contentious invasion
against the country while the successor gets a peace prize even as
fighting goes on unabated there with over 100,000 civilians killed.

For those who argue that a U.S. president who mouths peace is fit to
win a Nobel, does it not follow that another one responsible for a
controversial invasion is a fit candidate for prosecution?

If logic is one casualty, another is peace itself. Unless of course,
after the latest Nobel prize, one redefines peace to mean “a continual
state of war.”

(K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Aljazeera based in Doha,
Qatar.)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 3:06:53 PM10/30/09

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/30/2114317.aspx

Highly touted, but misguided ideas about Afghanistan
Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:12 PM

ANALYSIS

By Jim Maceda, NBC News Correspondent

I’ve spent much of the past two weeks – some in New York and the rest
in Los Angeles – listening to the pundits and experts talk about the
war in Afghanistan. From the Sunday morning network round tables to
the Saturday evening interviews on National Public Radio, I’ve enjoyed
a lot of good debate, from both sides of the issue. I’ve also heard
quite a few jaw-droppers.

Here are five popular ideas on the war, the strategy, the nation and
the people of Afghanistan – which those of us who spend years
reporting from the region find a little misguided.

1) Afghanistan is like Vietnam. It will turn into a quagmire, and lead
to another ignominious defeat for the U.S.

This is a favorite argument among left-leaning pundits, but while
Afghanistan’s remoteness may smack of Vietnam, there is a big
difference: This is no war of national liberation, embraced by a whole
population.

If there’s a national "idea" sweeping Afghanistan it isn’t freedom
from Western colonialists, its freedom from 30 years of conflict.

SLIDESHOW: On the front lines in Afghanistan

Many Afghans will no doubt continue to sit on the fence until they can
see a clear victor – coalition forces or the Taliban. But the vast
majority of Afghans do not want a return to the hellish years of the
Taliban regime.

They’re willing to give coalition forces a chance if that can bring
peace to their lives, without fear of revenge attacks or recrimination
by the Taliban. That yearning for something other than the Taliban, is
one key plus for those who argue that the war is still "winnable."

2) Afghanistan is like Iraq. A strong, bold surge of U.S. forces will
lead to a "tipping point" in the war there as it did in Iraq. So we
should go in big now.

Those on the right side of the political spectrum love this argument.
Not so fast. It’s true the surge in Iraq brought breathing space,
especially to Iraqis in Baghdad (where most U.S. soldiers "surged
to"). And it sent out signals to Sunni tribesmen in Anbar province
that the Americans were serious about the fight.

But there are few, if any, positive signs that a similar surge of U.S.
forces might trigger a rising up of some local militia, a kind of
"Sons of Afghanistan," against the Taliban. In fact, U.S. commanders
go to great lengths to deny involvement in the only anti-Taliban
militia, the "Peoples Protection Force" based in Wardak province,
calling it an "entirely Afghan project" (even though the trainers are
U.S. Special Forces).

And that’s because, in a nation of warring tribes, this experimental
militia has had little success: Local Pashtuns have been unwilling to
join forces against fellow Pashtun Taliban in Wardak.

Whereas Iraq saw a Sunni uprising against al-Qaida, there’s no such
unity of purpose among Afghan tribes, some of whom attack U.S. forces
primarily because their tribal rivals have struck deals with the same
U.S. units. How do you reach a "tipping point" in a land where tribes
are still killing each other over blood feuds that can date back
centuries?

VIDEO: New evidence shows Taliban, 9/11 link

3) The Taliban is fighting a local jihad and poses no threat to the
U.S. We should focus our troops and resources on al-Qaida, which poses
a direct threat from inside Pakistan, and disregard Afghanistan.

This is probably not a good idea. First, al-Qaida and the hard core
Taliban share the same ideology: they want to impose strict Islamic
religious law or sharia law. The Taliban’s goal is to spread sharia
law regionally, while al-Qaida wants to spread it globally and kill
all infidels along the way.

It doesn’t matter if they are Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban,
foreign fighters, or former Afghan mujahedeen commanders like
Jalaluddin Haqqani (based in Pakistan’s tribal North Waziristan) or
Gulbuddin Hekmetyar (inside Afghanistan proper). They are all part of
a holy warrior network supported by al-Qaida money, camps and
expertise.

Secondly, these jihadists make no distinction between Afghanistan and
Pakistan. For them it’s a battle over the land of Pashtuns or
"Pashtunistan" – the area that straddles the boundary line drawn by
the British in 1893 between what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan –
which they have never recognized.

Al-Qaida moves foreign fighters – Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs – in and out
of this remote, amorphous land. Along the porous border with Pakistan,
I’ve heard U.S. forces pick up a stream of languages – not just Urdu
from Pakistani fighters, but Arabic and Uzbek, as well as the Dari and
Pashto of local Taliban – in intercepted radio transmissions. In fact,
Afghan officials now estimate there are at least 4,000 foreign
fighters, supported by al-Qaida, inside Afghanistan. And there are
perhaps more on the way: police recently broke up an al-Qaida ring in
Morocco that was preparing to send fighters to Afghanistan.

And in the same breath, Afghan Taliban commanders pledge allegiance to
al-Qaida’s number one, Osama bin Laden, and Taliban leader Mullah
Mohamed Omar.

In other words, the Taliban and al-Qaida are blood brothers on the
same holy battlefield. So, targeting al-Qaida in Pakistan, while
tolerating the Taliban in Afghanistan, looks like a losing strategy.
Doing so, it seems, would only create a larger safe haven for al-Qaida
and the Taliban, while destabilizing the whole region.

SLIDESHOW: Saving lives behind the front lines

4) Sending more troops for counter-insurgency and more civilian
experts for nation-building is a waste of time and resources if
there’s no national afghan leader in place.

This may seem like a solid point, but think again. In reality, there
has never been a tradition of strong central government in
Afghanistan.

When I spoke to tribal elders in Helmand province just before the Aug.
20 elections, many told me they had never even seen a politician from
Kabul before. In Afghanistan, politics are truly local. District and
provincial councilmen are the powerbrokers whose faces matter to most
Afghans, not President Hamid Karzai or his rival candidate in the run-
off elections Abdullah Abdullah.

U.S. military and aid officials certainly get that. Since 2006,
they’ve directly invested millions of dollars in discretionary funds
into local programs, like alternative farming or the opening of
schools and clinics, all on the village level, thus circumventing the
corruption-tainted government. Their logic? Seven years of failed top-
down reconstruction has turned Afghanistan into one of the donor
world’s deepest money pits.

So, while the West rightly hopes for a legitimate Afghan leader back
in Kabul, some local programs are making a difference on the ground.
It may be surprising, but progress is possible without a presidential
fiat…or even a president.

5) From Alexander the Great to Barack Obama, no foreign occupier or
invader has ever defeated the Afghans. History, in Afghanistan,
repeats itself, and the country is a living graveyard of foreign
intervention.

Well, not exactly. In fact the British Army resoundingly defeated the
Afghan tribes in the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War of 1878, only to be
withdrawn by myopic British ministers back in New Delhi and London.

But that’s not the point. History really doesn’t repeat itself. Only
the conditions for success or failure do. And it’s perhaps worth
remembering that, throughout the annals of the so-called "Great
Game" (the period in the nineteenth and early twentieth century when
the British Empire and the Russian Empire battled for control over
Central Asia) those foreign nations had only their own self-interests
at heart. The needs – or wishes – of the Afghans themselves never
mattered.

But this time the Afghan people do matter. In a counterinsurgency, as
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, would no doubt argue, it’s the Afghan people who must
rise up against the Taliban. And the only reason they would do so is
because they’ve gained something – security or a better life – which
they don’t want to lose. The challenge, of course, is convincing the
Afghans that, this time, it’s not the same old story.

Jim Maceda is an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London who
has reported from Afghanistan extensively since the U.S. invasion in
2001. He is currently on home leave in the United States.

See more of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams reporting from
Afghanistan this week.

Comments

You dont' get it. This may help you understand:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/counterinsurgency_doctrine_and.html

Jim Sauer, Plymouth MA (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1:24 PM)

Jim Maceda seems far too level headed and reasonable to be working for
NBC News. He understands that the outcome in Afghanistan is of great
importance to the radical Islamic war for world domination. He knows
that if the civilized world cuts and runs, that it would be a huge
notch on the gun barrel of Islamo-fascism. And he feels strongly that
the terrorists can and must be defeated. Jim Maceda, thank you for
setting the record straight. I only hope that President Obama reads
your article.

Douglas Miller, Detroit, MI (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1:32 PM)

You miss the point. The Taliban was never a threat to outside
countries before 9/11 and will never have the resources to be a threat
beyond their own borders. The world didn't care how hellish their
government was to its people when they were in power. Their
fundamental mistake was allowing Al-Qaida to pitch tents in their
country.

Chuck K., Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1:43 PM)

Good analysis. I just returned from Zabul Afghanistan last summer
after spending a year there working with the US Army. Solid points on
the "fence sitters" and the lack of presence in the provinces of a
national gov't. I've interviewed numerous villagers who
overwhelmingly state they'd like help from their central gov't. They
are tired of war and don't care much for the Taliban. Unless we
figure out a way to establish good local governance and security for
the people, nothing is going to change there. Maybe in addition to
training more Afghan police and soldiers, we focus on developing and
training local Afghans on good governance.

Tony O, Long Beach CA (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1:43 PM)

Afghanistan is not like Vietnam or Iraq, but that doesn't matter. All
we need to do is look at the Soviet experience in Afghanistan to know
what we are in for. After eight years of a futile war, at least the
Soviets had enough sense to leave. I doubt Americans will listen to a
word the Russians say about that conflict, but they know much better
than we do it's a wasted effort.

Steve, Westminster, CO (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1:58 PM)

This is great insight and shows that someone has taken an interest in
learning about what really matters in this country. I have a friend
who works at the MOI in Kabul, has been there for longer than he would
like to be away from his family, but he too believes it is the deeds
that we do there not the war that we fight that will put a desire to
have a better world and protect it from the Taliban. But there is much
work to do and the Americans have little commitment to long hauls.
Like everything else the politians touch if we let them make the
decisions the Afgans and Americans will lose, lesson #2 Somalia!

Skip (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 2:00 PM)

What defines a quagmire? We have been in Afghanistan almost as long
as we were in Vietnam. In spite of our 'good intentions' can the US
continue to do it essentially on our own? Can we afford it
economically and morally? Do the Afghani people not want to go back
to the "hellish Taliban regime bad enough. Do we really understand
the Afghani people? I do not believe we will ever defeat the Taliban
and the tribes on the ground, the enjoy the luxury of 'Home Field'

William Windsor, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 2:18
PM)

I am not sure your analysis gives any hope or suggests a workable
strategy one way or another. Even if we launched a massive offensive
against the Taliban in Afghanistan, wouldn't we just be driving them
into nuclear armed Pakistan? Just today Pakistan is complaining about
predator strikes there. We need to work on developing solid
partnerships before we start blowing stuff up.

Rick, St. Pete, FL (Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 2:20 PM)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 3:09:14 PM10/30/09

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/30/obama.afghanistan/

Obama, Joint Chiefs to discuss Afghanistan plans
October 30, 2009 9:32 a.m. EDT

President Obama is mulling whether to send more troops to Afghanistan
amid rising Taliban violence.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Obama to meet with national security advisers over Afghanistan

Obama weighing whether to send additional troops to war zone

Army, Marine Corps say increase will affect promised time off for
troops

Meeting comes amid rise in U.S. troop casualties, political turmoil

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will host the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at the White House on Friday as he reassesses his
administration's military strategy in Afghanistan.

The meeting will give each branch of the U.S. armed services a direct
opportunity to tell Obama the effect on the military if a large number
of additional forces are sent to Afghanistan, two military sources
told CNN's Barbara Starr.

"The president wants to get input from different services," White
House spokesman Tommy Vietor said this week. "It's a chance to consult
with uniformed military leadership as a part of his [Afghanistan-
Pakistan] review."

A proposed expansion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan comes with some
misgivings from the military chiefs. The Army and Marine Corps have
expressed concerns that it could make it tougher to give troops
promised time at home with their families between overseas tours.

The president met with his national security team on Monday to discuss
U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the White House said. The
meeting was the sixth in a series of high-level discussions being held
in part to forge a new consensus on how best to confront Taliban and
al Qaeda militants threatening the governments of Afghanistan and
Pakistan.

The strategy review is being conducted against a backdrop of rising
U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, increased Taliban violence and
political turmoil surrounding a planned November 7 Afghan presidential
election runoff.

October has already become the deadliest month for U.S. forces since
the war began in late 2001, with the death of 56 American troops.

Taliban militants have become increasingly bold. This week, they
attacked a U.N. guesthouse in central Kabul, killing five U.N. staff
members.

As the Afghan runoff election nears, U.S. military forces are trying
to help provide security for a presidential campaign, which is
becoming increasingly contentious.

Abdullah Abdullah, the main challenger to incumbent President Hamid
Karzai, said Monday that he wants the removal of the country's
election chief and 200 other staffers of the election commission to
ensure a fair runoff.

Abdullah and others have charged that massive fraud occurred in the
first round of voting on August 20. The initial results gave Karzai
the win, but a subsequent review by a U.N.-backed panel of election
monitors threw out nearly one-third of Karzai's votes because of
"clear and convincing evidence of fraud."

The result left Karzai short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a
runoff. After a flurry of meetings with U.S. and U.N. officials, the
Afghan president agreed to the runoff.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 3:11:48 PM10/30/09

http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5687.asp

Afghanistan - elections run-off
Foreign staff, candidates lie low ahead of Afghan ballot
Article published on the 2009-10-30 Latest update 2009-10-30 17:18 TU

Afghan street vendors stand in front of electoral posters in Kabul
(Photo: Reuters)

Foreign officials in Afghanistan are hunkering down in the build-up to
next week's election, after the Taliban killed five UN staff in Kabul.
The absence of President Hamid Karzai and rival Abdullah Abdullah on
the campaign trail is also fuelling fears the ballot may be shelved.

United Nations officials reviewed security measures Friday, and
charities staff were under orders to limit their movements until the
country holds its run-off presidential ballot on 7 November.

After the first round elections lost credibility amid low turnout and
charges of fraud by incumbent president Hamid Karzai, round two will
again pit Karzai against his minister Abdullah Abdullah.

Malalai Joya - an Afghan MP thrown out of the assembly two years ago
by a majority she claims represent warlords and drug-lords - says both
Karzai and Abdullah are unfit to steer the country out of crisis.

Interview: Malalai Joya, Afghan MP
30/10/2009 by Salil Sarkar

“This election under the shade of Afghan war-lordism, drug-lordism,
corruption and occupation forces has no legitimacy at all. The result
will be like the same donkey but with new saddles,” Joya said.

“The situation for women in most provinces is hell. Today rape cases,
domestic violence, kidnapping and the killing of women is increasing
rapidly. These fundamentalists during the so-called free elections
made a misogynist law against shia women in Afghanistan. This law has
even been signed by Hamid Karzai.”

Joya drew similarities between Karzai and Abdullah, arguing both are
corrupt, have betrayed women’s rights and have permitted the country
to remain a safe haven for terrorism. Both support the presence of US
troops, which Joya said was damaging to both countries.

“The US wastes taxpayers money and the blood of their soldiers by
supporting such a mafia corrupt system of Hamid Karzai,” she said.
“Eight years is long enough to learn about Karzai and Abdullah – and
about their own policy, that they chained my country to the centre of
drugs.”

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Oct 30, 2009, 5:56:39 PM10/30/09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malou-innocent/oh-brother-where-art-thou_b_340324.html

Malou InnocentForeign Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute
Posted: October 30, 2009 02:39 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts
Bloggers' Index
Oh Brother Where Art Thou?

The war in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the worse. According to
the New York Times, Ahmed Wali Karzai--brother of Afghanistan's
incumbent president, and a notorious drug baron--is also a long-time
employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

President Karzai has long been considered a U.S. puppet. And now,
evidence that his brother has been on the CIA payroll for the past
eight years (a claim conveniently disclosed ahead of the second-round
presidential election), shows why Afghanistan's "democratic
experiment" is largely a sham. But what's new? What does "justice"
really mean when someone with friends in high places can get away with
a $4 billion drug trafficking racket; while poor local farmers have
their opium crops eradicated and their drug processing facilities
destroyed?

According to New York Times reporters Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti,
and James Risen, brother Karzai helps the CIA by operating a
paramilitary group; renting out housing to U.S. forces; and acting as
a go-between for the Americans and the Taliban. This should come as no
surprise. Even though free markets, democracy, and freedom are the
principles that define the United States of America, these have not
always been the principles that guided its foreign policy. From time
to time, America's perceived national security interests have led it
to cooperate with some of the world's most repressive regimes and
unsavory political movements. U.S. policymakers often openly embrace
authoritarian allies. But such prominent alliances are all too often
coupled with America's simultaneous promotion of democracy, liberty
and human rights. These mixed messages have severely compromised
America's image and interests on more than one occasion.

Which brings us to Afghanistan. The U.S. has assisted and sponsored a
corrupt, illegitimate and slightly autocratic regime there while
purporting to advance the values of freedom and democracy. The entire
rationale for the presence of the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan
rests on democracy, stability and winning hearts and minds.

President Obama has just signed a $680 billion defense appropriations
bill with a provision giving commanders in Afghanistan the ability to
pay Taliban members to switch sides. Sponsoring assets is not
necessarily a bad thing. But the U.S. government works at cross
purposes when it attempts to install a "legitimate" centralized
government, wags a sanctimonious finger when elections are riddled
with pervasive levels of fraud and vote-fixing, and then goes behind
the backs of millions of Afghans by having a close working
relationship with the brother of the incumbent candidate.

Brother Karzai is one of the most powerful figures in the southern
province of Kandahar, the heart of Taliban country. This ongoing
relationship with the CIA is arguably critical in getting information
on the whereabouts of insurgents, which is a U.S. interest. But it
undermines America's stated policy of trying to transform what is a
deeply divided, poverty stricken, tribal based society into a self
sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democracy, which is not a
U.S. interest.

"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in
Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just
undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior
American military intelligence official in Afghanistan quoted in the
Times piece. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps' Counterinsurgency Field
Manual states that the legitimacy of the host nation's government is a
critical component of combating an insurgency. We are sending our
brave, disciplined and highly dedicated men and women in uniform to
fight the Taliban; yet, as Spencer Ackerman at the Washington
Independent noted, "CIA money funds a politically connected drug
dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the
Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?"

Certainly, America's national interests sometimes dictate cooperation
with a foreign government or movement that does not share America's
values. Some partnerships are unavoidable. Even so, Washington's goal
should be to foster only as much cooperation as is necessary to
protect and advance the vital interests of the American people. To
what end are we needlessly compromising our values in Afghanistan?
That is a question that should not be answered with more troops.

This article originally appeared as "America's Brother Karzai Problem"
on Real Clear World Friday, October 30, 2009.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:27:16 AM11/1/09

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59J59D20091031

Obama's Afghan decision not likely before November 11
Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:33pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is unlikely to make a
decision on his Afghanistan strategy and sending thousands more troops
there before he embarks on his trip to Asia on November 11, a senior
administration official said on Saturday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that while
a decision was unlikely before then, it had not been ruled out.

With violence this year reaching its worst levels in Afghanistan since
the Taliban was ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in 2001, Obama is
under pressure to spell out U.S. plans.

It is unclear if Obama would wait until he returned from his November
11 -20 trip to unveil his decision or announce it while he was
traveling in the region.

The timing of Obama's announcement would not be influenced by outside
factors, the official said, referring to the political upheaval in
Afghanistan after a disputed presidential election in August. A run-
off is scheduled for November 7.

Western diplomatic sources said President Hamid Karzai's election
rival, Abdullah Abdullah, was leaning toward pulling out of the run-
off. Abdullah will announce his decision on Sunday.

Obama has faced criticism from Republican opponents, including former
Vice President Dick Cheney, over his lengthy review of the strategy he
put in place in March. Critics say he is being over-cautious and the
delay in making an announcement on the way forward in Afghanistan is
emboldening the Taliban.

The White House says Obama will not be stampeded into making a hasty
decision. It accuses the former Bush administration of neglecting the
eight-year-old war and allowing the security situation there to
deteriorate.

Obama held talks with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the leaders of each
branch of the U.S. military, at the White House on Friday. He is
expected to hold a further meeting with his security team next week.
So far, he has held eight meetings.

The Pentagon is looking at the resources it would need to fulfill the
strategic options being considered, the administration official said.
But Obama had not asked the Joint Chiefs to come back to him with
specific troop numbers.

General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, has recommended deploying an additional 40,000 troops
next year, a figure that includes trainers to accelerate the expansion
of the Afghan army.

Another and potentially more politically palatable option under
consideration by the administration would add about 10,000 to 15,000
troops, a large portion of whom would be focused on increasing the
training of Afghan forces, a top priority for Obama's Democratic
allies in Congress.

Officials say Obama may opt for a number in between.

There are about 67,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 allied forces in
Afghanistan.

(Reporting by Ross Colvin; Editing by Peter Cooney)

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 8:01:28 AM11/1/09

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/31/the-vietnam-objective/

The Vietnam Objectiveposted at 1:52 pm on October 31, 2009 by J.E.
Dyer

In this seemingly endless period of indecision, all critiques of the
Obama administration’s emerging (or not) approach to Afghanistan
require the caveat: If this is what they decide to do.

So consider the caveat posted. In the interest of fairness, we must
also note that it took George W. Bush time to decide to adopt the
surge strategy in Iraq; although that situation is an imperfect
analogy with Obama and Afghanistan in some key ways. Unlike Obama,
Bush had not announced a new strategy in Iraq only to begin
backtracking on it when presented with the requirements for executing
it. Even more important, Bush did not at any point between 2003 and
2009 revise his objective for the campaign in Iraq. All the
deliberations in the period between the first battle of Fallujah and
implementation of the surge strategy centered on what strategy to use,
to achieve that constant objective.

Which leads me to the import of the deliberations currently underway
in the top circle of Obama’s advisors. I made the point at
Commentary’s “contentions” blog that the real debate is over our
objective in Afghanistan. If Obama sends substantially fewer
additional troops than McChrystal is asking for, he perforce chooses
against the objective of securing the Afghan countryside from
exploitation by the Taliban. That choice carries decisive
consequences: the Taliban will own the countryside, they will use it
to lay siege to the cities – through isolating them from the
agricultural heartland as much as through rocket attacks on them and
predation against the trade routes – and the Taliban will be waiting
to fall on any trained Afghan security force that tries to protect the
cities, once NATO forces leave.

The difference can’t be split on this one; it’s either the 40K troops
General McChrystal is asking for, or it’s a decision to relinquish the
Afghan countryside to the Taliban. There is no middle way.

But there’s another point we must not miss. Throwing it into relief
for us is the fact that the “Biden faction” in the Afghanistan
deliberations has expressly questioned the need for or utility of
securing the Afghan countryside. It has been my impression that,
however administration officials couch the issues for public
consumption, the key players do understand that they are not merely
discussing strategy. The outcome of this decision will be either one
objective or another.

The point we mustn’t miss is that the objective favored by the Biden
faction – protecting key cities but not trying to either hold the
countryside or defeat the Taliban – was the perennial objective in
Vietnam from 1954 to 1969. The reason we never defeated North Vietnam
was that we were never trying to.

The key to this comparison is that both of the objectives – the
Vietnam objective and the emerging Afghanistan objective of the Obama
administration – omit the element of defeating the enemy or denying
him the territory he needs as an operational base. Here, for your
perusal, is the Obama administration on the objective shaking out of
its current deliberations:

At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States
cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the
Taliban is an indigenous force — nor does it need to in order to
protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on
preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and
weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that
would eventually take over the mission.

A strategy of protecting major Afghan population centers would be
“McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country,” as one
administration official put it.

This formulation, of course, misses the point that “Biden for the
country” means no “McChrystal for the city,” since in McChrystal’s
plan, securing the countryside is essential to strengthening the
viability of civil government in the cities. But for our purposes,
the passages above are what compare so well with the following
statements of US objectives in Vietnam. First, from the Eisenhower
administration in 1954 (the following passages are quoted from a 1998
article by Stephen B. Young from Vietnam magazine, available online
here):

In a letter to South Vietnam’s new leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, dated
October 1, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower explained the
rationale for his support of South Vietnam: ‘The purpose of this offer
is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a
strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or
aggression through military means … . Such a government would, I hope,
be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so
enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be
respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to
impose a foreign ideology on your free people.’

The Kennedy administration’s policy on the Vietnam objective:

National Security Action Memorandum 52, issued on May 11, 1961, set
forth the Kennedy administration’s policy for South Vietnam,
essentially affirming the previous Eisenhower policy. It stated, ‘The
U.S. objective and concept of operations stated in the report are
approved: to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create
in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to
initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting
actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert
character designed to achieve this objective.’
Young goes on to describe how the diplomacy of Ellsworth Bunker and
the military planning of General Westmoreland were designed to comport
with the objective stated by Lyndon Johnson in his April 1965 policy
speech on Vietnam:
Our objective is the independence of South Vietnam, and its freedom
from attack. We want nothing for ourselves, only that the people of
South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will
do only what is absolutely necessary.

In recent months, attacks on South Vietnam were stepped up. Thus it
became necessary to increase our response and to make attacks by air.
This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe
that purpose requires.
We do this in order to slow down aggression.

We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South
Vietnam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years
and with so many casualties.

And we do this to convince the leaders of North Vietnam, and all who
seek to share their conquest, of a very simple fact:

We will not be defeated.
We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a
meaningless agreement.

Young outlines clearly how these ringing words were compatible with
the absence of any intention to defeat the North Vietnamese so that
they could not fight another day – and indeed, with the preparation
for withdrawal of US forces.
The emphasis in statements from the Obama administration so far has
been on precisely the elements of the Vietnam objective: protecting a
seat of government that is to be strengthened and enabled to defend
itself, but not – as Johnson might have put it – doing more than
necessary to achieve that objective. Not, in other words, defeating
the attacking enemy, or denying him territory, but only fending him
off from an area we have staked out – until we decide to leave.

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Optimistic Conservative and “contentions”.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 8:09:18 AM11/1/09

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUST114137

Japan preparing up to $5 bln in Afghan aid -paper
Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:43am EDT

TOKYO, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Japan is preparing new aid for Afghanistan
of up to $5 billion to be used to help former Taliban fighters find
jobs and build roads, a big increase from previous commitments, the
Nikkei newspaper said on Saturday.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is expected to present the details to
U.S. President Barack Obama when he visits Tokyo on Nov 12-13, the
Nikkei said, a move that could deflect attention from a row over the
reorganisation of U.S. military bases in Japan.

Japan's defence minister has said Tokyo would end a refuelling mission
in support of coalition operations in Afghanistan when its mandate
expires in January. Washington has said Japan should find other ways
to assist Afghanistan instead.

The aid package, which would be between $4 billion and $5 billion,
would be spread out over five years starting in 2010, the Nikkei said.

It would represent a hefty increase from the about $1.8 billion Japan
has spent on Afghanistan over the last eight years, the paper said.

Hatoyama's Democratic Party came to power last month promising a more
independent foreign policy from key security ally Washington.
[ID:nT250401]

But differences over military issues, especially over where to
relocate a U.S. Marine base on the southern Japanese island of
Okinawa, have strained ties between the world's two biggest economies.
[ID:nT264763]

Hatoyama said during the election campaign he wanted to move the
Futenma air base off Okinawa.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly told Tokyo this month he
wanted a 2006 pact to replace Futenma with a facility in a less
crowded part of Okinawa and shift 8,000 U.S. Marines to Guam to go
ahead as planned.

The deal was part of a broader agreement on reorganising the 47,000
U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan. (Reporting by David Dolan;
Editing by Dean Yates)

Sid Harth

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 10:46:12 AM11/1/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110100613.html

Frustrated in Iraq, U.S. troops eye Afghan action
By Mohammed Abbas
Reuters
Sunday, November 1, 2009; 7:25 AM

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Frustrated by their
decreasing military role in Iraq as they hand over to Iraqi security
forces, many U.S. soldiers are itching to join the war in
Afghanistan.

When they get there, though, some are shocked by the escalating
violence and relatively spartan conditions.

Bloodshed has fallen sharply in Iraq in the last two years, and the
U.S. military is drawing down troops and equipment ahead of a full
withdrawal by 2012. Many U.S. military resources are being shifted to
Afghanistan, where the death toll among U.S.-led NATO forces has
leaped in recent months.

With 53 killed up to October 29, last month was the deadliest for U.S.
forces in Afghanistan since the start of the war against the Taliban
and its al Qaeda allies eight years ago.

"I'm looking forward to decisively engaging the enemy and destroying
him. Right now the center of focus is in Afghanistan, that's where we
need to be," said Staff Sergeant Peter Dazo, an artillery man,
speaking at a U.S. airbase in Kuwait.

Young, keen and on-message, others waiting for a pre-dawn flight for
their first deployment to Afghanistan said they would be glad to
finally put their battle skills to use.

U.S. combat troops pulled out of urban centers in Iraq in June under a
U.S.-Iraqi security pact, which also calls for a full withdrawal by
the end of 2011. Iraqi security forces are taking the lead as U.S.
troops spend more time in bases.

"In Afghanistan I will be able to do my job. In Iraq it's not really
an infantryman's job," said Corporal Jason Fahrni.

Sectarian carnage unleashed by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has
abated, but bombings and shootings remain common -- twin suicide
bombings killed 155 people in Baghdad last week. U.S. deaths, however,
fell to record lows in recent months.

ALL YOU CAN EAT CHEESECAKE

The thrill of leaving Iraq for more action in Afghanistan quickly wore
off for one U.S. battalion after a string of deaths since they began
to arrive in Kandahar in April.

Taskforce THOR, which clears roads of bombs and other explosives, is
reeling after the loss of 11 members, and a monument to the dead has
already been erected at their newly built headquarters at Kandahar
airfield.

"It was good at first, as we were getting to do our job more. But as
the missions went on we started to lose people ... people you worked
with every day and joked around with are gone," said Sergeant Marshall
Wright.

First Lieutenant Matthew Fitzgibbon said the unit had made a far
greater impact in Afghanistan than it ever would have in Iraq, but
morale was down.

One of the battalion's platoons had recently been taken off the front
line after four members were killed by a roadside bomb, he said.

"Obviously morale is down. Anyone who isn't down about losing a
colleague needs a bit more time to look at the big picture," he said.

Facilities at Kandahar airfield -- NATO's main air transport hub in
Afghanistan and a garrison for some 20,000 troops and contractors --
pale in comparison to most large U.S. bases in Iraq, which resemble
small towns.

Dining halls at U.S. bases in Iraq are famed for their premium ice
cream and well-stocked dessert bars. There are recreation activities,
such as video game and poker tournaments, and large shopping centers.

The more limited facilities in Afghanistan are being further reduced
under a plan by U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, leader of the NATO
mission in Afghanistan, to improve logistics and reduce distractions
to troops.

Once stationed at a large base in Iraq, THOR now spends days at a time
at remote frontline outposts in Afghanistan. They built their own
headquarters in Kandahar after finding the building assigned to them
full of rotting wood and rodents.

"Iraq -- all you can eat cheesecake," said taskforce specialist
William Gatlin. "Here, not so much."

(Editing by Michael Christie)

Sid Harth

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 10:59:47 AM11/1/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110100605.html

Afghan Elections
A Complex Electorate Casts Its Ballots
Special Report Photos Voters Candidates

Afghanistan in limbo

Karzai challenger Abdullah quits upcoming Afghan election

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 1, 2009; 9:35 AM

KABUL Afghanistan, Nov. 1 -- The top challenger to Afghan President
Hamid Karzai announced Sunday that he would not take part in a runoff
election scheduled for next Saturday, further clouding the country's
uncertain political picture and likely leaving Karzai in power without
a strong mandate to rule in the middle of a war with Taliban
insurgents.

Abdullah Abdullah, speaking at a mid-morning gathering of several
thousand supporters, stopped short of calling for an electoral
boycott, but he did not make it clear what he expects his partisans to
do if the vote is held. At a news conference afterward, he repeatedly
declined to predict or suggest what should happen now, stressing that
his only decision was "not to participate" in the Nov. 7 runoff.

Officials of the national independent election comission said they
would consult with constitutional lawyers before deciding whether
plans for the poll should proceed. Some analysts questioned the wisdom
of holding an election with only one candidate, especially amid fears
that security forces will not be able to protect voters and election
workers from Taliban attacks.

Karzai's political campaign, in a statement late Sunday, said campaign
officials had hoped Abdullah would participate in the runoff to
"strengthen popular power" and constitutional rule. In light of his
withdrawal, they said they would respect "whatever decision is made"
by the election commission and other legal agencies. They refrained
from criticizing Abdullah and said they hoped to "complete the
election process with national unity."

If the election goes ahead, it would still have Abdullah's name on the
ballot, but Karzai would presumably become winner by default and take
office for another five-year term.

Analysts noted that Afghan officials took pains to avoid divisive
rhetoric in reacting to Abdullah's decision, clearly hoping to prevent
an outbreak of political violence and implying there might still be a
chance for reconciliation. By the same token, foreign diplomats and
agencies portrayed his actions in a reasonable light and avoided
suggesting whether the runoff should still be held.

The head of the U.N. mission here, Norwegian Kai Eide, said Abdullah
had acted in a "dignified and statesmanlike way" during his election
campaign, but that it was now important to "bring this electoral
process to a conclusion in a legal and timely manner."

The U.S. embassy, in a similarly worded statement, said that Abdullah
had "emphasized a committment to serving the nation," and that U.S.
officials "fully endorse his emphasis on national unity." It said the
U.S. goverment would wait for the election panel's decision and "looks
forward to working with the next Afghan administration."

Even so, Abdullah's withdrawal and Karzai's likely de facto re-
election seemed likely to create more difficulties for the Obama
administration, which has been agonizing for weeks over whether to
make a deeper committment to the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda
here. U.S. officials, who pressed Karzai to accept the runoff, had
been hoping the election would produce a reliable new political
partner and military ally in Kabul.

Abdullah said his decision to withdraw was "final," and that he had
made it this week after Karzai refused to meet several conditions to
ensure the poll would be fair. Abdullah's major request was that
Karzai remove the head of the electoral commission, Azizullah Lodin,
whom Abdullah accused of bias and of engineering election fraud in
August.

"The decision I have made was not easy. I made it not only for those
who voted for me, but for everyone in Afghanistan," Abdullah said in a
long, dramatic speech that was interrupted by supportive cheers. He
said all Afghans "have the right" to participate in free and fair
elections, but that some had been threatened with having their houses
burned down if they voted for him on Nov. 7.

At a news conference later Sunday, Abdullah described a private
meeting he had with Karzai Wednesday at the behest of U.N. officials.
He said it had offered a "critical chance" to resolve the impasse but
had failed to do so. "Unfortunately, the meeting was inconclusive, to
say the least," Abdullah added, although he did not personally
criticize the president.

He said he had not withdrawn from the race "in exchange for anything
from anybody," but also said he would "leave the door open" for future
discussions with Karzai. Some analysts said there was still a chance
the two leaders could reach a compromise before Saturday, which would
obviate the need for a runoff in dangerous circumstances.

Abdullah called his decision to quit both "tough" and "painful," but
said he hoped it would help strengthen Afghan democracy in the long
run. He said several times that he had purposely not used the word
"boycott," which would have signalled an angry rejection of the
election process. He said he planned to remain "at the service" of the
country and work for the reforms he had promised in his campaign.

But some analysts suggested that Abdullah was still angling for a
political power-sharing deal. And some of his aides couched his
decision in more muscular terms.

"We are now a force to be reckoned with," said Ahmed Wali Massood, a
close advisor to Abdullah.

"No future Afghan government can continue without taking into
consideration our huge force, our ideas, and our platform." He said
Abdullah's demands to Karzai had not been about "seeking employment"
in a future government, but about fulfilling democratic ideals and
rule of law.

For the moment, however, Abdullah's unilateral withdrawal did little
to resolve a political crisis that has been building since August,
when a first presidential poll was marred by massive fraud. The
resulting victory for Karzai was later declared invalid, and U.S. and
European officials pressed the president to accept a runoff.

Some observers said they feared Abdullah's move would spark political
violence, but he said he had called on his supporters "not to take to
the streets, not to feel aggrieved." He said he had not asked them to
refrain from voting, and that he hoped there would be a "chance for a
better process."

However, he refused to speculate or express an opinion on the various
possible options before the country and electoral officials, including
suggestions for an interim government and a new runoff in the spring.
He also refused to either endorse or reject Karzai as a future
president, saying he wished to "avoid discussing hypothetical or
different scenarios."

Numerous supporters of Abdullah, who gathered from across the country
to hear him speak in a large tent built for mass political meetings,
said they agreed with his decision to withdraw. Many said there had
been serious fraud in their districts in the Aug. 20 election, and
that the country needed a fair poll in order to install a new
government.

"The election was full of fraud and threats, and it left the people
with a lot of doubt in their hearts," said Maulvi Dar Gul, an Islamic
cleric from Paktia Province. "We need to remove that doubt, because
now everything in the country is stuck. We are brothers and we do not
want to kill each other. Whoever wins a fair election, even a
shepherd, we will accept."

Hajji Abdul Shukur, a turbaned businessman from Badghis Province in
western Afghanistan, said he and his friends had flown to Kabul for
the gathering because "the future of our country is at stake." He said
the election commission was planning to close polling stations in his
area because voters there supported Abdullah. "We need to boycott the
election and set up an interim government," he said.

Several people in the tent warned that violence could still erupt if
the election issue were not settled properly, but they also said they
disapproved of such tactics.

"It is our hope that Dr. Abdullah will become president, but we don't
want a second round because we know there will be a lot of fraud
again," said Abdul Mahmad, a tribal leader from Kunduz.

Province in the north. "If Karzai becomes president through fraud,
there will be a revolution, but we Afghans have suffered and we do not
want a revolution. We want peace and democracy and law."

abigsam wrote:
Sue122583 wrote:

"So,it looks like to me that even if Karzai gets re-elected in
Afghanistan the USA still has it's own Axis of Weasels like Barack
Hussein Obama,Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid,Steny Hoyer,Barney Frank,Chris
Dodd, Charlie Rangel,and Robert Gates plus some Liberal Democrat
Ignoramus like this crazy Jewishmother to really keep screwing things
up. Impeach,Try and Hang Obama!"

***************

No doubt you're another right wing born again idiot shooting off her
mouth about things she neither understands nor would speak the truth
if she did.

We are in agreement though on gun rights. I think every liberal should
give a right winger their guns. Lead first.
11/1/2009 10:50:52 AM
Recommend (1)

Sue122583 wrote:
So,it looks like to me that even if Karzai
gets re-elected in Afghanistan the USA still has it's own Axis of
Weasels like
Barack Hussein Obama,Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid,Steny Hoyer,Barney
Frank,Chris Dodd,
Charlie Rangel,and Robert Gates plus some
Liberal Democrat Ignoramus like this crazy
Jewishmother to really keep screwing things up. Impeach,Try and Hang
Obama!
11/1/2009 10:44:38 AM
Recommend (1)

summicron1 wrote:
so our people are over there fighting and dying for democracy?
freedom? or just fraud?

hey, sounds like a winner to me. Seriously, anyone else think we're
now completely scre^^ed?

although, there is still the "time to go home" option. I like that
option.
11/1/2009 10:36:17 AM
Recommend (1)

Marilyn80 wrote:
Oh dang it,here I was sure Jewishmother is
really Michelle Obama and someone figured out Jewishmother is really
Hillary Clinton
that pantsuit wearing Democrat do nothing
miserable excuse for a Sec of State.

However,everyone needs keep in mind,that
the Corrupt Chicago Community Organizer,
ACORN Leader Barack Hussein Obama always
favors crazy dictator like himself,so does
that mean Karzai has the inside track?
11/1/2009 10:28:27 AM
Recommend (2)

kabusn6198 wrote:
This entire mess is sounding more and more like Viet Nam. After 8-
years of struggle, the war effort is in worse shape than it was when
we began. In addition, our military leaders must work with a corrupt
Afghan government that cannot, or will not, provide security and other
vital necessities to its people.

This current election process reminds me of the reelection of
President Nguyen Van Thieu in 1971. In that election, no other South
Vietnamese political or military leader would run against Thieu
because his government was so corrupt that it would be impossible to
hold a fair and free election. He won over 90-percent of the vote in
that election which was held in spite of the fact that there was no
other choice on the ballet.

Yes, we do have another Viet Nam on our hands and we had best withdraw
our troops in a quick and orderly manner. Enough blood has been spent,
and too much money has been spent, on this nation building exercise.
11/1/2009 10:24:06 AM
Recommend (2)

ratl wrote:
Get out while you can.
11/1/2009 10:22:46 AM
Recommend (2)

fishyfu wrote:
Now, what are those anti-American traitors Cheney, Beck, Rush and the
other slime who failed to protect our great country on 9/11 and lied
us into Iraq telling us what Obama should be doing? What kind of
business ties does the Cheney Family have to this Chinese company?

The promise of a bright future at Aynak, however, cannot conceal the
troubling reality of how business is often done in Afghanistan,
according to critics of the Kabul government's decision to reject bids
from competitors in the U.S., Canada and other countries.

The bidding process unfairly favored China, they allege, and
epitomized the back-room deals and abuse of power that has turned
Afghans against their government and undercut the U.S. military effort
there.

Corruption and graft long have been ingrained in Afghanistan's public
institutions. Yet the extent of this corrosion has taken on new
significance as the White House considers expanding the U.S.
commitment to a war unsupported by a growing number of Americans.

Widespread fraud in Afghanistan's presidential election in August has
raised doubts about how quickly a stable and credible government can
be installed. A U.N.-backed commission threw out nearly one-third of
President Hamid Karzai's votes, setting the stage for a Nov. 7 runoff.

In his recent assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, the top U.S.
commander warned that unchecked corruption has led alienated Afghans
to support the Taliban-led insurgency.

Afghan officials insist the Aynak bidding was handled openly and
honestly, and will create thousands of jobs. But several U.S.
geologists and Western businessmen who watched the process closely
disagree.

James Yeager, an American geologist who advised Afghanistan's minister
of mines, says a few Afghan officials dominated a secretive selection
process that gave the winner, China Metallurgical Group Corp.,
improbably high marks over its foreign competitors.

Said Tayeb Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, said
the bidding process was above board. He said he pushed for the U.S.
bidder, Phelps Dodge, to be awarded the Aynak rights, but that China
offered to start work right away while Phelps wanted to wait until the
country was safer.

"We can't afford to give the mining rights to a company that will sit
on them for the next 10 or 15 years," Jawad said.

China Metallurgical, better known as MCC, has a poor track record with
mining projects in other countries, according to Yeager and other
critics. In neighboring Pakistan, for example, where MCC operates a
copper mine, there's been little benefit to the local economy. But
that information was ignored during the deliberations, they say.

11/1/2009 10:21:30 AM
Recommend (2)

melvin_polatnick wrote:
The new elite in Afghanistan are the 200 thousand heroin lab
technicians. They are happy to hear that Abdullah will not replace
their warlord. Most of the elite were once poor poppy farmers until
Karzai taught them how to turn a few poppies into a 3 dollar bag of
heroin. They will fight to the death to keep their benefactor in
power.
11/1/2009 10:16:51 AM
Recommend (4)

KarenKay2009 wrote:
WOW,I just realize who,this Jewishmother really is,Hillary Rodham
Clinton! It has to be Hillary Clinton since all she does is sit on her
butt and draw her salary,
just like Barack Hussein Obama!

So,when will America Hater George Soros
tell his sock puppet in the White House,
what to do about Afghanistan and Iraq, as
it is clear by now Barack Hussein Obama
only gets his orders from Soros and Nancy
Pelosi! You Bet Impeach & Hang Obama,the
Biggest Traitor Since Benedict Arnold!
11/1/2009 10:10:56 AM
Recommend (3)

jkarlinsky wrote:
No big surprise. Why the hell are we doing business with Karzai? There
must be an oil pipeline or something there that we're after. It sure
isn't the Taliban. Afghanistan was lost before we got in. You'd have
to put two million soldiers in there to have a chance. Maybe that's
what we should do. It would take care of our unemployment problem.
That's what these wars are, a big jobs program. Blow the place up,
then rebuild. Use up equipment, make more. War's good for the economy.
As long as it takes place in another country.
11/1/2009 10:10:19 AM
Recommend (4)

grantmh wrote:
SherlockHolmes wrote:
President Obama created for himself a false political condition on
which to base a military decision, and now he reaps the reward of his
flawed thinking.

Afghanistan has never been a country; it is a collection of tribes run
by warlords. The winner of a political race between two candidates,
regardless of the "fairness" of the election would not have changed
the centuries-old realty of Afghanistan.

Now by creating this false condition, Obama has complicated his
mission. Our mission there is to undermine and eliminate the Taliban
and Al-Qaeda to help stabilize the region (including Pakistan) and
prevent these terrorists from having a safe haven from which to plan
and attack at will.

This president replaced a competent general and installed another
competent general of his own choosing, and now he chooses not to
listen to him but try to appease left-wing apologists in his own
government. This kind of pseudo-thinking and dithering will lead to a
bad result for Obama and for America.
---------------

This is the mess as created by Bush; You assert our goal should be to
"undermine and eliminate the Talliban and Al-Queda to help stabilize
the region (including Pakistan) and prevent these terrorists from
having a safe haven from which to plan and attack at will" That means
establishing a solid government is not a, "false political condition",
it's a necessity (unless you want the US military to be there forever
to do what a sovereign government should do for itself).

The problem is that you cant just get rid of insurgence once and think
it's over. When you leave without some form of central government in
place, they just return to fill the vacuum. We confound the problem by
insisting that the government we want in place be a democracy. All
well and good, but democracy requires a particular mind set and desire
that doesn't exist in Afghanistan or much of the entire Middle East
for that matter. The other problem Bush created (for himself and all
his successors) in trying to rid Iraq and Afghanistan of insurgents
without having a plan for establishing a government, and insisting on
whatever does develop be democracy, is not recognizing that whatever
government is backed by the US will be seen by a large number of
people as being a puppet government run by the US, and therefore
illegitimate. That leaves the country open for support of insurgence
to grow back if chaos arises when we leave and whatever government we
backed can't handle the strain.

All this combines to form a situation in which there is almost nothing
any US president, be it Bush, Obama, (or, Hillary Clinton, or John
McCain if elections here went differently) can do to fix the situation
without committing a large number of troops to be in the country for a
very, very long time to force stability until a central government can
take hold and provide it's own security. As we all know that requires
a number of years, a number of US presidential administrations, and a
number of US lives that is not acceptable to the American people or
sustainable over US election cycles.

In short, I agree with you that hoping for a strong centralized
government is not feasible at the moment, but it's a requirement if
you want to eliminate the Talliban. There's another option though. We
make plans to leave now. The only hope for stability in that case is
not that we try to crush and eliminate the Talliban before we leave,
but that we recognize them as a legitimate political party in
Afghanistan so we can negotiate key things with them as a condition
for our leaving (which is what they want after all). One of those
things is that they stop supporting Al Queda. In return, we will
commit to offer humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan if the
Talliban allows them to return to growing other crops and stops
growing poppies. This will allow the Talliban to improve it's image
among the Afghan people (helping to procure humanitarian aid from the
US), help with our domestic drug problem, and reduce the Talliban's
military capabilities beyond Afghanistan by cutting off their main
source of funding.

As distasteful as the Talliban is to us, unless we want to be in
Afghanistan forever, we have to deal with them. The irony is that over
the long haul, bringing an outside group of trouble makers into the
"official system" can have the effect of molding what was a group of
miscreants into a civilized group. Unless you can kill them all (which
apparently we can't) shooting at them just makes them less civilized
because it tends to make them want to shoot back.
11/1/2009 9:59:05 AM
Recommend (2)

Darleen521980 wrote:
So,didn't this phony baloney Jewsishmother
creep get the memo about Messiah Obama ordering his rabid foaming at
the mouth
Obamabot Democrat Camp Followers like her,
to cool it? Yes,indeed I agree with an ever growing number of
Americans that are
calling for Barack Hussein Obama to Resign
or Be Impeached by the New Republican Congress in 2010. Obama deserves
to Hang
for his Treason and Leaving Our Own US
Troops to bleed and die for Obama's Ego
in Afghanistan and Iraq! Barck Obama The
Worst Human Being Alive and Jewishmother
the Second Worst One! Impeach Obama!
11/1/2009 9:55:43 AM
Recommend (4)

BurgundyNGold wrote:
Congratulations. Now you're guaranteed not to win.
11/1/2009 9:54:20 AM
Recommend (4)

Rubiconski wrote:
The sad few, who because of hyper-partisanship seem to crow over and
celebrate the blood-stained atrocities that the US military counts as
'victories' should be ashamed of themselves.
11/1/2009 9:50:10 AM
Recommend (2)

jewishmother wrote:
SharonKay2009 wrote: "Barack Hussein Obama... Impeach Obama & HANG
Obama For Treason!

--Let's go! Get the rope and the burning cross ready. Invite the whole
trailer park for picnic under the tree with the negroid wiggling from
it!

David Duke as MC.
11/1/2009 9:47:41 AM
Recommend (1)

SharonKay2009 wrote:
So,it seem that foaming at the mouth Obama
Jewishmother attack dog is out and trying
to bite anyone that disagrees with her secret lover Barack Hussein
Obama..So is
Jewishmother really NewYork Upchuck,or maybe Barney Frank posting in
disguise?
Or,Michelle Obama spewing her hatred of
the USA all over the intenet now then?
Impeach Obama & Hang Obama For Treason!
11/1/2009 9:41:06 AM
Recommend (5)

hoya72 wrote:
Re. "U.S. officials ... had been hoping the election would produce a
reliable new political partner and military ally in Kabul." "New"
partner? The Post is saying the U.S. was hoping Abdullah would win?
Or
is the Post slyly underlining either the idiocy or the falseness (pick
one) of the administration's reason for delaying a decision re more
troops for Afghanistan?
11/1/2009 9:36:26 AM
Recommend (6)

fenoy wrote:
Perhaps our Muslim president should resign and go to Afghanistan and
run against their Muslim president........
11/1/2009 9:34:56 AM
Recommend (6)

tropicalfolk wrote:
Karzai is corrupt and illegitimate.

Abdullah is out.

What is the U.S. supposed to do now?

Easy!! Support the only legitimate representatives of the Afghan
people: the Taliban.

11/1/2009 9:32:25 AM
Recommend (8)

ZippyinAnnapolis wrote:
We had the "Decider" and now we have the "Un-Decider".
11/1/2009 9:29:02 AM
Recommend (6)

79USMC83 wrote:
It is time to remember WHY and WHO we are fighting in Afghanistan.
RADICAL ISLAM JIHADIST from all over the world. This WAR has NO
borders. Afghanistan was and is a Land that HARBORS them just like
PAKISATAN.

Here is an option that has not been discussed. Put in a Military
Governor in Afghanistan. Pull all of our troops and any villager that
wants to temporall
y move into the cities.

Secure the cities and declare MARTIAL law. Bring in the B-52's and
heavies. Bomb the tribal regions of Pakistan into dust. Napalm EVERY
poppy field to ashes. Send out the drones and Fighters to destroy any
thing that moves.

When this is all done. Send out our troops and the villagers,with a
good supply of TEA. Rebuild the mud houses with brick. The poppy
fields with corn. The villages with trained police and with Mayors
they have elected while they were in the cities learning how to
POlice,Grow and Govern.
11/1/2009 9:24:14 AM
Recommend (7)

jewishmother wrote:
carleen09 wrote: "WOW! how wonderful if Obama was to resign and the
GOP retakes Congress!!

That would be so great! Sarah (I can see Russia from my backyard)
Palin, leader of the Republican party... sworn into office; another
round of tax cuts for the richest Americans; new collaboration with
"terrorists" to create a brand new pearl harbor to justify a couple of
more invasions; a full-blown great depression; more sexual torture,
disco rapes and sweet-cheek sodomy of innocent Muslims; more no-bid
contracts to Haliburton and Blackwater, etc...

You and your fellow conservatives would be so happy, wouldn't you?...

Weird thing is, not one dime would be spent on your trailer park,
where you and your kids are drwoning in meth.
11/1/2009 9:13:42 AM
Recommend (5)

sloucher wrote:
Wow, so many intelligent responses, especially from the right wing
nuts.
11/1/2009 8:50:55 AM
Recommend (2)

andrew23boyle wrote:
Reading these posts, we too often see people who seem to be pleased
with the Taliban's successes or who pretend that these are somehow the
victories of the downtrodden against their imperialist oppressors.
Some people, unfortunately, seem so full of hatred against their
fellow citizens of a different political bent that they seem pleased
to the Taliban resurge.

There are a lot of reason to leave Afghanistan and some good reason to
stay, but, as we discuss this, can we all at least stop pretending
that the Taliban are some sort of 'freedom fighters' or that they
represent the Afghan people? I am not sure myself as to whether we
should stay or leave Afghanistan but one thing that I am of which I am
sure is that history has never seen a movement more vile and criminal
than his than is the Taliban.

The Taliban are a bunch of reactionary, theocratic savages who deserve
no sympathy whatsoever. They are as much 'freedom fighters' as were
Hitler's Brown-Shirts. They are evil, if the word 'evil' has any
meaning at all!

Nor do the Taliban 'represent' the Afghan people. For one thing, the
Taliban's own ideology insists on the virtual enslavement of slightly
over half of Afghanistan's people, ie. the female half. Second, the
Taliban are motivated by and fight for, not Afghani nationalism, but
an internationalist religious ideology. All of this is too leave aside
their violent hatred and repression of anyone who doesn't subscribe to
their particular brand of religious fanaticism.

There are some good reason to leave Afghanistan, but not because we
are on the 'wrong' side, simply because it may counter to our own
interests to stay and we may not be able to afford to do so. One can
be against the war if one wishes, but this does not require
rationalization of the Taliban's sick beliefs or their sicker methods.

Those, and there are a sad few, who because of hyper-partisanship seem
to crow over and celebrate the blood-stained atrocities that the
Taliban counts as 'victories' should be ashamed of themselves.

Our interests and economic troubles may make it necessary to leave.
This does not however change the fact that if we must abandon the
women and children of Afghanistan to their former theocratic master,
this will be a disaster for the Afghan people and a defeat for reason
and liberty at the hands of superstition and tyranny.

11/1/2009 8:49:33 AM
Recommend (7)

hollygarfield wrote:
wayoffbaseguy wrote: 'Our invasion was unnecessary. The Taliban were
recognized for a decade as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
They eliminated over 90 percent of the opium production in their
country. They had virtually eliminated the warlord culture. They had
offered us UBL and his al Qaeda Lieutenants.'

They eliminated 90% of the opium production, but at what cost to the
people of Afghanistan. They didn't eliminate the warlord society, they
ususrped the local warlords to become the national warlords. Crime was
low in Germany under Hitler in much the same way as crime was low
under the Taliban. The Afghan people lived in fear under the Taliban.
The Taliban may have been the government of Afghanistan, but the
methods of achieving and maintaining that power are far from
legitimate.
11/1/2009 8:48:38 AM
Recommend (4)

carleen09 wrote:
WOW! So how wonderful it would be for the
USA if Loser in Chief Photo Op Obama was
to resign the Presidency now and not wait
for his own Impeachment after the 2010 Elections and the GOP retakes
Congress!!
11/1/2009 8:44:52 AM
Recommend (10)

blazerguy234 wrote:
WHY WOULD HE JUST DROP OUT? MAKES ONE WONDER IF HIS LIFE AND THAT OF
HIS FAMILY WAS THREATENED?????
THERE IS NO CURE TO WHAT AILS THAT COUNTRY. LACK OF EDUCATION, WORK
AND LIVING LIKE THEY DID 500 YEARS AGO...MAKES FOR A POISONOUS
SITUATION. WE NEED TO GET OUT....AND LEAVE IT TO THE TRIBAL
LEADERS..TALK ABOUT HEATHENS....
11/1/2009 8:44:08 AM
Recommend (9)

gvelanis wrote:
Wonderful, now we do not have to have another election. President
Obama can finally make a decision. In or out Mr. President. Regardless
of what you do, it will be controversial and you will make enemies.
Suck it up bubba, you wanted the job.
11/1/2009 8:41:31 AM
Recommend (10)

sharronkm wrote:
Okay, now I would say it is time to start figuring out a way to get
out of Dodge. Let's not go the way of Viet Nam and keep sending more
troops over there. Nine years is enough. We need to get out of this
corrupt civil war.
11/1/2009 8:16:12 AM
Recommend (12)

SherlockHolmes wrote:
President Obama created for himself a false political condition on
which to base a military decision, and now he reaps the reward of his
flawed thinking.

wayoffbaseguy wrote:
Karzai, the American puppet prevails, as we battle the Taliban, aka
the vast majority of the Afghan people.

Our invasion was unnecessary. The Taliban were recognized for a decade
as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They eliminated over 90
percent of the opium production in their country. They had virtually
eliminated the warlord culture. They had offered us UBL and his al
Qaeda Lieutenants.

It's time to end the geopolitical war gaming for the Military
Industrial Complex and multi-national oil industry.

It's time to bring the troops home and let the Afghans sort out it out
with our aid. All our bullets and missiles are doing are increasing
hostility toward us, and eight years of this war have solved nothing,
either in Afghanistan or Iraq.

If you didn't like paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, why are you
willing to see us spending $400 a gallon in a war that's going
nowhere?

America's new notion of risk-free capitalism (bailouts) and a wars now
measured in trillions of dollars is making us crumble faster than
Rome.
11/1/2009 8:14:26 AM
Recommend (12)

melvin_polatnick wrote:
The reason is clear why Abdullah stopped calling for a boycott of next
weeks election. He has been promised a share in the heroin produced by
thousands of labs in Afghanistan. The bribe can be worth over 50
billion dollars. Not a small sum for a horse riding tribal leader. It
is rumored that he will spend the rest of his life in Switzerland
returning only to check that he is not being robbed of his fair share
of heroin production.

11/1/2009 8:06:29 AM
Recommend (8)

dickiesnhogheaven wrote:
It does not matter who wins this stupid election,You make me beleive
what is fare in war,When one side murders any one they want,You can
not be plastic & say dont hurt anyone,You people dont give a damn
about our heros,It's all about showing your face on tv,OB only cares
about his brothers the mulsum's,He & the other clown joe,Are cowards
or they are not smart enough to know,To do what HIS GENRAL tells him
what to do,While he is more worried about giveing candy on hollween,HE
IS MURDERING THE AMERICAN HERO'S THAT IS OVER THERE NOW!!!,They talk
about all the resorces we have but don't use them!,ALL-I SAY ALL they
got to do is,Keep our troops still for 3 nights,Fly several drongs
over the hills over there, For 3 or 4 nights,Detect where these
cowards are comming out of the mountians holes,Like snakes,Get the
location down,Then send the block buster bombs in drop them at all the
locations,At one min entervals,Three bombs in the same spot,For three
days stright,Case close, Or be the cowards they are & dishoner America
& bring them home!The election is only a cover for not knowing what to
do,This man does NOT CARE OR KNOW ABOUT AMERICAN PRIDE,Al he want to
do is force the American people to have Him as king,He is really NO
BETTER than the other HUSSIEN,While he is more interested in being on
his own news media,He is leading us down a never makeing it back
river.Why ? can't people see. Why? He & the DEMON'S are the piped
piper of the twenty first century.
11/1/2009 8:01:06 AM
Recommend (6)

jhough1 wrote:
The Taliban is based in the Pashtuni areas. Abdullah is a hated Farshi
(Iranian). If the US is smart, it will denounce Abdullah as a Farshi
who is trying to re-establish the Farshi minority dictatorial rule of
pre-1979, no doubt with the help of the Iranian mullahs. Of course,
since the Afghan population in the US is composed of Farshi refugees
from the 1979 revolution, it cannot do this in English, but one
certainly hopes that our DOD and CIA propaganda is doing it in
Pashtuni broadcasts. The so-called fraud really was "counting"
Pashtuni votes who were afraid to go to the polls because of the
threat of violence.

The US will never learn. The Vietnam war was one of the Vietnamese
against the Chinese in Saigon. We supported the Chinese without ever
realizing what we are doing. We, of course, cannot discuss this
because our so-called Vietnamese population is mainly Chinese
Vietnamese, beginning with the boat people.

Then, of course, Bush had no idea of the emotions in Iraq and the self-
interest of those seeking oil property in mobilizing them. We were
even for privitization of oil that would intensify the struggle.

And, of course, we are for strong central governments when such a
government was the antithesis of the US government and the 2nd
amendment decentralization of military power to the states was the
essence of the Constitution.

We pay dearly for the lack of a colonial office that can accumulate
knowledge. Maybe we can create create a nation-building agency except
it would have to be for democracy. We are as ideological as the Soviet
Union or modern Iran.
11/1/2009 7:59:51 AM
Recommend (3)

veritas7 wrote:
OK - Now that Obama knows who the President will remain to be, he can
get off his duff and make a decision before more American soldiers are
killed because he disdains the phrase "Surge". What a loser - No more
excuses please!! The troops are waiting you dolt.
11/1/2009 7:52:58 AM
Recommend (11)

laboo wrote:
Fabulous! Another victory for nation-building!

Also see: NY moderate Republican drops out of race.

We better bring our troops home pronto. One of our own provinces may
have more need of them.
11/1/2009 7:46:15 AM
Recommend (11)

blasmaic wrote:
Violence is the answer.
11/1/2009 7:37:50 AM
Recommend (10)

Sid Harth

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 11:25:28 AM11/1/09

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9BMQKHG0

Top Republican pushes for decision on war strategy
By LARA JAKES (AP) – 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The top House Republican on Sunday pressed President
Barack Obama for a decision on whether to send more troops to war in
Afghanistan, saying the muddled runoff election there should not
further delay a strategy review that already has dragged out for
months.

A top White House adviser insisted that former Afghan Foreign Minister
Abdullah Abdullah's withdrawal from next weekend's election won't
complicate Obama's evolving war plan.

House GOP leader John Boehner said he always expected Afghan President
Hamid Karzai would win the Nov. 7 runoff that was scheduled in the
wake of widespread claims of fraud during the initial vote in August.
Boehner said Abdullah's withdrawal, announced Sunday in Kabul, "really
says more about the fact that he knew he wasn't going to win."

"But that should not hamper our decision with regard to Afghanistan,"
said Boehner, R-Ohio. "The longer this decision hangs, the more
jeopardy and the more danger our troops on the ground there are in the
middle of. ... I would hope the president would make a decision and
make it soon."

Obama and his top national security advisers are reviewing the U.S.
role in the 8-year war in Afghanistan, where 68,000 American troops
will be fighting by the end of the year. The war has turned
increasingly bloody over the last several months, and the president is
considering a strategy shift to focus more on eliminating al-Qaida and
terrorist allies in Pakistan with unmanned spy planes instead of
sending many more troops to Afghanistan to target the Taliban.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, has asked for up to 80,000 additional troops to fight the
Taliban and says he needs at least 40,000. The White House has
signaled it likely will send over more forces, but likely far fewer
than that.

It's not clear whether the Afghan runoff will be held without
Abdullah.

Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett said Sunday that the muddled
election would not complicate the White House strategy decision.

"We're going to work with the leader of the Afghan government, and
hopefully that's going to create the state of conditions for the
people of Afghanistan, and also help us as we try to bring this war to
a close," Jarrett said.

She did not object to suggestions that the electoral confusion would
delay Obama's decision, saying that the president is "going though a
very vigorous process."

"Before he puts our men and women in harm's way, he wants to make
absolutely sure he has a strategy," Jarrett said. "He's looking for a
strategy that leads to keeping our nation safe. He'll make the
decision when he's confident that he has all the facts that he needs."

Jarrett appeared on ABC's "This Week" and Boehner was on CNN's "State
of the Union."

Afghanistan's presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah announces his
decision not to participate in Afghanistan's run-off election at a
gathering in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009. Abdullah said
he made his decision after Karzai turned down his demands for changes
in the Independent Election Commission and other measures that he said
would prevent massive fraud, which marred the first round balloting
Aug. 20. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 2:28:16 PM11/1/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/us/02iht-letter.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Letter From Washington
Obama's Careful Consideration on Afghanistan Is Warranted

By ALBERT R. HUNT
Published: November 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — For former Vice President Dick Cheney, who wants to go
all out for victory, or for Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from
Wisconsin who wants to get out as soon as possible, the right decision
in Afghanistan is easy.

President Barack Obama, and even some Republicans, wish it were that
simple. The problem is many of the contentions and conclusions, on all
sides, are oversimplified, even dubious.

This starts with Mr. Cheney’s charge that the president is
“dithering.” How Mr. Obama responds to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s
recommendation to send at least 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan will
shape his presidency and U.S. foreign policy for years to come. What
participants describe as an intense and rigorous consideration of
options isn’t dithering.

Also dubious is the contention of the White House chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, that any decision is predicated on a do-over of Afghanistan’s
August presidential election. This is a nation with no history of
elections or democratic institutions, and in the end, Hamid Karzai
will still be president and little will have changed.

Then there’s the contention that the Taliban aren’t the enemy; it was
Al Qaeda that attacked the United States on Sept. 11. True.

Yet a McChrystal skeptic like Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of
Massachusetts, a central player in the deliberations, suggests it
isn’t easy to decouple these elements. For Al Qaeda, he notes, “it’s
an awful lot harder to plan attacks when they are boxed in, harassed
and living in fear.” Moreover, anyone who read the riveting series by
the New York Times reporter David Rohde on his seven months in Taliban
captivity would conclude these Islamic terrorists have a more advanced
infrastructure than is commonly supposed and share many of Al Qaeda’s
objectives.

On the other side, Mr. Cheney’s argument that Mr. Obama has already
decided Afghanistan is a war of necessity and thus should give the
generals whatever they want raises disturbing questions. Mr. Cheney,
who seven years ago forecast that the Iraq war would be short and
simple and declared that “the Taliban regime is out of business,
permanently,” has a checkered track record.

Decision-making suffers when every action is predicated on the
automatic assumption that the previous decision was correct. Four
decades ago, a State Department East Asia expert, James C. Thomson
Jr., devastatingly detailed how that syndrome was at the heart of
failed Vietnam policies.

“The president decides, and the counselors, including the military,
advise,” says Gordon Goldstein, author of a highly acclaimed biography
of McGeorge Bundy, an architect of the Vietnam War who came to believe
that the escalation by President Lyndon B. Johnson was mindless and
relied too much on poor advice from military commanders. Today,
Americans celebrate generals like General McChrystal, the top U.S.
commander in Afghanistan, and David H. Petraeus, who commands U.S.
forces in the Middle East and Central Asia. These are intellectually
gifted patriots. They’ve also never been elected to anything and
sometimes reflect a narrow prism.

General McChrystal’s 66-page memorandum, first reported in The
Washington Post, reads like a classic manifesto for counterinsurgency
and advocates a tactic to defend the Afghans from “all” threats.
Sending 40,000 more troops is one middle-course proposal and the one
receiving the most attention.

Yet, given the size, population and complexity of Afghanistan, experts
say any classic counterinsurgency strategy there could require as many
as 250,000 to 300,000 American combat troops, maybe more, with
significant casualties for years. That’s impossible without the
sustained support of the U.S. public, which few believe would exist.

Hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, point to the
2007 Iraqi surge as a model. But the Anwar uprising was fueled by the
Iraqis’ resentment of foreign terrorists, while the dreadful Taliban
are native Afghans and Pakistanis. And the claims of success in Iraq
may be premature, as the recent terrorist carnage in Baghdad
demonstrated.

The White House insists domestic U.S. political considerations aren’t
a factor in the discussions. How can they not be? Former Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with Fortune magazine, warned
that any pullback would result in another Sept. 11. “If you want
another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan,” she said.

Even the biggest skeptics in the administration, in particular Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr., don’t want to cut and run. Graham
Allison, a former Defense Department official who teaches at Harvard
University, says there is a strong consensus among terrorism experts
that Al Qaeda is planning another attack.

“In the first year of both the past two presidents, Al Qaeda has
attacked on American soil,” he says, noting the Sept. 11, 2001, attack
and the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. “We should
anticipate they will try to make their mark again soon.”

Ironically, Mr. Allison says the threat from Al Qaeda may be
heightened by the success of an Obama policy that has killed many
leaders of the terrorist group in Pakistan with missile strikes by
drones. “The noose is tightening, and they may want to do something
dramatic before departing,” he says.

None of this makes Mr. Obama’s decision any easier. In talking to
policy makers, the probability is he will settle on an increase of
fewer than 40,000 U.S. troops and adopt a scaled-back version of
General McChrystal’s anti-insurgency plan. The pivotal figure inside
the administration is Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

All the oft-cited analogies — Iraq, the Russians in Afghanistan, even
Vietnam — are imperfect. One example Mr. Obama may want to think
about: that of a U.S. president who reversed his harder-line campaign
posture and settled for a compromise course that was attacked by
conservative Republicans as “appeasement.” That was Dwight D.
Eisenhower and Korea in 1953. The United States still has 28,500
troops on the Peninsula more than a half-century later, and it’s
worked out fairly well.

Albert R. Hunt is a columnist for Bloomberg News.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 2:40:36 PM11/1/09

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/magazine/01Obama-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all

The Obamas’ Marriage
Damon Winter/The New York Times

President Obama and the first lady at the Congressional Black Caucus
dinner in September. More Photos >

Published: October 26, 2009

Another Washington dusk, another motorcade, another intimate evening
played out in public view. On Oct. 3, just a day after their failed
Olympics bid in Copenhagen, Barack and Michelle Obama slipped into a
Georgetown restaurant for one of their now-familiar date nights: this
time, to toast their 17th wedding anniversary. As with their previous
outings, even the dark photographs taken by passers-by and posted on
the Web looked glamorous: the president tieless, in a suit; the first
lady in a backless sheath.

The Obama date-night tradition stretches back to the days when the
president spent half his time in Springfield, Ill., reuniting at
week’s close with his wife, who kept a regular Friday manicure and
hair appointment for the occasion. But five days before he ventured
out for his anniversary dinner, the president lamented what has
happened to his nights out with his wife.

“I would say the one time during our stay here in the White House so
far that has. . . .” He paused so long in choosing his words that
Michelle Obama, sitting alongside him, prompted him. “Has what?”

“Annoyed me,” the president answered.

“Don’t say it!” the first lady mock-warned. “Uh-oh.”

“Was when I took Michelle to New York and people made it into a
political issue,” he continued, recalling the evening last spring when
they flew to New York for dinner and a show, eliciting Republican
gibes for spending federal money on their own entertainment.

We were in the Oval Office, nearly 40 minutes into a conversation
about the subject of their marriage. Watched over by three aides and
Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of George Washington, the two sat a few feet
apart in matching striped chairs that made them look more like a pair
of heads of state than husband and wife. The Obamas were talking about
the impact of the presidency on their relationship, and doing so in
that setting — we were in the room that epitomizes official power,
discussing the highly unofficial matter of dates — began to seem like
a metaphor for the topic itself.

“If I weren’t president, I would be happy to catch the shuttle with my
wife to take her to a Broadway show, as I had promised her during the
campaign, and there would be no fuss and no muss and no
photographers,” the president said. “That would please me greatly.” He
went on to say: “The notion that I just couldn’t take my wife out on a
date without it being a political issue was not something I was happy
with.”

Everything becomes political here, I offered, gesturing around the
room.

“Everything becomes political,” he repeated very slowly. Then he said:
“What I value most about my marriage is that it is separate and apart
from a lot of the silliness of Washington, and Michelle is not part of
that silliness.”

Perhaps she is not. But the Obamas mix politics and romance in a way
that no first couple quite have before. Almost 10 months ago, they
swept into Washington with inauguration festivities that struck
distinctly wedding-like notes: he strode down an aisle and took a vow,
she wore a long white dress, the youthful-looking couple swayed to a
love song in a ceremonial first dance and then settled into a new
house. Since then, photograph after official White House photograph
has shown the Obamas gazing into each other’s eyes while performing
one or another official function. Here is a shot of the Obamas
entering a Cinco de Mayo reception, his arm draped protectively around
her back. Next, a photo of the president placing a kiss on his wife’s
cheek after his address on health care to Congress. Poster-size
versions of these and other photographs are displayed in rotation
along the White House corridors. It’s hard to think of another
workplace decorated with such looming evidence of affection between
the principal players.

The centrality of the Obama marriage to the president’s political
brand opens a new chapter in the debate that has run through, even
helped define, their union. Since he first began running for office in
1995, Barack and Michelle Obama have never really stopped struggling
over how to combine politics and marriage: how to navigate the long
absences, lack of privacy, ossified gender roles and generally
stultifying rules that result when public opinion comes to bear on
private relationships.

Along the way, they revised some of the standards for how a politician
and spouse are supposed to behave. They have spoken more frankly about
marriage than most intact couples, especially those running for
office, usually do. (“The bumps happen to everybody all the time, and
they are continuous,” the first lady told me in a let’s-get-real
voice, discussing the lowest point in her marriage.) Candidates’ wives
are supposed to sit cheerfully through their husbands’ appearances.
But after helping run her husband’s first State Senate campaign in
1996, Michelle Obama largely withdrew from politics for years, fully
re-engaging only for the presidential campaign. As a result, she has
probably logged fewer total sitting-through-my-husband’s-speech hours
than most of her recent predecessors. Even the go-for-broke quality of
the president’s rise can be read, in some small part, as an attempt to
vault over the forces that fray political marriages. People who face
too many demands — two careers, two children — often scale back
somehow. The Obamas scaled up.

“This is the first time in a long time in our marriage that we’ve
lived seven days a week in the same household with the same schedule,
with the same set of rituals,” Michelle Obama pointed out. (Until last
November they had not shared a full-time roof since 1996, two years
before Malia was born.) “That’s been more of a relief for me than I
would have ever imagined.”

The couple now spend more time together than at nearly any other point
since their early years together. On many days, they see Malia and
Sasha off to school, exercise together and do not begin their public
schedules until 9 or even 10 o’clock. They recently finished
redecorating the White House residence, the first lady requesting an
outdoor rocking chair for her husband to read in, the president
scrutinizing colors and patterns, said Desirée Rogers, the White House
social secretary. The pair recently began playing tennis. (He wins,
she admitted; for now, he added.) This summer, the first lady
surprised her husband for his birthday by gathering his old basketball
buddies for a weekend at Camp David.

Barack and Michelle Obama are also a more fully fused political team
than ever before, with no other jobs to distract them, no doubts about
the worthiness of the pursuit dogging them. Theirs is by no means a co-
presidency; aides say the first lady has little engagement with
banking reform, nuclear disarmament or most of the other issues that
dominate her husband’s days. But their goals are increasingly
intertwined, with Michelle Obama speaking out on health care reform,
privately mulling over Supreme Court nominees with the president and
serving as his consultant on personnel and public opinion. When they
lounge on the Truman Balcony or sit inside at their round dining
table, she describes how she believes his initiatives are perceived
outside Washington; later, say advisers, the president quotes the
first lady in Oval Office meetings.

If winning the White House represents a resolution of the Obamas’
struggles, it also means a new, higher-stakes confrontation with some
of the vexing issues that fed those tensions. Their marriage is more
vulnerable than ever to the corrosions of politics: partisan attacks,
disappointments of failed initiatives, a temptation to market what was
once wholly private. Some of the methods the Obamas devised for
keeping their relationship strong — speaking frankly in public,
maintaining separate careers, even date nights — are no longer as
easily available to them. Like every other modern presidential couple,
the Obamas have watched their world contract to one building and a
narrow zone beyond, and yet their partnership expand to encompass a
staff and two wings of the White House. And while the presidency tends
to bring couples closer, historians say, it also tends to thrust them
back to more traditionbound behavior.

For all of their ease in public, the Obamas do not seem entirely
comfortable with the bargain. As they talked about their marriage,
they seemed both game and cautious, the president more introspective
about their relationship, the first lady often playing the big sister
dispensing advice to younger couples.

Then I asked how any couple can have a truly equal partnership when
one member is president.

Michelle Obama gave what sounded like a small, sharp “mmphf” of
recognition, and the fluid teamwork of their answers momentarily came
to a halt. “Well, first of all. . . .” the president started. His wife
peered at him, looking curious as to how he might answer the question.
“She’s got. . . .” he began, but then stopped again.

“Well, let me be careful about this,” he said, pausing once more.

“My staff worries a lot more about what the first lady thinks than
they worry about what I think,” he finally said, to laughter around
the room.

The question still unanswered, his wife stepped back in: “Clearly
Barack’s career decisions are leading us. They’re not mine; that’s
obvious. I’m married to the president of the United States. I don’t
have another job, and it would be problematic in this role. So that —
you can’t even measure that.” She did add that they are more equal in
their private lives — how they run their household, how they raise
their children, the overall choices they make.

Interpreting anyone’s marriage — a neighbor’s, let alone the
president’s — is extremely difficult. And yet examining the first
couple’s relationship — their negotiations of public and private life,
of conflicts and compromises — offers hints about Barack Obama the
president, not just Barack Obama the husband. Long before many
Americans, Michelle Obama was seduced by his mind, his charm, his
promise of social transformation; long before he held national office,
she questioned whether he really could deliver on all his earnest
pledges. For nearly two decades, Michelle Obama has lived with the
president of the United States. Now the rest of us do, too.

II.

JUST BEFORE THE Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama
and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he
held their wedding rings — signifying their new, enduring bonds —
before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was
traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia,
where he had lived as a boy.

Neither needed a reminder of just how fragile family — the black
family, marriage, life itself — could be. Barack Obama Sr.’s
relationships, not just with his wives but also with his children,
were fleeting; in 1982, he died at the age of 46. Michelle’s parents
had a long, stable marriage, but her maternal grandparents split
without ever formally divorcing, and her paternal grandparents
separated for 11 years.

Before Michelle, Barack had brought only one woman to Hawaii to meet
his family, according to his younger half-sister, Maya Soetoro. He in
turn was Michelle’s first serious boyfriend, according to Craig
Robinson, Michelle’s brother: none of the others had met her
standards.

During their three-year courtship, the couple shared thrilling
moments, like when Barack became the first black president of the
Harvard Law Review. But there were crushing ones too. In early 1991,
Fraser Robinson, Michelle’s father, came down with what seemed to be
the flu. Just a few days later, he was brain-dead, and his family had
to decide whether to end life support, according to Francesca Gray,
his sister. Barack was in the middle of classes, with no money to
speak of, but he flew to Chicago anyway. At the wedding the following
year, Craig Robinson took his father’s place in walking Michelle down
the aisle.

The Obamas were married just a month before the presidential election,
a time of mounting excitement for Democrats in their neighborhood of
Hyde Park and beyond. Bill Clinton looked as if he might take the
White House back from Republicans. Barack was helping by running a
voter-registration drive so successful that he won notice in Chicago
newspapers and political circles. (Clinton ended up carrying Illinois,
then a tossup state.) Obama’s efforts also helped make Carol Moseley
Braun, a fellow Hyde Park resident, the first African-American woman
in the U.S. Senate. Suddenly politics seemed full of new
possibilities. Barack had talked to Michelle about running for office;
she had misgivings but thought the day was not imminent.

For the moment, he was enmeshed in writing his memoir, “Dreams From My
Father.” He had retreated to Bali for several weeks to work on the
manuscript and was still preoccupied with it after his return. “Barack
was just really involved in the book. [Michelle] and I would do lots
of shopping and movies,” Yvonne Davila, still a close friend,
remembered.

“Barack doesn’t belong to you,” she told me she warned Michelle.

III.

IN THE ANNALS of presidential coupledom, the Obamas more than slightly
resemble the Clintons: a pair of Ivy League-trained lawyers, the self-
made son of an absent father and a wife who sometimes put her
husband’s ambitions ahead of her own. But unlike Bill Clinton, who
turned his wife into an unlikely Arkansan, Obama planted himself on
his wife’s turf. And while the Clinton marriage seems forged in shared
beliefs about the promise of politics, the Obama union has been a
decades-long debate about whether politics could be an effective
avenue for social change. Even as a community organizer, Barack aimed
to prod elected officials into action. His wife, who was more
skeptical of politicians, tried to bypass them: when she took a job
promoting community-organizing techniques, she focused on what
neighborhoods could accomplish without their help.

In 1995, a State Senate seat was opening up, and Barack, then 34,
announced his candidacy. “It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics
and test out whether I could get something done,” he told The Times
two years ago. Because he wasn’t from Chicago, had degrees from two
elite schools and a background that others found odd, a friend said,
he felt he had to begin by running for a relatively modest office.

As the Obamas sat with friends around their dining room table, eating
Michelle’s chili and planning the run, she was plainly hesitant. “She
was very open about not wanting to be in politics,” Davila said.
Michelle had always wanted to be a mother, three years had passed
since their wedding and now her husband — with his all-consuming
memoir just finished — would be gone several days a week. Michelle
“just wasn’t ready to share,” Carol Anne Harwell, who became the
campaign manager, recalls. Besides, he was the former president of the
Harvard Law Review, a writer and a teacher at a premier law school,
the University of Chicago. Springfield was home to financial scandal
so pervasive it was barely considered scandalous. “I married you
because you’re cute and you’re smart,” Michelle later said she told
her husband, “but this is the dumbest thing you could have ever asked
me to do.”

She became his most energetic volunteer anyway. “She did everything,”
Craig Robinson says. Every Saturday morning, she and Davila knocked on
doors for petition signatures that would put Barack on the ballot.

As a first-time candidate, Barack could be stiff; friends remember him
talking to voters with his arms folded, looking defensive. Michelle
warmed everyone up, including her husband. “She is really Bill, and he
is really Hillary,” one friend recently put it. But like Hillary
Clinton — and countless other political wives — Michelle sometimes
took on the role of enforcer. If a volunteer promised to gather 300
petition signatures, “299 did not work because 300 was the goal,”
Harwell says. “You met the wrath of Michelle.”

Harwell also noticed that the candidate’s wife was constantly trying
to upgrade the campaign, eliminating anything that seemed tacky or
otherwise redolent of the less-than-exalted standards of Illinois
state politics. Instead of a beers-in-a-bar fund-raiser, Michelle
arranged a party at the DuSable Museum of African American History
with a band and a crowd of young professionals. When Harwell found an
inexpensive office space with dingy walls, Michelle vetoed it. “She
was like, ‘Oh, no, no, no,’ ” Harwell says. “ ‘Why would we reduce
ourselves to this?’ ”

IV.

ONE DAY LAST SPRING, I walked into the Hyde Park apartment the Obamas
bought when they married, hoping to find clues to their old lives.

Their unit, part of a complex of redbrick houses turned condominiums,
had a few appealing touches — a green-tiled fireplace, a dining room
with elaborate woodwork and a small porch in the back (where Michelle
let her husband smoke, a friend said). But the apartment was narrow
and worn, with fixtures that must have been aging even several years
ago.

The Hole — as Michelle called her husband’s tiny, dark office — lived
up to its name. The cramped master bedroom had a closet barely big
enough for one wardrobe. Where did Michelle keep her clothes? The
apartment was neat, friends said, but bursting with children’s gear
and toys. The dining table tilted so much that food sometimes skidded
south, eliciting an embarrassed look from Barack.

He would eventually learn to make his way in the State Senate, but his
initial reports home were dismayed: Republicans held control,
legislation he drafted was not even heard and even some Democrats
teased him about his name. “He would call me and say: ‘This person is
an idiot. They get an F,’ ” Harwell says.

“He went to Springfield without fully appreciating all of the
consequences,” said Judson Miner, Barack’s boss at the civil rights
law firm where he’d been working for several years. Shortly after
arriving, Barack called Miner to tell him that he was scaling back his
legal work: he could not stay on top of it from downstate. Barack took
on a heavier teaching load to compensate for the lost income.
Michelle, who had given up corporate law, now earned less than $50,000
a year at her nonprofit job training young leaders, a former colleague
estimates.

For Barack’s swearings-in, Michelle would travel to Springfield.
Harwell remembers Barack calling up with a report from downstate: “
‘Michelle just couldn’t believe it, she had to come down to see this
mess for herself.’ ”

As she heard Barack’s tales from Springfield, Michelle learned “how
good legislation vanished overnight for political reasons,” Valerie
Jarrett, one of the Obamas’ closest friends, told me recently in her
White House office, where she is senior adviser to the president.
This, Jarrett said, left Michelle even more frustrated than her
husband. “He’s more of a pragmatist,” Jarrett says. Michelle “takes a
very principled position, and she thinks everyone should do the right
thing.”

If Barack’s career was not going quite as he had hoped, Michelle did
not seem settled on what she wanted to do professionally. She had
taken a new position organizing student volunteers at the University
of Chicago. After she became a mother in 1998, she was tempted to stay
home, but like many political spouses, she felt financial pressure to
work.

“Michelle would say, ‘Well, you’re gone all the time and we’re broke?’
” the president recalled when I spoke to the two of them. “ ‘How is
that a good deal?’ ”

“You do the math,” Michelle told her friend Sandra Matthews, one day
as the two sat on a playground bench. “The time is coming pretty soon
when I’m going to have to decide. I’m torn.”

When she interviewed for a job at the University of Chicago Medical
Center, her baby sitter canceled at the last moment, and so Michelle
strapped a newborn Sasha into a stroller, and the two rolled off
together to meet the hospital president. “She was in a lot of ways a
single mom, and that was not her plan,” recalls Susan Sher, who became
her boss at the hospital and is now her chief of staff.

In addition to serving in Springfield and teaching law, Barack Obama
was making his first bid for national office, challenging Bobby Rush,
a popular South Side congressman. The race placed further strains on
the Obamas. Unlike the wife who smiles tightly and insists everything
is fine, Michelle sent a clear series of distress signals not only to
her husband but to everyone around her. “Barack and I, we’re doing a
lot of talking,” she would say when asked how she was holding up,
according to the Rev. Alison Boden, a former colleague at the
University of Chicago.

Barack initially seems to have seen his absences as a manageable
issue, something to be endured, just as he had as a child when living
apart from his mother. Entering politics would be hard on a family, he
knew, but he didn’t quite understand until he lived it, Jarrett told
me. Sher remembers Michelle “talking to him, after the kids were born,
about the importance of sheer physical presence, which wasn’t
something he was really used to. She talked about how important it
was for them to at least talk every day.”

Barack helped as much as possible: on top of juggling jobs, he paid
the household bills and did the grocery shopping, often wandering
supermarket aisles late at night. When business in Springfield was
done for the week, he always drove home that same night, sometimes
arriving past midnight. “As far as I was concerned, she had nothing to
complain about,” he wrote in his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

One afternoon in July, sitting in Jarrett’s airy West Wing office, I
asked her how the young politician responded to his wife’s assertions
that he was leaving her to raise their children alone. Jarrett, whose
own marriage ended in part because of career-related conflict, not
only recalled Barack’s replies but she also started reciting them. “
‘I’ll make it work,’ ” said Jarrett, speaking in his voice. “ ‘We can
make it work. I’ll do more.’ ” It sounded as if she could have been
describing the Barack Obama of today, certain of his ability to juggle
an intimidating number of priorities.

Two months later in the Oval Office, I asked the Obamas just how
severe their strains had been. “This was sort of the eye-opener to me,
that marriage is hard,” the first lady said with a little laugh. “But
going into it, no one ever tells you that. They just tell you, ‘Do you
love him?’ ‘What’s the dress look like?’ ”

I asked more directly about whether their union almost came to an
end.

“That’s overreading it,” the president said. “But I wouldn’t gloss
over the fact that that was a tough time for us.”

Did you ever seek counseling? I asked.

The first lady looked solemnly at the president. He said: “You know, I
mean, I think that it was important for us to work this through. . . .
There was no point where I was fearful for our marriage. There were
points in time where I was fearful that Michelle just really didn’t —
that she would be unhappy.”

Several years later, he devoted several pages of “The Audacity of
Hope” to the conflict. (Judging from interviews, more than a few
Chicagoans knew that Michelle once openly resented what her husband’s
political career had cost her, so he may have been wise to raise the
issue before anyone else.) In the end, what seems more unusual than
the Obamas’ who-does-what battles — most working parents have one
version or another — is the way they turned them into a teachable
moment, converting lived experience into both a political message and
what sounds like the opposite of standard political shtick.

“If my ups and downs, our ups and downs in our marriage can help young
couples sort of realize that good marriages take work. . . .” Michelle
Obama said a few minutes later in the interview. The image of a
flawless relationship is “the last thing that we want to project,” she
said. “It’s unfair to the institution of marriage, and it’s unfair for
young people who are trying to build something, to project this
perfection that doesn’t exist.”

IN THE HISTORY of Barack Obama, his landslide loss against Rush is now
regarded as a constructive political failure, the point at which he
shed some early dreaminess and hubris and became a cannier competitor.
For the Obamas, this period was also one of constructive personal
failure, forcing them to reckon with their longstanding differences.

Michelle Obama accepted that she was not going to have a conventional
marriage, that her husband would be away much of the time. “That was
me, wanting a certain type of model, and our lives didn’t fit that
model,” she told me in an Iowa lunchroom in the summer of 2007. “I
just needed the support. It didn’t have to be Barack.” Craig Robinson
later told me that he and his sister, Michelle, had another
realization: if their father, a city water worker, had the kinds of
opportunities their generation did, he probably would not have been
home for dinner every night, either.

Michelle’s mother, Marian Robinson, offered crucial help, often
picking up Malia and Sasha after school. The Obamas’ closest friends —
doctors, lawyers, M.B.A. types — also faced the strains of two-full-
time-careers-plus-kids marriage. Now they banded into a kind of
intergenerational urban kibbutz, a collective that shared meals and
carpools and weekend activities.

Unlike many political wives, Michelle was almost never alone. And she
mostly skipped public events. When Barack spoke at the 2002 rally
protesting the impending invasion of Iraq, now considered a pivotal
moment of his career, his wife was not present. “I’ve had to come to
the point of figuring out how to carve out what kind of life I want
for myself beyond who Barack is and what he wants,” she told The
Chicago Tribune during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

During that race, Michelle was still a somewhat reluctant partner: at
the outset, they made a deal that if he lost, he would get out
entirely. “It was a compromise,” Marty Nesbitt, one of the president’s
closest friends, told me. “O.K. One. More. Try,” he explained, banging
out each word on a side table.

When her husband was far outspent by a local millionaire in the
primary, Michelle “was almost like the mama cub coming to protect her
young,” says Kevin Thompson, a friend and former aide. By the time it
became clear that Barack might be the third African-American senator
since Reconstruction, she was headlining a few campaign events
herself. “It really clicked with her that this may be the destiny
everyone was always talking about,” Thompson said.

Michelle, who was often wary of her husband’s ambitions, may have also
pushed him ahead with her high expectations of what he could achieve.
“Forward propulsion” is the quality Maya Soetoro says her sister-in-
law brought to Barack’s career.

Two years after the Senate race, despite lingering reservations, she
helped her husband define his reasons for running for president. On an
autumn day in 2006, the Obamas sat in the Chicago office of the
consultant David Axelrod, surrounded by advisers, weighing whether
Barack should move forward.

“What do you think you could accomplish that other candidates
couldn’t?” Michelle asked, according to Axelrod. The question hung in
the air. Clearly, an Obama agenda would not look very different from
that of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

“When I take that oath of office, there will be kids all over this
country who don’t really think that all paths are open to them, who
will believe they can be anything they want to be,” Barack replied.
“And I think the world will look at America a little differently.”

VI.

A FEW DAYS before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Anita
Dunn, a political consultant who joined the Obama campaign, was
reading the newspaper when a voter’s quote, expressing surprise that
Barack Obama was a good family man, leapt out at her.

Ever since Obama made his debut on the national stage, he’d been a
solo act, telling the story of his singular, even lonely-sounding
journey. In Pennsylvania, where Obama lost, “the visuals of so many of
our rallies was him alone,” Dunn told me, which did nothing to allay
voters’ concerns that the candidate was too distant — too foreign,
professorial or precocious. Now Michelle and sometimes the girls were
appearing more frequently onstage with Barack. Dunn shared the quote
about Barack being a good family man with advisers, reinforcing their
growing view that he was a more appealing candidate when surrounded by
his family. The candidate beat expectations in both Indiana and North
Carolina, all but locking up the nomination.

The Obamas began the presidential campaign, it seems, still thinking
of politics as Barack’s pursuit, not Michelle’s. She would need to
participate heavily only at the beginning and end, and not much in the
middle, Michelle told Sher. Despite her outward confidence, there were
clues she was not entirely comfortable in her new role: staff members
recall that of the 26 primary debates, forums in which he struggled,
she attended only two or three. At the first, in Orangeburg, S.C., she
sat frozen in the audience, so anxious she was unable to speak. “It
was like sitting next to a pillar of salt,” says Melissa Winter, now
her deputy chief of staff. She refused to even watch the remaining
debates, avoiding television screens lest she catch a clip.

She also struggled to figure out where she fit in her husband’s
organization. Political operatives have a habitual disdain toward
candidates’ spouses, one adviser told me, which Michelle, who had
trouble obtaining even routine information like talking points,
initially could not overcome. She had only two staff members and no
speechwriter, and when she raised issues like the need to reach out
more to women voters, she wasn’t sure she had any influence on her
husband’s advisers.

Because the couple rarely campaigned together, interactions between
them swelled with intermediaries. Winter would get a nightly phone
call from Barack, then pad down a hotel hallway and tap on her boss’s
door. For Michelle’s 44th birthday, Barack deputized Winter to prepare
his gift, a silver pendant necklace. “He wanted to be sure I had it
wrapped appropriately, that it had a ribbon on it,” she told me.
“There was a lot of back and forth.”

When Jarrett officially joined the campaign at the behest of both
Obamas, in addition to a long list of duties, she served as Michelle’s
representative, as well as a kind of marital guardian and glue.
Michelle took her concerns about Barack — for instance, her worry that
his schedule allowed him no time to think — to Jarrett, who passed
them on to aides. Barack worried, Jarrett said, that his wife had
taken on too much. “Was that O.K. with her?” Jarrett says he wanted to
know.

From the beginning, Michelle turned Barack’s courtship all those
summers ago into a parable of political conversion, casting herself as
a stand-in for the skeptical voter. When she first heard of him, his
name and background seemed weird, she told voters who probably felt
the same way. The first time Barack asked her out, she refused. He was
a newcomer, her mentee, so it would be strange for him to become her
boyfriend (or the president). But slowly he worked on her. One day she
heard him give a speech and found herself captivated by the
possibilities of what might be.

“When you listen to her tell that story,” Robert Gibbs, the campaign
spokesman and now the White House press secretary, told me, voters
thought, “It’s O.K., yeah, this could work.”

She also played a vital role in heading off the most promising female
candidate in United States history. It was essential for the Obama
campaign to present some sort of accomplished female counterweight to
Hillary Clinton, to convince Democratic women that they could vote for
Barack Obama and a powerful female figure besides. Consciously or not,
Michelle made herself into an appealing contrast to the front-runner.
She was candid; Hillary was often guarded. Michelle represented the
idea that a little black girl from the South Side of Chicago could
grow up to be first lady of the United States; Hillary stood for the
hold of the already-powerful on the political system. And Michelle
seemed to have the kind of marriage many people might aspire to;
Hillary did not.

As the campaign accelerated after the first voting contests, Michelle
Obama went from headlining intimate campaign events to enormous ones.
Television cameras appeared, and some of her more forceful comments
were endlessly replayed. When cable shows, bloggers and opponents
fixated on her — on her supposed lack of patriotism, her supposedly
angry streak — Barack was irate. As unflattering reports played on
television, he would tell aides stories about her parents, about her
as a mother, according to Gibbs, as if defending his wife in private
could somehow help. Barack even met with the Fox executives Rupert
Murdoch and Roger Ailes in part to insist that they treat her more
respectfully.

Michelle was annoyed that advisers — who had noticed for months that
she could grow a bit too vehement in speeches — had never informed her
of the developing problems, according to aides. Fearful of hurting her
husband’s chances, she even raised the prospect of ceasing to
campaign, said one adviser who requested anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the matter. Jarrett recalls that “she felt she had not
gotten support.” According to Sher, “She was hurt at the idea that it
was possible she wouldn’t be an asset.” It was almost as if she was
reverting to an old pattern in her marriage: let Barack be a
politician, and she would stay out of it.

But unlike other times, Michelle did not withdraw. In fact, the woman
who had once resisted campaigning now told friends she enjoyed the
crowds, the laughs and the votes she was earning. Her husband promised
that the staff could fix whatever problems she faced. And he clearly
needed her help. After years of leaving his family behind, he now
turned to his wife to help carry him to the presidency.

“I’ve never done this before,” she said to her husband’s team,
according to two aides. “I just need you to tell me what to do.”

Campaigns often prove toxic to participants’ personal lives, but
Jarrett says the Obamas’ relationship improved in the crucible of the
race. “They both rallied to each other’s defense and support,” she
says. “By having to work hard at it, it strengthened their marriage.”

VII.

ON A HUMID September day, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago stood on a
platform on the South Lawn of the White House hawking his city’s
Olympic bid. The Obamas flanked him, consciously or unconsciously
assuming a series of identical positions as he spoke. When Michelle
Obama clasped her hands in a downward triangle, the president did,
too. When he folded his arms across his chest, so did she. During
their own short speeches they gave outsize laughs at each other’s mild
jokes and even mimed what the other was saying. As the president noted
that the White House was just a tad larger than their home in Chicago,
the first lady pinched her fingers to demonstrate. Milling around
afterward, watching judo and fencing demonstrations, the couple leaned
into each other, talking and nodding.

Friends who visit the White House describe occasionally turning
corners to find the first couple mid-embrace. They also seem unusually
willing, for a presidential couple, to kiss, touch and flirt in
public. It may be that they are broadcasting their affection to the
rest of us, an advertisement of their closeness. Or they may simply be
holding tightly to each other as they navigate new and uncertain
terrain. “Part of what they provide each other with is emotional
safety,” Jarrett explained.

In many ways, the Obamas have made the White House into a cocoon of
sorts, with weekends full of movie-watching (“Where the Wild Things
Are”), Scrabble games and children’s talent shows. They have
surrounded themselves with those who have known them longest and best:
Marian Robinson, the first lady’s mother, has settled in (unaccustomed
to being waited on, she won’t let the staff do the laundry). Marty
Nesbitt and his wife, Dr. Anita Blanchard, left Chicago to rent a
house nearby for the summer, while Maya Soetoro, the president’s half-
sister, and her husband, Konrad Ng, just moved here temporarily from
Hawaii.

Though the president reads aloud with his children in the evenings —
he and Sasha are finishing “Life of Pi” — parenting in the White House
is more complicated. Because the first couple cannot move freely
about, their relatives take Malia and Sasha to the bookstore, on a
walk through Chinatown, to the multiplex to see “Cloudy With a Chance
of Meatballs.” Last spring, according to Sher, well-meaning White
House residence staff members tried to give the girls cellphones, so
their parents could always reach them; the first lady stepped in to
refuse.

Even the Obamas’ jokes seem like coping mechanisms for the epic
changes in their lives. They are still in their 40s, and they appear
to deal with the grandeur and ritual of their new home with a kind of
satirical distance that is hard to imagine coming from first couples
of a pre-Jon Stewart generation. The president playfully addresses his
wife using her official acronym, “Flotus” (first lady of the United
States). She keeps up a running commentary on her husband as he
navigates his new home, according to friends and relatives. Seeing him
in the Oval Office cracks Michelle Obama up, she told me. “It’s like,
what are you doing there?” she said, gesturing to the president’s
desk. “Get up from there!” In September, as they waited to greet a
long, slow procession of foreign dignitaries and their spouses at the
Group of 20 Summit in Pittsburgh, the first lady whispered in her
husband’s ear about things “that I probably shouldn’t repeat,” he
said.

“She can puncture the balloon of this,” he added, making him feel like
the same person he was 5 or 10 years ago.

VIII.

CLEARLY, THE OBAMAS prefer to think of themselves as largely
unaltered. “The strengths and challenges of our marriage don’t change
because we move to a different address,” the first lady said, the
president studying the carpet as she answered. But even as they serve
as sources of continuity for each other, their own partnership is
undergoing significant change, not just in outward circumstance — the
city, the exposure, the security, the staff, the house and so on — but
far more fundamentally. Michelle Obama has gone from political skeptic
to political partner to a woman with a White House agenda of her own,
and an approval rating higher than the president’s.

Initially, her office was seen as so peripheral by some in the West
Wing that one aide referred to it as Guam: pleasant but powerless. Now
Michelle Obama is towing the island closer to the mainland. In June,
she appointed Sher — a lawyer, health care expert and member of the
tight knot of hometown friends — her chief of staff. “The first lady
wants her office to be fully integrated into the president’s agenda,”
Sher says. Early this summer, for example, the first lady directed her
staff to plan events that could help support health care reform and
then volunteered to speak publicly on the topic. The president and
first lady share a speechwriting staff, the East Wing’s press and
communications team attends their West Wing counterparts’ meetings and
every week, Dunn, Sher and Jarrett meet to discuss the integration of
the president’s and first lady’s business.

When asked about how her insights affected the president’s thinking,
the first lady seemed to bristle at the question. “I am so not
interested in a lot of the hard decisions that he’s making,” she said,
drawing out the “so.” “Why would I want to be in politics? I have
never in my life ever wanted to sit on the policy side of this thing.”
Earlier in my conversation with them, the president faced forward,
even leaning a bit away from his wife, but now he uncrossed his legs,
swiveled and studied her, looking amused.

“Did she say she’s not interested in policy?” Sher, who also attended
the Oval Office interview, tried to recall the next day, shaking her
head and smiling. “She always says that.” (The first lady may have
learned from Hillary Clinton’s example the perils of appearing too
involved with policy.) While her boss has a limited appetite for
policy details on many subjects, Sher explains, she regularly reads
briefing papers from her staff on social issues. Early next year,
aides say, the first lady will become the administration’s point
person on childhood obesity, working with her husband’s policy
advisers as well as her own on a problem that has stymied public-
health experts for years. While the overall success of the
administration is Barack Obama’s test, Michelle Obama is beginning to
gauge her ability to affect public opinion and behavior as well —
which means risking criticism and failure.

The first lady also speaks to her husband about White House management
and personnel decisions. “She is not shy about expressing her views at
all,” Sher told me, recalling a conversation last spring between
Barack and Michelle about a personnel problem. “She was like, you
should do this, dah dah dah dah and dah dah dah,” Sher said, smacking
the table. The first lady was so forceful, Sher said, that the
president just grinned back until they both started to laugh. “It’s
probably great that she does get worked up about injustices,” Sher
went on to say. “It clearly seems to have an impact on him.”

Michelle Obama is also one of her husband’s chief interpreters of
public sentiment. On almost every “domestic issue that’s come up — up
and through health care,” the president told me, the first lady has
offered “very helpful” insights on “how something is going to play or
what’s important to people.”

“She’s like a one-person poll,” he explained. “Everyman!” the first
lady called out.

“We’ll sit at the dinner table,” the president said. “If our arguments
are not as crisp or we’re not addressing a particular criticism coming
from the other side, Michelle will be quick to say, I just think the
way this thing is getting filtered right now is putting you on the
defensive in this way or that way.” (Sometimes, Sher says, when the
president is describing some complicated issue, his wife interjects:
“You know what? People don’t care about that.”)

During the campaign, Michelle Obama made much of her regular-person
credentials, but they may now be expiring. She has not only a personal
trainer and a stylist but also a staff of chefs and gardeners. Her
world is somewhat less rarefied than that of her husband: she can
steal away with less fuss, and her events bring her into more contact
with ordinary citizens than his constant march of briefings. But her
celebrity is nearly as great as her husband’s, her world nearly as
artificial. (By the time of the Democratic National Convention,
Michelle told friends, she stopped knowing what the weather was each
day: she lived in the permanently controlled climate zone of
airplanes, cars and hotels.) A year or two ago, when Barack Obama
talked about staying grounded, he mentioned his wife; now he tends to
talk about his children or his dog instead. All presidential couples
experience this sort of isolation, which is part of why they tend to
come to resemble each other more than they do the rest of us.

As the great experiment of the presidency rolls on, the Obamas may
finally learn definitive answers to the issues they have been debating
over the course of their partnership. The questions they have long
asked each other in private will likely be answered on the largest
possible stage. They will discern whether politics can bring about the
kind of change they have longed for and promised to others, or whether
the compromises and defeats are too great. They will learn whether
they were too ambitious or not ambitious enough. And even if they
share the answer with no one else, the two will know better if
everything does in fact become political — if their marriage can both
embrace politics and also at some level stay free of it.

Then, in three or seven years, the president’s political career will
end. There will be no more offices to win or hold, and the Obamas will
most likely renegotiate their compact once more — this time, perhaps
more on Michelle Obama’s terms.

The equality of any partnership “is measured over the scope of the
marriage. It’s not just four years or eight years or two,” the first
lady said. “We’re going to be married for a very long time.”

Jodi Kantor is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times.

9 Readers' Comments

Editors' Selections

15.Katie Salt Lake City October 28th, 2009 7:29 pm

To me, equality in a relationship is almost an impossible
accomplishment. To obtain equality, two people must be perfectly level
in regards to time, money, family, responsibility, e.t.c. Trying to
achieve this level of equality can ultimately drive the couple apart.
A strong marriage, to me, encompasses respect, compromise,
communication, and love. Two partners do not have to be "equal" to
demonstrate these attributes toward a relationship with their
companion. So, to me, talking about Barack and Michelle's equality is
naive. They are not equal because they are not the same person. Each
has attributes that defines them as a person. To me, Barack and
Michelle demonstrate respect, compromise, communication, and love
toward one another. Those are the the four corners that keep the
fabric of their marriage strong. I also respect how they spend time
together away from the White House and their children. Spending
romantic time alone and away from day to day responsibilities is, to
me, vital for staying in love with a companion. They are a beautiful
couple!

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:21:15 PM11/1/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/US-economy-recovering-Barack-Obama/articleshow/5184995.cms

US economy recovering: Barack Obama
1 Nov 2009, 0134 hrs IST, REUTERS

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama said on Saturday this week's
positive job and economic growth figures proved that his big spending
efforts to Lighter side of recession

stimulate the economy were working.

But he cautioned in his weekly radio address to Americans that "we
have a long way to go before we return to prosperity" and more job
losses were likely in coming days.

Democrats and Republicans agree the economy will be the top issue for
the 2010 congressional elections, although the White House has
disputed suggestions that they will be a judgment on Obama and his
policies.

Voting in next week's Virginia and New Jersey governors' races will
render a first judgment on Obama, who was sworn into office just over
nine months ago in the midst of the worst recession since World War
Two.

The U.S. unemployment rate remains stubbornly high at 9.8 percent,
despite a $787 billion economic stimulus that Obama and his fellow
Democrats, who control Congress, pushed through in February.

New unemployment numbers due out next Friday are expected to show U.S.
employers cut 175,000 jobs in October, according to economists polled
by Reuters. The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 9.9 percent
for October.

But new data this week showing the U.S. economy growing in the third
quarter for the first time in more than a year, signaling the end of
the worst recession in 70 years, was good news for the Obama
administration.

"Now, economic growth is no substitute for job growth," Obama stressed
in his radio address. "But we will not create the jobs we need unless
the economy is growing."

Obama said steps taken by his administration to jump-start the
economy, including the stimulus package of spending and tax cuts, had
helped "blunt the worst of this recession."

The White House said on Friday the stimulus had directly saved or
created more than 640,000 jobs so far, based on data about who had
received loans or grants through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.

Obama said overall the stimulus had created or saved more than one
million jobs.

"It took years to dig our way into the crisis we've faced. It will
take more than a few months to dig our way out," said Obama, who
blames Republicans for the economic crisis he inherited.

Republicans, who favor tax cuts, say the stimulus has failed to halt
rising joblessness and they also questioned the White House's figures
on jobs saved or created.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:23:52 PM11/1/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International-Business/Economy-rebounding-but-job-growth-lags-Geithner/articleshow/5186688.cms

Economy rebounding, but job growth lags: Geithner
1 Nov 2009, 2126 hrs IST, AGENCIES

WASHINGTON: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledges the
federal budget deficit is too high, but that the priorities now are
economic growth and job creation.

Asked repeatedly on a television channel. Asked if it meant taxes
would will rise, Geithner avoided giving specifics. He did say
President Barack Obama is committed to dealing with the deficit in a
way that will not add to the tax burden of people making less than
$250,000 a year.

The White House has not decided how to reduce the red ink, Geithner
said in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

``Right now we're focused on getting growth back on track,'' he said.
``And we're not at the point yet where we have to decide exactly what
it's going to take.''

He acknowledged that the economic recovery, while showing positive
movement, has been shaky and uneven.

``A lot of damage was caused by this crisis. It's going to take some
time for us to grow out of this. It could be a little choppy,'' he
said. ``It could be uneven. And it's going to take awhile.''

A bright spot in the recovery identified by Geithner is the banking
system, which he said is ``dramatically more stable'' because of the
government bailout.

Geithner said that just one year ago economic activity came to a
standstill as major financial institutions shut down due to lack of
liquidity.

Even though 115 banks have failed so far this year, Geithner said
there has been a ``dramatic improvement in confidence,'' with private
capital back in the system. He said large businesses are now able to
borrow again.

``The banking system is dramatically more stable than it was three
months ago, six months ago, nine months ago, a year ago,'' he said.

But Geithner said more needs to be done to assist small businesses,
adding that the administration is working to help open up credit to
them. These businesses, he said, ``face a really tough environment on
the financing side.''

After financial institutions were widely blamed for assuming too much
risk and bringing the economy to the brink of collapse, Geithner said
a concern now is that they might end up being too timid.

``The big risk we face now is that banks are going to overcorrect and
not take enough risk,'' he said. ``We need them to take a chance again
on the American economy. That's going to be important to recovery.''

Geithner acknowledged the economy remains tough for many workers who
have lost jobs and it's going to be some time before the employment
outlook starts to brighten for many of them.

``Unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected. But growth is
back a little more quickly, a little stronger than people thought,''
he said.

Unemployment hit a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September, and the
October report due in the coming week could show it topping 10
percent.

``It's likely still rising. And it's probably going to rise further
before it starts to come down again.''

Geithner said it's too early to decide if a second government stimulus
package should be offered, though he acknowledged unemployment
probably will rise even more before it starts to turn around.
Economists expect to see job growth after the first of the year,
probably in the first quarter, he said.

``You're not going to see real recovery until it's led by the private
sector, by businesses,'' he said.

The treasury chief added that with about half of the stimulus money
left, along with tax cuts and investments ahead, ``there's a lot of
force still moving its way through the system now'' and that will keep
providing economic support. ``It's working. It's delivering what it
should result.''

Last week, Christina Romer, who heads the president's Council of
Economic Advisers, said the government's economic stimulus spending
already had its biggest impact and probably wouldn't contribute to
significant growth next year.

Geithner also said the administration supports steps being considered
by Congress like extending unemployment insurance benefits and the tax
credit for first-time homebuyers.

In addition, he complimented Obama's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, for
his work in reining in pay for senior executives at the top seven
recipients of government bailout money. Geithner played down concerns
about government interference in executive compensation and the
potential for the most talented and productive executives to leave
their companies.

``We were very concerned about that from the beginning. And he had to
balance some very difficult kind of choices. I think he's found a very
good balance among them,'' Geithner said.

Asked if he saw an exodus at those companies, he said he didn't, but
added, ``I worry about this a lot.''

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:26:19 PM11/1/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International-Business/High-US-employment-rate-may-start-from-early-2010-Geithner/articleshow/5187165.cms

High US employment rate may start from early 2010: Geithner
2 Nov 2009, 0004 hrs IST, AGENCIES

WASHINGTON: High US unemployment, which has lagged in an otherwise
rebounding economy, likely will begin rebounding early next year, US
Treasury Lighter side of recession

Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Sunday.

"Economists say... that they think you'll start to see net jobs
created at the beginning of the year," Geithner told NBC television,
adding that the US economy could see jobs added "in the first quarter
some time."

The US economy is suffering the deepest recession in decades with
crushing unemployment of just under 10 percent.

Officials said the US employment picture might have been even worse,
and released data last week showing that President Barack Obama's
economic stimulus plan has so far saved or created more than one
million jobs.

The figures show 650,000 jobs were directly saved or created up until
September 30. Since the survey data only accounts for half the
spending during that time, officials say the true figure of jobs
created is over a million.

Opposition Republicans however, accused the president's team of
fudging the facts and concocting a "fantasy world" to disguise the
failure of the stimulus plan, passed in the first months of Obama's
presidency.

Obama has vowed that the economic recovery package would save or
create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

In a speech last week to the Economic Club of Chicago, Geithner said
with the exception of employment data, economic figures reflected a
"broad and strong" recovery, with encouraging figures in consumption,
investment, housing, construction and exports.

In percentage terms, the US economy grew at a seasonally adjusted 3.5
percent annual rate in the July-September period from the previous
quarter.

The growth exceeded analyst expectations and marked the strongest
quarter since the third quarter of 2007 when a US subprime mortgage
crisis triggered a global financial meltdown.

Despite those encouraging economic signs, Christina Romer, chair of
Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told US lawmakers last week that
the US unemployment rate is likely to remain "severely elevated" for
some time even as the economy recovers from recession.

The recession's impact on employment has been massive, she told a
congressional panel, making it hard to recoup lost jobs.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:29:56 PM11/1/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/In-10-mths-115-US-banks-go-belly-up-9-fail-in-one-day/articleshow/5185579.cms

In 10 mths, 115 US banks go belly up; 9 fail in one day
1 Nov 2009, 2100 hrs IST, PTI

NEW YORK: The American economy may have witnessed quarterly expansion,
but the count of bank failures are soaring and a staggering 115
entities have Lighter side of recession gone out of business in the
first 10 months of 2009.

Indicating that the nation's financial system continues to remain
jittery, the bank failures in 2009 have witnessed a four-fold rise
from that of last year, when just 25 went belly up.

The authorities closed down nine banks on October 30. They are Bank
USA, Community Bank of Lemont, San Diego National Bank, California
National Bank, Pacific National Bank, Park National Bank, Citizens
National Bank, Madisonville National Bank and North Houston Bank.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which
insures deposits of over 8,000 American banks, these collapses would
cost its Deposit Insurance Fund about USD 2.5 billion.

The nine banks had combined assets worth USD 19.4 billion and deposits
of USD 15.4 billion, as on September 30.

Moreover, the collapse of 115 banks so far this year is the highest
for any year since 1992, when 181 entities were shut down, in the wake
of the savings and the loan crisis.

Even as the economic activities is slowly picking up, the bank
failures are anticipated to climb in the coming months, mainly due to
higher unemployment resulting in increased defaults.

After four straight quarters of contraction, the US GDP expanded 3.5
per cent for the three months ended September.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 1, 2009, 7:35:50 PM11/1/09

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/CIT-files-for-Chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection/articleshow/5187503.cms

CIT files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
2 Nov 2009, 0241 hrs IST, AGENCIES

WASHINGTON: Lender CIT Group has filed for bankruptcy protection, a
potential blow to the thousands of small and mid-sized businesses that
rely on Top 10 US bank failures the company for loans to keep their
operations afloat.

CIT made its filing in New York bankruptcy court on Sunday, after a
debt-exchange offer to bondholders failed. CIT says the majority of
its bondholders have approved a prepackaged reorganization plan which
will reduce total debt by $10 billion while allowing the company to
continue to do business.

CIT's operating subsidiaries, including CIT Bank, are not included in
the bankruptcy filing, and expect to continue operating.

CIT's move will wipe out current holders of its common and preferred
stock, likely meaning the U.S. government will lose the $2.3 billion
it sunk into CIT last year to prop up the ailing company.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 6:03:20 AM11/2/09

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/amid-the-political-crisis-negotiating-with-moderate-taliban/

Amid The Political Crisis, Negotiating With “Moderate” Taliban
November 1, 2009 — Raphael Alexander

Photo: Musadeq Sadeq/AP

Abdullah Abdullah announced today to thousands of Afghans that he will
not be participating in a run-off vote set for November 7th on the
Presidential elections, still undecided 108 days after they began.
There is no reason to suggest that a run-off vote would be any less
prone to the same kind of rampant abuse and rigging that occurred in
the first place. Almost all of the conditions that the runner-up had
set for a reform of Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission, a
veritable contradiction in terms, were rejected outright.

But how does one proceed in a run-off with one candidate left? I mean,
it’s rather difficult for Mr.Karzai to accept the continuation of his
eight-year role of President of a sham democracy when it has all of
the political validity of a dictatorship like Iran. It’s amazing the
lengths to which the corrupt components of Afghanistan’s political
chambers will go to make the appearance of having met the
constitutional criteria of being elected with more than half the
votes.

It would be more than a bit of a mockery to hold a run-off which
confirmed Mr.Karzai’s Presidency with his name solely on the ballot.
Nor, I imagine, are the nation-building western architects eager to
return to their press galleries to announce this fact. The United
Nations seems willing to simply let the matter drop at this point,
declaring Mr.Karzai the winner, corruption and all. This would,
unfortunately, only reinforce the status quo of a sham democracy,
further eroding western support for the mission there.

The idea that we can, at this point, teach an old corrupt dog new
democracy tricks is as unlikely as being able to negotiate with the
“moderate” Taliban. This western concept of rehabilitation over
punishment is working it’s way overseas, where a new four-step
reintegration strategy is being introduced based on testing in Iraq.

ISAF believes that most Taliban are economic insurgents, not
ideological ones. So in other words bribery, a time-tested Afghan
tradition, would appear to be the order of the day. If you pay Talibs
to do more productive things with their time, they’ll spend less time
attacking NATO soldiers, and more time doing things in their own
communities. But the Taliban rejects outright that the insurgency can
be quelled in this way, saying the British and Soviets tried the same
thing in the latter stages of their missions as well.

The American rulers should not think that all heroic Afghan nation is
like the few well-known Afghan Americans who sell their country and
who have received training in the CIA cells for many years. Here in
this country, selling one’s country quid pro quo money and government
slot is not only a crime according to Islam but also a historical
taunt and infamy.

They also say the term “moderate” Taliban is one invented by the
Americans, which have no “physical existence”. So while it may be true
that some Talibs could be convinced to be amenable to armistice, the
message from the Taliban leadership is clear: so-called moderate
Taliban will be hunted down and eradicated by the ideological wing of
the movement.

Comment »

One Response to “Amid The Political Crisis, Negotiating With
“Moderate” Taliban”

Philanthropist Says:
November 1, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Do ‘moderate Taliban’ only throw half as much acid on schoolgirls?

While the primary mission is to ensure Afghanistan does not become a
base for international terrorist operations again, a worthy secondary
goal is to stop the Taliban from brutalizing Afghans. It is amazing
that so many people on the Left would abandon them to such a fate,
proving the Left is heartless.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 9:59:13 AM11/2/09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/new-york-times-paid-milli_n_342021.html

Release David Rohde From Taliban: Reporter

First Posted: 11- 2-09 09:05 AM | Updated: 11- 2-09 09:22 AM

War correspondent Michael Yon, currently in Afghanistan, reports on
his Twitter that, according to his sources, the New York Times and its
associates paid millions of dollars to secure the release of reporter
David Rohde from Taliban capture.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 10:14:08 AM11/2/09

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Virginia_Congressman_Compares_Republicans_To_Taliban-68507377.html

Moran Compares Republicans To Taliban
Democrat's words receive harsh response
By DAVID SCHULTZ and WAMU 88.5 NEWS
Updated 8:01 AM EST, Mon, Nov 2, 2009

Getty Images Critics say Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) is known for being
outspoken and for occasionally making remarks that land him in hot
water.

At a campaign event Saturday in Fairfax County, Moran said Republican
gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and his running mates are too
conservative for Virginia.

"If the Republicans were running in Afghanistan," he said, "they'd be
running on the Taliban ticket, as far as I can see."

McDonnell spokesperson Crystal Cameron called the remark "negative"
and "vicious."

She said Moran is trying to drive up turnout among liberal voters who
are unenthusiastic about Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds.

"Creigh has had a very difficult time rallying his base," Cameron
said, "and they're trying to do anything they can to get out the vote
on their side."

Polls open in Virginia on Tuesday morning.

Listen to the complete story at wamu.org

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 10:37:00 AM11/2/09

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSSP199298

Karzai declared Afghan president, run-off cancelled
Mon Nov 2, 2009 7:37am EST
By Golnar Motevalli

KABUL, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's election commission declared
Hamid Karzai elected as president on Monday after it called off a
runoff following the withdrawal of his only rival.

The run-off, called after the first round in August was marred by
widespread fraud, was to have been held on Nov. 7.

"The Independent Election Commission declares the esteemed Hamid
Karzai as the president ... because he was the winner of the first
round and the only candidate in the second round," the commission's
chief Azizullah Ludin told a news conference.

Ludin told a packed media conference the decision was made to spare
the Afghan people the expense and risk of another election and because
a one-candidate race would raise questions about the legitimacy of the
presidency.

Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the race over
the weekend, citing doubts about the credibility of the election
process.

"Karzai has lost his legitimacy, he is a very weak president and he
cannot govern without reaching out to Dr Abdullah," said Kabul-based
political analyst Haroun Mir. "So the ball is in Dr Abdullah's court
right now."

Karzai's camp on Sunday had ruled out a coalition with Abdullah, but
he has been under intense pressure from various quarters to bring
Abdullah into the government.

Earlier U.N chief Ban Ki-moon made a visit to Kabul that had not been
announced in advance, as diplomatic efforts gathered pace to resolve
the prolonged political crisis.

"We continue to stand by the people of Afghanistan in their quest for
prosperity and peace," Ban said.

The withdrawal of Abdullah from the run-off had cast doubts over the
legitimacy of the next government, already under a cloud following the
Aug. 20 election marred by allegations of fraud in favour of Karzai.

A weakened Afghan government under Karzai would be a blow for U.S.
President Barack Obama as he considers whether to send up to 40,000
more troops to fight a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
[ID:nN01398226]

A spokesman for Karzai's campaign said the president will issue a
statement about the election commission announcement later in the day.

Abdullah had left the door open for future discussions but said no
deals had been struck in return for his withdrawal, seen by diplomats
as one way to spare the country more uncertainty that discredits the
government and can only aid the insurgency.

Ban ki-Moon met both Karzai and Abdullah, officials said.

A U.N. statement said the meetings were "to assure them and the Afghan
people of the continuing support of the United Nations doubts over the
credibility of his government.

Ban made the visit after five foreign U.N. staff were killed in a
suicide attack last week on a Kabul guest-house used by the United
Nations.

The attack was claimed by the Taliban, who have vowed to disrupt the
run-off and said the guest-house was targeted because of the United
Nations' role in helping organise the Afghan election.

The run-off was ordered after a UN-led investigation panel found
widespread fraud in favour of Karzai in the Aug. 20 election. (Writing
by Paul Tait and Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Jerry Norton) (For more
Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here)

...and I am Sid Harth

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 4:03:50 PM11/2/09

http://www.ptinews.com/news/359187_PM-speaks-to-Karzai--felicitates-him-after-poll-win

PM speaks to Karzai, felicitates him after poll win
STAFF WRITER 21:47 HRS IST

New Delhi, Nov 2 (PTI) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tonight spoke to
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai over phone and congratulated him
after that country's Election Commission declared him the winner in
the elections.

The Commission's proclamation of Karzai as the winner came after
cancellation of the run-off in the wake of former Foreign Minister
Abdullah Abdullah's announcment of pulling out of it less than a week
before the November 7 vote.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 4:10:52 PM11/2/09

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/48691

Thomasson: Obama must make quick decison on troops
Submitted by SHNS on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 12:21
By DAN K. THOMASSON, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and
opinion

WASHINGTON - Among the more disappointing aspects of Barack Obama's
young presidency is his seeming inability to come to a decision over
what to do in Afghanistan. As the violence and U.S. death toll
escalates, Obama continues to dither over whether to send more troops
as requested by his chief man on the ground, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Every few days, it seems, the headlines proclaim that the president
has asked someone else about how far to go in the struggle against the
Taliban. Next on the list may be the White House custodial staff whose
members probably would tell him to get the heck out of Dodge. My
father would have told him that if you have to think about something
very long you probably shouldn't do it.

Where does all this leave McChrystal, who made the request for 40,000
additional manpower weeks ago, warning that without them the U.S.
efforts to stabilize the country and permanently weaken the Taliban
would fail in a year? How about twisting slowly in the wind to borrow
an old expression from Watergate days? It must be particularly galling
to a highly regarded action man who was handpicked by Obama only a few
months ago and given a strategy that has now been all but abandoned.

More and more it seems Obama is looking to Vice President Joseph Biden
for leadership in this most crucial of foreign policy decisions. Biden
is now heading up the latest Afghan study group that includes Defense
Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser James Jones,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel, whose military expertise is well known in such political
hotspots as South Chicago. Biden was the former chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee where he was tutored by the Senate's true
foreign policy expert, Indiana Republican Richard Lugar when he
(Biden) could quit talking long enough to listen.

There is a disturbing familiarity with a vice president's influential
role in these type decisions. It was just a few months ago, wasn't it,
when a vice president was accused of being the Darth Vader of another
administration. Richard Cheney even shot a fellow bird hunter, some
argue, to publicly recertify his understanding of military tactics and
procedures from his time as defense secretary.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters recently that
it is important "to get this right." No kidding, genius. But sometime
along the way, a decision needs to be made with the understanding that
in war activities it isn't always possible to nail things down.
Flexibility is good, in fact. An accepted rule of thumb is to leave
much of these gritty decisions to the general on the ground. As NATO
commander as well as the head of U.S. forces, McChrystal needs to have
the opportunity to make it work until he proves he can't. For the
umpteenth time, it is necessary to remember that an Army chief of
staff's warning that it would take up to 400,000 troops to control and
rebuild Iraq with a minimum of bloodshed was not only ignored but cost
the man his job and the nation a lot more.

Rarely has such all out vacillation and contention been conducted this
sharply in public. It can't be good for chances of a positive outcome
nor for McChrystal's position in all this. It is not unreasonable to
suggest that this decorated soldier might ask to be let out to run a
motor pool in Arizona or some place. The general made his case well
and it should have been either accepted or quickly rejected quietly in
a reasonable time frame. The president faces the distinct possibility
that this all will come back to haunt him. Meanwhile the death toll
mounts.

(E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News
Service, at thomassondan(at)aol.com.)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 4:35:09 PM11/2/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/11/what_will_mcchrystal_do_if_he.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

What will McChrystal do if he doesn’t get more troops?

All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make
a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an
eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander,
Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in
Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request
for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial
counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what
will McChrystal do?

McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of
counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded
general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional
reputation are on the line.

After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to
assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously
deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a
strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he
concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has
called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a
counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians,
winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that
calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there
and a much longer time horizon.

McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited
campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a
counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border
with missiles and drones.

If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down
the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a
good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will
McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven
civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-
down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men
and women entrusted to him?

Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander?
Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House
will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.

Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley
McChrystal.

By Colbert King | November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 2, 2009, 4:50:18 PM11/2/09

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP506276

NEWSMAKER-Afghanistan's Karzai faces critical test
Mon Nov 2, 2009 11:15am EST

KABUL, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai will have
to prove his legitimacy by reaching out to his opponents, reforming a
government many view as corrupt and incompetent and quelling a revived
Taliban insurgency.

Afghan election officials declared Karzai president for another five-
year term on Monday after scrapping a planned election run-off
following the withdrawal of his only rival, Abdullah Abdullah, who
complained about the credibility of the election process.

Eight years after Washington picked him to lead an interim government
following the overthrow of the Taliban, Karzai's relationship with his
Western backers has grown increasingly strained, with widespread fraud
in the first round of voting further souring ties.

As a Pashtun -- Afghanistan's largest ethnic group -- the 51-year-old
Karzai has strong grassroots support in the south and east and had
been widely expected to win a second round.

But after his flawed win Karzai is under immense pressure to negotiate
with Abdullah -- who has emerged as a national figurehead in the post-
election drama -- to reach some sort of deal on the shape of the next
government.

He will most likely need to give up some cabinet positions to
Abdullah's camp in order to make it more representative. Abdullah's
support base is mainly among Tajiks in the north.

To make matters worse the weakened president faces a resurgent
Taliban, who have taken advantage of the post-election turmoil to
launch increasingly bold attacks.

Karzai himself has survived at least three assassination attempts, the
most recent in April 2008 while attending a military parade close to
the presidential palace.

Balding with a trim salt-and-pepper beard, Karzai is a chief of the
Popalzai tribal group of the Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in
Afghanistan, and hails from a royalist family with a tradition of
public service.

Born in Kandahar on Dec. 24, 1957, the fourth of seven sons, Karzai
went to school in Kabul before going to India to study for a masters
degree in political science.

Politics became his passion, and he did not marry until his 40s, when
he wed an Afghan doctor active in helping refugees in Pakistan. They
have a daughter.

Karzai and his relatives, like millions of Afghans, fled to Pakistan
after the 1979 Soviet invasion. In exile, he helped fund and arm anti-
Soviet fighters.

He served as deputy foreign minister from 1992 to 1994, after the fall
of the Soviet-backed government, but quit as the government collapsed
in internecine strife that reduced whole districts of Kabul to rubble.

At first supporting the Taliban, Karzai later worked from Pakistan to
overthrow the austere Islamists. He returned to Afghanistan in late
2001 when he was appointed president of the country's interim
government in a U.N.-sponsored deal in Germany.

Endemic government corruption, slow development, his alliance with
former militia leaders and civilian casualties caused by foreign
forces have eroded his public support. Karzai says talks with moderate
insurgents are his top priority. (Reporting by Yara Bayoumy; Editing
by Paul Tait and Alex Richardson) (For more Reuters coverage of

Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here)

...and I am Sid Harth

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 8:36:05 AM11/3/09

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/03/2009-11-03_a_third_way_in_afghanistan_the_case_for_containment.html

A third way in Afghanistan: The case for containment
BY Eric T. Olson

Tuesday, November 3rd 2009, 4:00 AM

Those of us who have commanded troops in Afghanistan can only imagine
the consternation of senior military leaders there.

If recent reports are correct, President Obama is now huddling with
his national security team in deep deliberation, doing a detailed
analysis of security conditions, the state of local governance and the
level of economic development in each of Afghanistan's 34 provinces -
normally the responsibility of field-grade military officers and
midlevel development experts. Such a process usually results in
decisions emanating from Washington that instead should be developed
in the theater of operations.

But the President has essentially been offered only two choices: a
counterterrorist strategy, which has been almost universally judged as
insufficient for the difficult tasks at hand, and a counterinsurgency
strategy, which even its advocates assess will be long and bloody, and
may very well end up in failure. A counterterrorist-based approach to
defeating Al Qaeda is likely doomed if the momentum of the Taliban's
recent gains is not broken. And counterinsurgency, with its emphasis
on the imperative to protect the population against the insurgents, is
probably a bad fit for Afghanistan, where almost 90% of the people
live in the countryside in 40,000 villages spread across a nation
almost the size of Texas.

Variants of both options have been put forth, usually tied to
different assumptions about the number of additional U.S. servicemen
and women to be put in harm's way. But the essence of these
alternatives always boils down to either counterterrorism or
counterinsurgency, "heavy" or "light."

There is a third way. If it is true that Taliban domination of
Afghanistan will mean another safe haven for Al Qaeda, then the
strategic task should be to contain the spread of Taliban influence in
order that such a foothold cannot be gained. This should not require a
nationwide, full-blown counterinsurgency campaign, but might be
accomplished by a campaign to secure the Afghan territories where the
population has to date resisted Taliban incursions and is more
inclined to accept coalition presence, mostly located in Afghanistan's
northern and western regions. The force could also be postured to
allow the continuation of strikes into the Taliban-controlled areas,
mainly in the provinces that are located in the Pashtun Belt in the
east and south.

Such strikes would be focused on disrupting the Taliban in those areas
where they are attempting to seek sanctuary, build training areas or
establish shadow governments. It would also permit attacks on any Al
Qaeda or other Islamic extremist groups in the Pashtun territories as
they are identified on the Afghanistan side of the border, or, as
deemed useful, to support the Pakistanis in their operations in their
Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

The United States has already spent about $38 billion on nation-
building in Afghanistan, with very little to show for it. It is time
to refocus this effort and do more to ensure its effectiveness. The
president of the World Bank has advised linking reconstruction and
development spending to security and to progress in fighting
corruption. The priority effort should be those areas that are at
present relatively free of Taliban influence and where the Afghan
population is most receptive to an international effort to assist this
development. The funding provided should bypass corrupt agencies in
Kabul and go directly to locally led projects, reinforcing the status
of local officials as effective and corruption-free.

Perhaps the most important benefit of a strategy of containment is
that it buys time. Breathing room brought by a change in strategy in
Iraq in 2007 allowed certain internal Iraqi dynamics to play out, most
notably the Iraqi Awakening (when large numbers of Sunni fighters
turned against Al Qaeda) and a ceasefire declared by Shiite militias.
These were uniquely Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, enabled and
supported by a wisely selected American strategy that bought time for
them to take hold.

In Afghanistan, the critical internal dynamic may be the tendency for
the Taliban to wear out their welcome in areas that they are trying to
dominate. Statistics show that the Taliban are more tolerated than
accepted in most of the country, and that their ideology and form of
governance is unpopular with all but a few Afghans. Given time and
provided the right incentives, it is entirely possible that the spread
of Taliban influence will be resisted and eventually rolled back, even
in the Pashtun areas - an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem.

It is impossible to determine precisely how many American troops it
would take to execute a campaign based on a strategy of containment.
But since the requisite military missions would be more akin to
security and stability operations in more benign areas, rather than
the current propensity to conduct multiple offensive operations in the
heart of the Pashtun insurgency, it is likely that no immediate troop
increase would be necessary at all.

The President has not been well served by his national security team.
They owe him a way past the false dichotomy that they have basically
created for him. If in fact Afghanistan has become Obama's War, then
his national security team owes him a thorough analysis of the options
for fighting it.

An Army major general, Eric T. Olson was the Combined/Joint Task Force
commander in Afghanistan, in charge of all military operations there
in 2004-2005.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 8:38:10 AM11/3/09

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/latest-world-news/2009/11/03/taliban-claims-elelction-cancellation-is-its-victory-91466-25078032/

Taliban claims election cancellation is its victory
Nov 3 2009 WalesOnline

The Taliban has claimed the cancelled election run-off in Afghanistan
proves their efforts to derail the vote with threats and attacks were
successful.

The Islamist militant group issued a statement today ahead of a speech
by President Hamid Karzai on his recently declared victory.

The first round was marred by fraud and Mr Karzai won a run-off vote
by default after his only challenger dropped out saying that the
election could not be free or fair.

According to a statement posted online by the Taliban, “Our brave
mujahidin were able to disrupt the entire process”.

The Taliban said its recent attack on a guest house filled with UN
election workers showed that “even they are not safe in Kabul”.

Comment (1)

nikos_retsos wrote:

There is no victory for the Taliban, but the continuation of the
status quo is an affirmation for the Taliban that nothing has changed,
and that the election that declared Karzai as a winner had been
declared fraudulent and invalid by the Unite Nations before the second
round cancellation! And, therefore, the winner of a fraudulent
election doesn't have any legitimacy - other than the power conveyed
to him by the foreign occupying forces. But the U.S. and Karzai are
definitely the losers because Karzai was picked up by the U.S. because
he was a Pashtun. But the Taliban insurgency is driven by Pashtuns,
and Karzai cling in power with bribes and corruption to other
warlords, and the protection of the U.S. forces. Karzai now vows to
fight corruption, but he cannot survive in power without it - even
with the U.S. forces at his disposal- because his own tribe is at war
with the U.S. and him.

But let's forget the elections because it doesn't really matter that
Abdullah dropped out, or if the Second Round of elections was
cancelled, or if Karzai remains a figurehead president. The elections
in Afghanistan was an American farce to convince the world that the
U.S. presence in Afghanistan is a presence by invitation of the duly
elected Afghan government - if anybody believes that! Hamid Karzai is
today an anachronistic puppet president akin to Philippe Petain, the
head of the Vichy regime established in occupied France by the Germans
during World War II. He will serve the occupier -like Petain did, but
when the war in Afghanistan ends, he will not be there - as Petain
wasn't. He will have either the deadly fate of Babrak Karmal, or
Hajifullah Amin, or he will live in exile- like Vietnam's last U.S.
puppeteers, Diem Van Thieu and Van Cao Ky. Some Muslims have commented
that Karzai get directs deposit of his presidential salary from the
U.S. at a Bank in Virginia, where the son of the former Shah of Iran,
Reza, also lives. Virginia has become the CIA repository of off-the-
shelf puppet leaders in waiting.

Now. How Obama's long term strategy in Afghanistan will then succeed
in the much touted 10-year plan? It won't! That is why Joseph Stalin
said about the German forces marching to Russia: "Let the dead march!"
He knew the Germans couldn't fight effectively in the Siberian winter,
and he knew he could destroy them in the long term. Also, Van Gao
Giap, the famous North Vietnamese Defense minister, said after the
U.S. defeat in Vietnam: "We knew that we will prevail, even if it took
time, because "victory" is the ultimate goal of the Vietnamese
military sciences." And as it happened in France, in Russia, to
imperial Japan, and in Vietnam, it will happen in Afghanistan too.
Invaders and puppet regimes don't last for ever. Karzai may be
temporarily happy, but he knows his tenure is borrowed time from the
U.S. forces. He can continue to be what is cynically describer as "the
Mayor of Kabul" inside Afghanistan, and titular president outside of
it. But his cosmetic presidential title, and Obama's cosmetic Nobel
prize laureate title, won't solve the Afghan war. The Afghan war will
be resolved according to the precedents of history - as aforementioned
above. And history always repeats itself, because those who don't know
history repeat the errors of the past. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

3/11/2009 1:03 PM GMT on walesonline.co.uk

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 8:41:13 AM11/3/09

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/10/on-afghanistan-2.html

On Afghanistan: We're too timid
5:33 PM Sat, Oct 31, 2009

The insurgents in Afghanistan must be comfortable dealing with
President Barack Obama. Since our timidity has been on display, the
Taliban are showing no fear.

The president, fiddling with excuses, should be a significant aid to
Taliban recruiting.

Charles S. Myers, Rowlett

We need global assistance

While I agree that there is no way we will be able to take care of the
problems in Afghanistan without a great deal more strength, the
Taliban and al-Qaeda are not just a problem for America and Europe.

Even if the Taliban don't attack China directly, China still should be
concerned about the safety and security of their No. 1 customer, which
is us.

India has a large stake in making sure that the Taliban are defeated.
If they're not, then Pakistan is in danger as well, with the strong
possibility that India would then have a much more dangerous enemy
across its border.

Russia is gun-shy about having anything to do with Afghanistan. But
its stake is as big as anybody's.

The Taliban are a threat to the whole world, and the world should be
responding. China, India and Russia need to be helping in the fight
against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and our leaders should be making
that clear to them -- not just sending more of our troops when we are
already stretched to, or well beyond, the limit.

John Vehon, Dallas

Remember Vietnam

This is a reminder about history to the people who are asking for more
troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Remember how many troops President
Lyndon B. Johnson sent to Vietnam. We should all remember how that
turned out.

Bob and J.J. Johnson, Flower Mound

Comments

Posted by elias @ 9:02 PM Sat, Oct 31, 2009
Recent estimates puts Taliban strength at at least 25,000 full time
fighters. There are an undetermined number of "week-end warriors" who
set road side bombs and engage in other part time hostilities against
foreign and government forces. Matthew Hoh, who recent resigned from
the US Foreign service in Afghanistan, stated in his resignation
letter, "In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of
the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but
rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by
an unrepresentative government in Kabul." If Hoh is correct, then
actual Taliban forces could be considerably smaller than what the
estimates indicate. General McChrystal has said that there is no sign
of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Even if there are 25,000 full time Taliban fighters plus some number
of part-timers, how can anyone come to the conclusion that they
present any kind of threat to the whole world as Mr. Vehon tries to
claim. The only way for them to pose a threat to the US is for our
government to stay there fighting them until we have a financial
collapse. Mr. Hoh agrees in his resignation letter. "'We are spending
ourselves into oblivion' a very talented and intelligent commander,
one of America's best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and
senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation's economy on a war,
which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to
come. Success victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in
years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The
United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and
victory."

President Obama big mistake was stating that the Afghan War is a
necessary war. The effort in Afghanistan serves no valid purpose for
the American people, while its continuance is to our detriment.

Posted by oldagg @ 1:07 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
John V. if you think China will EVER put troops ANYWHERE that might
help the US - you need a brain transplant. If you will recall, the
only time they have committed troops to a war it was AGAINST US
(Korea) and they supported NVN also with guns and butter.

Repeat after me: Communist China is NOT our friend.

Oldagg

Posted by Justice Denied @ 3:45 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
"Russia is gun-shy about having anything to do with Afghanistan."

Gun-shy? The Russians are laughing so hard at American stupidity that
they are rolling on the ground. How the heck are they going to hold
guns?

Posted by Jack @ 4:26 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
Remember folks General McChrystal was in charge of the investigation
in the Pat Tillman fiasco and gave him a silver star to coverup the
friendly fire. He is just another Military-Industrial warmonger and
thinks the more power is in his having more troops to show how
important he is.

Posted by Bill Burris @ 7:09 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
Elias; you seem to forget the actual reason for cleaning out
Afghanistan in the first place. Without a strong government and with a
strong Taliban presence left there, the Taliban will once again secure
most or all of the country. Then, unless they learned a tough lesson
(though we have yet to see any radical Muslims learn any lessons
regarding the costs of someone else’s lives), Al Qaeda would be right
back in business, setting up training camps and training future
attackers.

With enough forces, the Taliban could be herded back towards the
mountains, while Pakistan herds their Taliban trash to the mountains
from the east. If cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S. could be
established, the Taliban, and possibly Bin Laden himself, could be
eradicated.

Then we leave.

Posted by elias @ 9:17 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
Mr. Burris,

Actually, I didn't forget the reason for "cleaning" out Afghanistan in
the first place. Most of the things you talk about are things you made
up in your head and they have no relationship to reality. The US will
be broke along time before Afghanistan is "cleaned" out.

"If cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S... " That definitely
shows how little you know about the matter. Pakistan helped create the
Taliban. They just play a little game while taking US money.

"Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is
coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan’s spy
service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the
officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet
regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or
scale back violence before the Afghan elections." from Afghan Strikes
by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC
SCHMITT

al Qaeda didn't need Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks, and they don't
need it for any future attacks. Lives and valuable resources are being
wasted there while fomenting even more hatred toward the US. Whatever
the war in Afghanistan is really about, it is not about making this
country secure.

Posted by Justice Denied @ 9:35 PM Sun, Nov 01, 2009
BB's comment "Then we leave."

Like in Phillipines after 90 years and after making half the females
prostitutes?

Like in Germany? Even after 60 years, american troops still there

Leave like you left Kuwait? Saddam is no more but American goons in
uniform still there.

chhotemianinshallah

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 11:12:44 AM11/3/09

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/03/kt-mcfarland-karzai-pull-plug-pakistan-support/

- November 03, 2009
Pull the Plug on Afghanistan

Rather than prop up a corrupt and incompetent President Karzai in a
country where Al Qaeda is no more, we should instead give Pakistan's
president all the help to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
AP

President Karzai of Afghanistan has just stolen an election and gotten
away with it. Despite being universally criticized as corrupt and
incompetent, he is likely to rule Afghanistan for another five years.

And we're expecting American men and women to fight and die to defend
his regime? This is nuts, especially if the country descends into
civil war and we're expected to take sides. It's time to pull the plug
on President Karzai and reconnect with our primary national security
objective - defeating Al Qaeda - not just in Afghanistan but
worldwide.

We invaded Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, and we succeeded - years
ago. We defeated Al Qaeda, and toppled their Taliban government hosts
in a matter of months. But we then fell victim to mission creep. We
stayed to help the Afghanis form a new government; write a
constitution; create and train their army and police forces; build
their economy; eradicate the poppy crop, and now to fight a growing
militancy and a resurgent Taliban. Despite eight years of an ever-
expanding mission, we're losing the fight in Afghanistan. According to
our top commander in Afghanistan, the much respected Gen. McChrystal,
we're facing certain defeat if we don't change strategies and increase
our troop strength.

The American military is the most extraordinary and formidable
fighting force the world has ever seen. They pulled off a miracle in
Iraq and, if given adequate time and resources, they could probably do
the same in Afghanistan. The question is not whether they can do it;
it's whether they should do it. Does it make sense to focus on
Afghanistan as our number one national security priority, especially
since Al Qaeda left years ago? Does it make good strategic sense to
commit the majority of our military resources to Afghanistan, leaving
us vulnerable elsewhere around the world? Is it possible to make a
separate peace with Afghanistan' provincial governors, tribal leaders
and warlords instead of fighting against them to prop up a corrupt
president?

When we cleared Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan in late 2001, they
decamped across the border into Pakistan - a much richer prize from
their perspective because it possesses nuclear weapons. They've since
allied with the Pakistan Taliban and set their sights on Pakistan's
nuclear weapons. Could Al Qaeda return to Afghanistan if the country
once again descends into chaos? Sure, but they're much more likely to
move on Islamabad than on Kabul.

Yet, as much as Afghanistan's President Karzai has been a
disappointment to American interests, Pakistan's President Zardari has
been an unexpected surprise. Previous Pakistani leaders paid lip
service to defeating Islamic militants within their country. They
played us like a fiddle: pledging their support, taking our aid, and
sitting on their hands.

President Asif Ali Zardari has proved to be a leader willing leader
willing to take the fight to the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies.
Zardari has transferred crack Army troops from the Indian border to
the Afghan border. He's cleared the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.
He's fighting a serious battle in South Waziristan and has plans to
move into North Waziristan. Unlike his predecessor Musharaff, Zardari
has come to realize that it's either him or them, especially after
Taliban extremists murdered his wife Benazir Bhutto.

Rather than prop up a corrupt and incompetent President Karzai in a
country where Al Qaeda is no more, we should instead give President
Zardari all the assistance he needs so that his forces can defeat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda. He has many flaws, but at least he's willing to
fight. He doesn't want our troops, but he needs our military
assistance and economic aid. That's where we should be putting our
efforts, and redoubling them to prevent Pakistan from falling to
Islamic extremists in league with Al Qaeda. As for Afghanistan, we
should bypass Karzai and work directly with Afghanistan's individual
provincial governors and tribal leaders to keep their regions Al Qaeda-
free zones. Let them protect themselves, with generous contributions
from us, but without American troops. It is cheaper to buy friends
than kill enemies.

In the end, the greatest threat to America doesn't come from the
desolate hills and caves of Afghanistan, but from nuclear weapons in
Pakistan. In an ideal world, perhaps America should push for both. But
in a world of realities -- where we must set priorities and pick our
fights -- an unstable, Taliban-dominated Pakistan with nuclear weapons
is far more dangerous to America's security than an unstable
Afghanistan.

Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland served in national security posts in the
Nixon, Ford and Reagan Administrations, where she was a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense. She does a weekly video-blog for FOX
News, DEFCON 3 by KT. Her Web site is KTMcFarland.com

Illinois

Excellent article! Hamid Karzai was initially appointed president of
Afghanistan by the U.S. at the insistence of then Pakistan president
Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf knew that Pashtun is the biggest Afghan
tribe, and argued that only a Pashtun can survive as an American
puppet in kabul. But Karzai is being hunted by his own tribe, the
Taliban, who represent the 42% of Pashtun Afghans. And since the

Taliban insurgency is driven by Pashtuns, and Karzai cling in power

with bribes and corruption to other warlords and the protection of the
U.S. forces, he has no legitimacy whatsoever. After all, the election
process that re-elected him was declared fraudulent by the United
Nations! But let's forget the elections because it doesn't really

matter that Abdullah dropped out, or if the Second Round of elections
was cancelled, or if Karzai remains a figurehead president. The
elections in Afghanistan was an American farce to convince the world
that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is a presence by invitation of
the duly elected Afghan government - if anybody believes that! Hamid
Karzai is today an anachronistic puppet president akin to Philippe
Petain, the head of the Vichy regime established in occupied France by
the Germans during World War II. He will serve the occupier -like
Petain did, but when the war in Afghanistan ends, he will not be there
- as Petain wasn't. He will have either the deadly fate of Babrak
Karmal, or Hajifullah Amin, or he will live in exile- like Vietnam's
last U.S. puppeteers, Diem Van Thieu and Van Cao Ky. Some Muslims have
commented that Karzai get directs deposit of his presidential salary
from the U.S. at a Bank in Virginia, where the son of the former Shah
of Iran, Reza, also lives. Virginia has become the CIA repository of

off-the-shelf puppet leaders in waiting. Now. How Obama's long term

strategy in Afghanistan will then succeed in the much touted 10-year
plan? It won't! That is why Joseph Stalin said about the German forces
marching to Russia: "Let the dead march!" He knew the Germans couldn't
fight effectively in the Siberian winter, and he knew he could destroy
them in the long term. Also, Van Gao Giap, the famous North Vietnamese
Defense minister, said after the U.S. defeat in Vietnam: "We knew that
we will prevail, even if it took time, because "victory" is the
ultimate goal of the Vietnamese military sciences." And as it happened
in France, in Russia, to imperial Japan, and in Vietnam, it will
happen in Afghanistan too. Invaders and puppet regimes don't last for
ever. Karzai may be temporarily happy, but he knows his tenure is
borrowed time from the U.S. forces. He can continue to be what is
cynically describer as "the Mayor of Kabul" inside Afghanistan, and
titular president outside of it. But his cosmetic presidential title,
and Obama's cosmetic Nobel prize laureate title, won't solve the
Afghan war. The Afghan war will be resolved according to the
precedents of history - as aforementioned above. And history always
repeats itself, because those who don't know history repeat the errors
of the past. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 9:13 AM
moodi_21Pakistan

Indeed an Excellent article. Pakistan armyâ s assault into South
Waziristan's unforgiving mountains has triggered a bloody backlash
from militants, who are determined to bring the war out of the remote,
northwestern region and into the country's cities in hopes of eroding
public and political support. World should appreciate Pakistanâ s
commitment in fighting these dirty rats (Taliban, al Qaeda) and should
help Pakistan in providing anti-terror equipment etc... Please stop
complaining about Pakistanâ s nuclear asset, itâ s not a candy that
can be stolen so easily. Itâ s not helping US, trying to reduce
tension with allied state (Pakistan) and trying to develop friendly
image with Pakistani peoples. Wars are won by wining the hearts and
minds of the people living there. US should help Pakistan government
in educating its people and providing jobs opportunities to them. This
in turn, will eradicate extremist elements from Pakistani soil.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Sid Harth

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 1:42:26 PM11/3/09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301851.html

White House: corruption must end in Afghanistan
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 3, 2009; 1:07 PM

WASHINGTON -- The White House says specific steps are needed to crack
down on corruption in Afghanistan.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday said the U.S. embassy in
Kabul is working with President Hamid Karzai to improve governance in
Afghanistan. Gibbs says he was reluctant to get ahead of what those
discussions might yield.

But President Barack Obama's top spokesman says the president wants a
serious approach to cutting out corruption from that country. Gibbs
says the U.S. cannot keep simply hoping corruption would end without
concrete steps.

Karzai won another term on Monday after his opponent dropped out of
the planned runoff, saying the election could not be free or fair.

Sid Harth

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 1:51:28 PM11/3/09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/my-exclusive-interview-wi_b_343662.html

Kathleen Wells, J.D.A
blogger on politics and law who draws upon her political science and
legal background
Posted: November 3, 2009 10:54 AM BIO
My Exclusive Interview with Ken Guest -- Journalist/Analyst on
Afghanistan (Part 2)

Ken Guest: The present strategy buzzword is "reintegration," which
considers embracing aspects of the Pushtun tribal dynamic and drawing
them back in. It is a beginning, but not enough -- not least as it is
stumbles at the first hurdle. It assumes tribe can be reintegrated,
but ignores that the tribe dynamic was never a force integrated into
central government command. It was always an autonomous, cooperative
alliance. For that to work, both sides need to feel an advantage, not
just central government. As tribe was never "integrated" as part of
central government, the concept of "reintegration" is something of a
misnomer.

All attempts at this have foundered because, as structured into
Western strategy, it is not really tribal at all. It is a device of
central government, which the tribes consider to be a meddling outside
force rarely to be trusted.

For the tribal matrix to work as part of US strategy, and it must if
better results are desired, it is imperative to understand the view
and dynamic of the tribes before planning how to use them. The
rejected "Abdul Haq option" in 2001 did just that. It is time to go
back and examine what he offered and if anything can be salvaged. Of
course some things have changed. There is now an elected Afghan
government in the equation, Pakistan is significantly less stable, the
U.S. has a large military footprint, and old warlords are back in
evidence. However, let's not be distracted from the core concept,
which still stands, as does the untapped capacity of the Pushtun
tribes. The issue is have strategy planners now in earnest debate in
the White House learned enough on the steep Afghan learning curve to
recognize the value of effectively using the most abundant force on
the ground. It has always been the Afghan tribes.

It will be hard to see from within the cloistered corridors of power,
that Obama is unwittingly presented with what amounts to three ways to
fail; remain the same, expand the footprint or reduce the scale and
focus on al Qaeda. The prime difference between them is the time and
cost it will take to fail.

The fourth option, the tribal path, is not being presented as it is so
poorly understood, it is hard for Western strategy planners to
support. It involves a strategy flip whilst already committed and
deployed to a war. That is a fearful thing for strategy planners to
contemplate, more so when the dynamics involved remain something of a
mystery.

The path out of the Afghan Quagmire lies in this fourth option, making
the Afghan tribes the cutting blade of the strategy, not the US forces
or the Afghan National Army. As this overturns conventional wisdom,
which supports conventional means, it is resisted. That resistance
leads to assumptions, by significantly expanding the Afghan Army and
Police and throwing in some cosmetically attractive tribal militias
you end up with nearly the same thing. You don't, as it fails to make
the most of the prime resource, the Pushtun tribes, in the manner they
are most geared to be effective.

It would also be a mistake to assume this makes supporting the prime
force on the ground about 'buying off' the tribes. That assumes they
are intrinsically, as a whole, opposed to the US. They are not opposed
to support but are opposed to what they perceive as unsupportive. They
seek that which most enables them to be what they want to be,
autonomous and in command of their own domain. Taliban are far more
effectively able to persuade them that such support is best served by
Taliban. It isn't, as Taliban must first befriend the tribes and then
undermine and overwhelm their traditional systems.

In the interim, most of the tribal mass, sit on the fence waiting to
determine who is winning. They will side with that as they, unlike the
West, must remain in place after the result is called. In considering
this, it is worth knowing it's a sharp fence and they can't sit on it
forever.

Before decisions are carved in stone a deeper consideration of how to
effectively tap into the potential of the tribes must be made. By that
means, the strategy can be flipped and a better result attained. The
mantra for the planners should be: knowledge dispels fear.

Jalalallabad, 2009

Kathleen Wells: The U.S. presence in Afghanistan has resulted in a
high civilian casualty rate. What effect is that having upon the
Afghan mindset?

Ken Guest: In the Afghan conflict, whoever commands perception will
win. So it is not just what we in the West intend or how we do it,
because it matters more how our actions are perceived. The Taliban
will do all to present Western presence and action in a bad light.
They are very adept at Psyops in an Afghan context, far more so than
us because they have the advantage of really understanding the culture
and the grass roots dynamics in a way we are not.

Anything the West does that feeds them something they can exploit is a
defeat for West and a victory for Taliban. Where we cause, however
unintentionally, civilian deaths, we batter our chance of a better
result. The bitter pill for the West is having to be very restrictive
in our deployment of air delivered kinetic response as it is this
action that causes most of the civilian deaths and can so easily be
used by the Taliban to suggest the Western approach to war in
Afghanistan is every bit as brutal as the Soviet's. It's not, but
that's not the point, the point is how it is presented by the Taliban
to the Afghan civilians.

To find a better path, the West should mimic what works best on the
ground, which means aspects of how the Taliban manages their campaign.
This should begin with far greater investment in effective Psyops.

General [Stanley] McChrystal already advocates something similar,
writing in the September issue of Mirror (the official magazine of
ISAF), "If we harm Afghan civilians, we sow the seeds of our own
defeat."

Kathleen Wells: UN official Peter Galbraith stated, "The [election]
fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight
years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners." Is the
Afghan government a legitimate partner with the U.S.?

Ken Guest: On the issue of Afghan election fraud, it is important to
retain context and perspective. The turnout was in line with European
Union elections. It was only the second government election in the
history of Afghanistan. There were bound to be issues, not least as
about 76% of the population is illiterate, unable to read or
understand the ballot. Even U.S. 2000 Presidential elections were
tainted by charges of election irregularities, a subject and debate
that was overtaken by 9/11.

Karzai was also the favored candidate supported by the U.S. to be head
of the interim government and during the first election. He was
destined to win the present election irrespective of any fraud in his
favor because there was no other candidate with the ability to
construct a viable opposition. The collection of those who thought
they could oppose Karzai and win threw away any chance they had by
being incapable of forging an effective alliance. Even without any
election irregularity, Karzai was going to win. In the real politic of
the Afghan reality, it is unquestionably in U.S. interest to accept
what the majority of Afghans accepted before the election--Karzai
would serve a second term. Not to support him and try and achieve
change from within risks greater instability, making the challenges
facing US forces even greater.

If there are doubts about Karzai in Washington, the U.S. should still
support him now as better than the alternative, chaos. Looking to
[the] future, they should, as a precaution against adversity, be
considering and grooming the next generation of Afghan politicians.
None of the names that featured so prominently, in the Western media,
as contenders for power in the present elections stood any chance of
winning, other than Karzai. That's the reality from an Afghan
perspective.

Galbraith's suggestion is a view forged in a bubble, isolated from
connection to the common Afghans. Galbraith's "greatest strategic
victory" for the Taliban remark may be useful as a confrontational
quote or a sound bite, but as a measure to the Taliban's actual
"strategic victories" it has no value whatsoever. It's a throwaway
line that should be thrown away. It is far more useful, to understand
what was really the Taliban's greatest strategic victory, which has
nothing to do with the results, of the present elections. It was the
strategy the West used in the rush to enter Afghanistan. Lacking a
good foundation, it was weak from the start and to the value of the
Taliban it remained weak. The debate now is about fixing it, or better
still, changing it.

There are many challenges facing Karzai, but let this not cloud [the
fact] that he has been steadfast in something of great value to the
U.S., his support for the U.S. at a time when the U.S. was reliant
upon it.

Kathleen Wells: So, the Karzai government is not despised by the
Afghan people?

Ken Guest: That's correct. Among a wide part of the ordinary Afghans,
as shown by the election result, he is not despised. Do not be blinded
by Western media on the issue of fraud. It occurred not just in
Karzai's favor, it [also] occurred across the board, including in
Abdullah Abdullah's home turf in Panjshir (which Abdullah, because
that fraud favored him, lightly dismissed as no more than "over
enthusiasm"). As a Pushtun leader, Karzai is less despised than simply
accepted. What really matters to the ordinary Afghans is not who is
President, but [whether] they will they have more or less stability.

Part 1 of my interview with Guest can be seen here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/my-exclusive-interview-wi_b_335136.html

Comments1

YIX I'm a Fan of YIX I'm a fan of this user permalink
Kathleen,
A complete eye opener. Why hasn't this been in the national news
media?
Great interview.
Jack
Posted 11:46 AM on 11/03/2009

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages