UN criticism not likely to stop CIA drone strikes - later version of the story, elaborating on how this could be used to rationalize the extradition and foreign trial of any CIA officers involved.

Meanwhile, Obama chose to skip the 20th anniversary celebration, and Hillary Clinton tried to suggest that there needed to be greater European and global unity on current issues such as climate change.  Always pushing the Obama agenda - despite the obvious failure of statist rule which is right in front of her face.

Will the Germans actually suffer a major attack?  Will they waver or become stronger in response?  Given German history, Al Qaeda may be making another very serious miscalculation by anticipating weakness.  Germans may be reluctant to resort to war because they have known the full horrors of unleashing it, but a major attack on Germany would likely harden their resolve to fight back vigorously, as 9/11 did in America.

See further comments and the full text of Obama's speech in Accra, Ghana

Read past the headline for some other memorable quotes, such as "I'm not reconciled with that" when asked about the risk of Iran getting nuclear weapons during his term of office.  How weak is that?

The White House word of the day, both for David Axelrod on ABC and Susan Rice on NBC, was to characterize Ahmedinejad's accusations as "bloviating".  Is this latest stunt trying to suggest that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News is the moral equivalent of that tyrant?  That seems similar to other red herrings, like their attacks on Rush Limbaugh.  The obvious point is that it is the Obama administration which is doing the bloviating these days - through empty rhetoric as they try to distract from their failed policy initiatives and growing evidence of weakness and naivete.

One would think that Obama would have learned that lesson by now.  He is evidently a slow learner in this regard, or is simply willing to appear naive, obsequious and weak as he continues his global apology tour.  As President, he is free to bow to whoever he pleases, whether or not his diplomats do so or recommend it.  That may have adverse consequences among American voters, and reinforce an image of weakness among foreign observers, but the President is free to appear as weak and naive as he pleases.  The same is true of Congressional delegations, which are also free to make harmful protocol gaffes against all advice.

Make it clear right now - before they expose any such secrets - that by taking this action Japan will no longer be defended by US forces or by US nuclear or anti-missile capabilities.  Let Japan invest in their own defense according to their own perceived threats and national security interests, and see how the Chinese, Russians, and Koreans like the prospect of a re-militarized Japan.

The US government should very quietly urge the Chinese to help persuade North Korea to expel them after a show trial which is presumably intended mainly to intimidate other foreign journalists and to send a clear message to any North Koreans about the dangers of talking to such journalists.  There should be no illusion in North Korea that they can be traded back to us like hostages for some advantage, because that would just reinforce the idea that similar kidnappings can be useful tools in future crises.

No matter how much we or the Chinese might deny any such plot, Kim might fear it, and might purge his military leadership of anybody who is perceived to be a potential threat in that regard - thereby stirring up potential military dissent and resistance to his continued rule without any overt provocation.

Obama welcomes South Korea to anti-nuke group - A symbolic gesture toward North Korea.

Obama: N. Korea 'recklessly challenging' the world - Welcome to the real world beyond rhetoric.  So, is it time to declare Joe Biden a prophet for predicting that his apparent weakness would be tested?

Follow #IranElection on Twitter for news directly out of Tehran and protests in other cities in Iran.

Meanwhile, Obama declined to show up at the 20th anniversary ceremony commemorating the destruction of the Berlin Wall despite a personal invitation from Angela Merkel.  He probably didn't want to remember that Reagan and Bush contributed to that success over authoritarian statist tyranny, socialism, and communism.  Maybe he will go celebrate Carter's failure in Iran by meeting with Ahmedinejad soon.

One possibility is that the Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan are looking to deflect the Pakistani Army from their focus on South Waziristan. Stirring up trouble on the Baluchi frontier with Iran from their base in Quetta might raise fears of conflict with Iran over such cross-border raids, and thus prod the Pakistani Army to have a more visible (and unpopular and risky) presence in the Quetta area. The same logic might apply to any efforts to stir up trouble in other places, like the Kashmir region or in various cities within Pakistan. In short, use small attacks in many places to try to scatter Army resources and make the government of Pakistan look ineffective and weak.

Pay dirt: Digging, clues revealed Iranian site - Exposed after many years of persistent lies.  How can we possibly trust any agreement with this duplicitous Iranian regime of fanatics to be verifiable?

Make it clear that they will gain no advantage by having such a weapon. On the contrary, they will assure their own annihilation.  They may be able to do harm to us, but we can certainly do far more harm to them.  Few countries will be keen to obtain nuclear weapons once they see how well our modern ones work. They won't be joining an exclusive club of military powers. They will be assuring their own destruction.

Meanwhile, the Obama White House staff is producing their own online propaganda videos and direct online communications now, much to the chagrin of some members of the White House press corps.

Why You Should Read and Support Michael Yon by J.R. Head in Big Hollywood blog

Taliban code of conduct seeks to win hearts, minds

Having visited Americans who had the misfortune to be arrested in Karachi, even though they were often afforded better treatment than Pakistani criminals, I have little doubt that this guy will wish that he had been arrested by American military forces and given Miranda rights by Obama instead.

I vividly remember how a Pakistani chief of police described some of his preferred interrogation methods for uncooperative prisoners. Rest assured that it makes Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo look very appealing. At least the leftists can rest easy, knowing that he won't be waterboarded. It will be much, much worse unless the CIA officers persuade the ISI to do a good cop / bad cop routine with him and he cooperates.

AP Analysis: Afghanistan pullout date not definite - Dare we say dithering again?  If the goal is to put pressure on the Afghan government to step up to the plate in the expectation that we will start to leave in 2011, then it doesn't sound like much pressure at all.  More like wishful thinking or political cover for domestic purposes.  The exit strategy is to be ready to weasel out of whatever happens for domestic political purposes.  Take credit if it goes well, and change strategy again if it doesn't.

The West Point cadets had to applaud politely on cue and try to stay awake or stifle yawns and appear respectful during the speech, but Rumsfeld is under no such constraints now - like Cheney.

Gates: US cannot cede Afghanistan to Taliban

No wait!  Maybe it's Mortimer Durand's fault!  If he hadn't split the Pashtun tribal area when setting up the modern border between Afghanistan and Pakistan in 1893, maybe none of this would have ever happened.  That's right!  It's the fault of those scheming British imperialists!  It's not Obama's problem!

Over Tora Bora - blog entry in Mudville Gazette is a nice reality check for perspective on this story

US eyes Afghan drawdown starting by 2013: report - Giving the Taliban a chance to plan ahead.

Maybe the fact that corruption may be common at all levels disguises the distinction between local deals which reward results and distant deals which seem to deliver very little. Foreign business leaders and "experts" may confuse the usual tribal skepticism in the benefit of a strong central government with willingness to accept local corruption as a well-established practice which seems to work well despite any ethical concerns about it - as in Chicago.

So far, from a distance, the attacks seem to just be ruthless retaliation against obvious ISI targets, without any remarkable level of sophistication or success at targeting some officials and not others.  Like the random attacks on civilians in markets as easy targets, they seem intent on intimidation and spreading terror in general, without showing any capability for more precise targeting of key officials as hard targets.

Afghan's Karzai effectively handed 2nd term

Cheney: Obama's Afghan War Strategy 'Bears Striking Resemblance' to Bush's  When the Obama staff persists in telling lies and blaming Bush, the gloves come off - even if many in the media will ignore it.

Afghan ambassador comes out swinging against election critics - points out that a coalition is illegal.

Afghans take steps to prevent fraud in next vote  Fewer polling places, with many new officials.

One possibility is that the Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan are looking to deflect the Pakistani Army from their focus on South Waziristan. Stirring up trouble on the Baluchi frontier with Iran from their base in Quetta might raise fears of conflict with Iran over such cross-border raids, and thus prod the Pakistani Army to have a more visible (and unpopular and risky) presence in the Quetta area. The same logic might apply to any efforts to stir up trouble in other places, like the Kashmir region or in various cities within Pakistan. In short, use small attacks in many places to try to scatter Army resources and make the government of Pakistan look ineffective and weak.

Think of it as inflating the price of corruption until the enemy can't compete.  Pay to play, as they call it here in Illinois politics.  Compare that Democratic political strategy to the cost of war, or of losing.

Afghan frustration mounts over vote delay

The new White House political strategy seems to be to just blame it all on Karzai and corruption (nothing new in Afghanistan) and walk away, regardless of the risks of failure, rather than risk facing up to the fact that the plan was naive and flawed from the start.  See more thoughts on winning in Afghanistan.

After he finishes his Olympic sales pitch in Copenhagen as cover, Obama should get back onto Air Force One and head to Kabul for a heart-to-heart with McChrystal and his team, as well as Karzai and preferably Abdullah to show his concern about election fraud. If he comes back to Washington to hold more inconclusive meetings and speeches, that will be a mistake.

Obama - go watch "Charlie Wilson's War" and pay attention to the final scene.

We screwed up the endgame in Afghanistan by leaving the Afghans to suffer under different tyrants once the ones of concern to us (Soviets) were gone. The way to finish the game is to not treat them like pawns in our own grand Asian or global strategy, as past empires have done, but rather to work with the local Afghan leaders (not the latest corrupt tyrant wannabes in Kabul). Look at how quickly public attitudes shifted against the Taliban in Pakistan once their atrocities in Swat reminded citizens elsewhere of the threat they posed, and how little they had to offer other than sustained and brutal misery.

The question here is not the American strategy for victory, but rather the Afghan strategy for creating a successful country that no longer requires our presence. Karzai seems to have made little progress in that direction, so even the Pashtuns are losing patience with him. That doesn't mean that Afghans want the Taliban and leaders like Omar to come back. The foreign media may ignore how many Afghans the Taliban are still killing, and that may intimidate some Afghans, but even the Soviets couldn't rule by intimidation.

Bottom line: Are we trying to help create a strong central government in a country where the people are justifiably suspicious of any national leaders, given the long history of national tyranny and relentless local resistance to it? Corruption at the local level may seem pervasive from our societal perspective, but that doesn't mean they want to escalate it to the national level. Locally, they can still control it.  Nationally, it becomes a threat to all except the small elite in power.  That unites diverse opposition as a check on power. 

Not enough Americans are paying attention to the situation in Afghanistan these days. Obama's new strategy could still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at a tremendous future cost, just as Bush Sr and Congress blew the endgame after the Soviets were forced out and thereby set the stage for the rise of al Qaeda and the Taliban. As Obama's political support and agenda in Congress collapses like Carter's, the risks are high that he will just throw the Afghans under the bus again, and thereby set the stage for future crises in the region. He seems clueless about how to deal with a country where people don't want a strong central government.

June 27, 2009 - US announces big shift in Afghanistan drug policy - Comment: What alternate crops do you suggest which grow like a weed in such a climate and are worth so much?

How can we make progress at helping Afghans to build a better future if we follow this strategy?  Why would local tribal leaders support us if they know we will back off if they come under attack?  Are we trying to lure the Taliban back into Afghanistan along with pressure now from Pakistan?

The Taliban murder civilians deliberately to enforce their control, and use them as hostages or "human shields".  It will be a bloody fight, but the myth that the Taliban can operate with impunity in the frontier needs to be shaken severely enough that local tribal leaders will risk standing up to their tyranny.  The Army won't defeat the Taliban alone, but it can weaken them until the tribes turn on the Taliban.  That will also require high confidence that the Pakistani government will better respect their local tribal interests rather than soon go away again and leave them exposed to vicious Taliban reprisals.

This could push Pakistan back to military rule as the lesser of evils, and that's unfortunate because it might lead to civil war against the tribal regions. That would rip the country apart as partition from India did.

Comment: This may seem to be a "just cause" from a populist American political perspective, but that's irrelevant.  Wars are not won by their cause being "just".  They are won by defeating the most determined enemy despite the cost of doing so.  Are these lofty war goals attainable with the limited resources involved?  Will Afghans and Pakistanis share this goal?  Some of their leaders may share our perception of al-Qaida as a threat, but they and their people have many complex goals.  You might as well declare that it is our goal to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of guns.  Lofty rhetoric, but not a viable strategy, because few people in the tribal regions of either country would share such a goal.  They really do cling to their guns and religion - and certainly don't trust a strong central government, because they already know that it has rarely brought them anything except prolonged misery.

An interesting twist is the high level of Iranian investment in Dubai, and how that may play out.

Asia markets slide on Dubai debt fears

Obama's speech at Cairo University - with our comments - he definitely doesn't deserve tenure.

The correct response should be that we will respect them when they earn our respect, not demand it.  We owe no apologies to "Muslims", because we treat them with respect here.  What we don't respect are the tyrants among them who have perpetuated misery and conflict in their region for centuries, and who wish to spread their tyranny to other countries, including our own.  We resolutely oppose them.

There are some very honorable environmentalists out there, but this is like trying to police the Wild West from a comfortable office in Washington DC or Brussels, or trying to enforce Prohibition in Chicago.  Don't expect "The Untouchables" to show up in the Amazon just because world leaders decide to pay off the Brazilian government for more such enforcement activity. That would be like paying Chicago politicians to track but not stop Al Capone, thus playing both sides.  It just raises the political corruption cost of "protection" for the criminals.  Any honest cops work at their own peril.

Meanwhile, Europeans are talking about how to send more aid to the area so that young people in Somalia won't be tempted to go into piracy.  This is not a joke!  They actually believe this nonsense.  What on earth is going to reward them as much as going into piracy if there are millions in ransoms to be paid by the shipowners and insurers, and virtually no consequences for these crimes?  This is like expecting Afghans to grow low-value subsistence crops instead of high-value weeds like opium.

NATO and Russia resume military ties - 10 months after the Russian invasion of Georgia

Costly and really brief: Is G-20 really worth it? - Comment:  No.

Will Obama perhaps reciprocate by blocking any visa application by European MP Daniel Hannan?  After all, his blunt criticism of Gordon Brown and similar Obama policies makes him a radical extremist, too.

September 10, 2009 - Top US official: Climate bill urgently needed - Comment: Pay attention to what is being done to replace the Kyoto agreement in the Copenhagen summit this December.  Special envoy Todd Stern (bio here) has been leading the State Department discussions with China and India behind the scenes in recent months.

Chinese troops flood streets after riots - later version of the story

Too bad that virtually none of the news media in the United States has paid any attention to this story - like our own Tea Parties or the protests in Iran.  Are they on the side of the tyrants (like Obama), or do they just think that any such resistance is futile and therefore not newsworthy?

"On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Honduras issued a statement expressing "deep concern over restrictions imposed on certain fundamental rights" by Micheletti's government, including a curfew in force since Sunday, and "reports of intimidation and censorship against certain individuals and media outlets."

Honduran coup leader to AP: Zelaya won't return - Comment:  But don't let him stay here.

Some countries make it far too easy for tyrants to simply change the rules to suit themselves.  Should we really be defending all "legal" tyrants?  Why not let the Hondurans sort this one out?

Meanwhile, Obama chose to skip the 20th anniversary celebration, and Hillary Clinton tried to suggest that there needed to be greater European and global unity on current issues such as climate change.  Always pushing the Obama agenda - despite the obvious failure of statist rule which is right in front of her face.  Clinton praises Germany on Berlin Wall tour 

"Conservative Search" tool

Tea Party - the movie

Join the 9/12 DC network

Featured Links

Referrals and research tools - Where to grow a business

Research state and local business investment climates

Executive Search Firms

Economist Research Tools