Bush Speech Bookends Posted by Adam Blickstein

And Obama closes his speech where it began: establishing himself as the antithesis of Bush at the UN:

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 the past – 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 waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

But more importantly, this is an implicit shout out to the people of Iran and those in the U.S., especially in Congress, who demand American intervention through sanctions in the still ongoing turmoil there. We support democratic movements but we cannot simply create them with a heavy stick.

Obama v. Kyl Posted by Adam Blickstein

This is productive engagement on ensuring American and global security:

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.

[snip]

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.

And this is empty political posturing and obstructing American national security that is more at home in 1989 or 1999 not 2009:

But on ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, another pillar of Obama’s nonproliferation strategy, Kyl said he wouldn’t budge.     

“I will lead the charge against it and I will do everything in my power to see that it is defeated,” he said. That’s no empty threat from Kyl, who led the successful opposition to ratification when the treaty was brought to the Senate in 1999.

Applause Lines So Far Posted by Heather Hurlburt

"America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements"

"seek a just peace among Israel, Palestine and the Arab world"

Darfur

paying our bills at the UN

and, unlike the US Congress, no heckling

"It's Easy to walk Up to this Podium and to point fingers and stoke division" Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Ladies and gentlemen, our president just told the UN General Assembly to grow up.  I will be waiting for the appreciations from the UN's conservative critics.  I suspect I will be waiting a while.

El Diablo No Mas? Posted by Adam Blickstein

It's clear while not mentioning his name, Obama's UN speech is rooted in establishing his presidency and approach towards the UN as the polar opposite of President Bush's:

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. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

While the right will continue to call this another stop on his apology tour, or timidity in the face of tyranical regimes or transnational threats, Obama is simply bringing America back to a critical leadership role in the world. The fact the word "engagement" is the central motif the speech will drive conservatives wild, but after 8 years of failed unilateral policies and widespread alienation around the world which imperiled American national security, Obama is confronting them head on. Rightly so.

Obama to UN: Put Up or Shut Up Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Looking at the speech excerpts, I'm kind of tempted to brand this Obama's "Sister Souljah" speech -- pointing out how responsibility is shared globally and how nobody should be satisfied that

the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action."

Saying that no one nation can solve all the world's problems also takes on a certain reverse-thrust tone -- as in, you guys have to stop using the US as an excuse for your inactions and inadequacies.

And boy, does the tone and content have Ambassador Susan Rice's fingerprints all over it.

CGI Open Thread Posted by Adam Blickstein

I'm over at the Clinton Global Initiative's Opening Plenary Panel. Will provide some running thoughts as the session proceeds.

Clinton just introduced Muhtar Kent, President and CEO of Coca Cola. Coke has one of the best track records on global development, including  a pledge to by 2010, returning all the water they use annually for manufacturing processes to the environment at a level that supports aquatic life and agriculture. A sort of water-neutral footprint. Interesting, according to Wikipedia:

Muhtar Kent found a job at The Coca-Cola Company through a newspaper ad. He toured the country in trucks to sell Coca-Cola, and thereby learned its distribution, marketing and logistics systems.

The President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, says it's time to pass from words to action in the current economic crisis and we must use the crisis as an opportunity for green recovery. She brings up Chile's economic crisis in the 1980's, but also said that when copper prices were extremely high, a lot of the profit was saved instead of spent and through strong fiscal strategies, and by investing 2.9% GDP, they were able to both promote economic growth and provide social safety nets which allowed the Chile to come out of the crisis.

Bill Clinton just said American members of Congress should be embarrassed that Chile, who's GDP per capita is a little below $15,000 (U.S. is around $47,000) can insure their entire population while the U.S. cannot.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd addressing climate change. One thing Bill Clinton said last night is that Australia is one of America's most 'conservative' allies, yet it probably has probably the most progressive global leader on climate change. 

Clinton just asked Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke how his company was able to drastically cut emissions, increase efficiency and reduce its carbon footprint while increasing its profit margin. Duke says they integrated sustainability into its business model, it's the right thing to do and right for business. He says the bottom line it was a smart business decision that he wants to accelrate, not slow down. Also acknowledges that America can absolutely follow this model, cut emmissions and grow our economy.

An aside, Clinton makes the point that by 2010, Israel will have 100,000 electric cars on the road, far more than the U.S. even though America has far more cars on the road.

The common theme is that sustainability, efficiency, and general environmentally friendly business models can be succesfully integrated into the business strategies of the world's largest and most succesfull companies. The one caveat is that mega-global corporations also have the funds on hand to innovate and try different models as compared to smaller companies, but in the end, government incentives and tax breaks could and and should level the playing field in this regard.

Wal-Mart sold over 256 millions compact fluorescent ligh bulbs last year. According to the Department of Energy, US consumers purchase 21 million CFLs in 2000 and about 400 million in 2007. By 2012, 4 billion CFLs are set to be used in American homes.

Clinton makes the point that Sweden Denmark Germany and UK are the only 4 European countries set to hit their Kyoto targets and everyone of them saw substantial job growth and declining inequality over their past decade before the financial crisis because of their focus on renewable energy, not despite it. Proves that climate change legislation will not kill a nation's economy.

Bill Clinton on Climate Change, Afghanistan Posted by Adam Blickstein

Last night I had the opportunity to hear President Clinton's thoughts on a wide range of subjects, both domestic and foreign, ahead of the Clinton Global Initiative Conference which kicks off tonight in New York. While he eruditely discussed the importance of coffee production in Malawi or the damaging effect of deforestation, he also touched upon several of the hot button topics that are dominating the headlines in DC and across the country: health care, climate change legislation, and Afghanistan.

On climate change, Clinton asserted that one critical area that wasn't getting enough attention legislatively is expanding efficiency standards. He cited a McKinsey study that stated if the U.S. spent 5 times more on efficiency standards, it would result in "$600 billion in energy costs by 2020...[and] cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by about 1.1 gigatons annually -- or the equivalent of taking the entire fleet of U.S. vehicles off the road."  With the current political climate, such a massive increase in spending on expanding efficiency seems unlikely, at least legislatively. But Clinton also said that while Obama has wisely used Executive Orders in the past, he has far more latitude to use Executive Orders on climate issues should the legislation fall short. While I agree that President Obama can and should use such a tactic if the political will isn't there in Congress, it would embolden the absurd attacks from the right that Obama is bypassing the legislature and abusing his executive authority. The political tradeoff would be worth it though, since such attacks are going to made regardless. And good policy, in the face of a discredited opposition, should be made a high priority.

He also spoke at length about Afghanistan, addressing his assesment of the efficacy of a counter-insurgency strategy there. President Clinton made clear that COIN would only work in Afghanistan if the people of Afghanistan were on board with the mission and there was an Afghan government with real popular support from the people. He made a point that conservatives often forget, that the reason the surge and COIN strategy worked in Iraq wasn't purely a military one, but that the Iraqi people got fed up with al Qaeda's influence and deleterious effect on the country. In other words, it is crucial for the people to back American military efforts to root out the extremist elements, and there needs to be robust support from a viable government for this to succeed. It's clear that in Afghanistan, both crucial elements are far from certain.

What in God's Name is Condi Rice Talking About? Posted by Patrick Barry

One Iraq analogy that does apply pretty neatly to the Afghanistan situation is that in both cases, you can count on screwball conservatives to take a debate and depict it in utterly black and white terms, no matter how nuanced, multi-faceted and careful it actually is.  Ben Frumin flags Condi Rice's latest interview in Fortune, that hot-house of crack journalism, as evidence of this phenomenon:

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

If memory serves me correctly, the last time we left Afghanistan and we abandoned Pakistan, was not actually before 9/11, but when Condi and the Bush administration invaded Iraq.  Though the U.S. was fortunate to avoid another catastrophic attack as a result of that neglect, it was more or less the consensus of the intelligence community that the decision to take their eye off the ball wound up increasing the terrorist threat from the region. 

But on a broader level, who exactly is talking about abandoning Afghanistan?? I'm pretty sure that for all the haranguing done by Michael, he's not ready to call for the U.S. to start packing its bags. He's just skeptical that the Administration has the right strategic grasp of the problem, and would like to see alternatives.  The same goes for a lot of my friends who question or even oppose the logic of further troop increases.  I don't see many of those people calling for a wholesale abandonment of Afghanistan.  Calls for increased foreign assistance, channeled through Afghan-run NGOs as a means of addressing root-causes of terrorism? Yes. Arguments for vigorous diplomacy aimed at creating a durable political solution to reduce extremism? Again, yes. But cutting and running? Ignoring Afghanistan until all of a sudden there's another 9/11? Who participating in the mainstream conversation is arguing that position?

All this leads me to two conclusions. First, that there is a legitimate debate, largely occurring in progressive circles, about our strategy for Afghanistan.  And second, that there is another debate taking place between people arguing for a never-ending war in Central Asia and their imaginary foils, who think we should run away.

The Washington Post Ed Board Should Read the AMCW Posted by Michael Cohen

According to the Washington Post:

President Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments for a counterinsurgency campaign.

Well actually, if you read the President's speech of March 27th he does not use the word counter-insurgency once in the address. The Post's editorial today conveniently ignores the fact that the President also said this on March 27th:

We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved.

And as has been chronicled here for now several months, the mission that Obama described in March has been expanded significantly - some might even call it mission creep. The Post acts like Obama announced a counter-insurgency strategy back then and is now backing away from it. This simply isn't accurate.

Now in fairness to the Post, the President's March 27th speech was full of contradictions and ambiguities. But it's also clear that the Pentagon and in particular General McChrystal has run with a COIN strategy that is even more robust then what the President announced. What exactly is the problem with reassessing that strategy? Why would the Post be opposed to the President making sure we have the right political and military strategy in place, particularly as McChrystal is preparing to ask for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan?

This isn't "wavering." This is what mature leaders do in matters of war and peace; they constantly reassess and weighs costs versus benefits. The Post actually has the chutzpah to argue that "keeping faith with that goal (promoting a more accountable and capable Afghan government) will require more troops, more resources and years of patience. Yet to break with it would both dishonor and endanger this country." Well that's one view, but is the Post ed board completely ignorant of the fact that the Afghan government has not shown itself to be accountable or capable at all?

Here's what would be dishonorable: pursuing a failed policy in the face of facts on the ground that suggest it might not succeed. But considering the Post's incessant cheerleading for more troops to be sent into harm's way; first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan I suppose we shouldn't be surprised they don't get that.