Don't Table the Timeline Posted by Patrick Barry

Certain conservatives are sure to latch on to the President’s re-commitment to a conditions-based timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But as I asked last December, why should this be such a point of contention?  It might actually yield some positive dividends on one of the thorniest problems facing the mission: our leverage deficit.

This vehement opposition to timelines has never totally made sense to me.  Of course it's important to demonstrate commitment, but its equally important to gain leverage, something that timelines can give you.  One surefire way to make countries like China, Iran and Pakistan start taking affairs in their backyard more seriously is to make them aware that there is an end-date to their riding on America's coat tails.  Right now, Pakistan has less incentive to behave productively in Afghanistan, mostly because it's mostly consequence free. We're the ones holding the bag!  But if they're forced to reckon with a future where it's not as easy to hide in America's shadow, it would be reasonable to assume more responsible behavior. 

As the year moves forward, and fighting intensifies, calls to abandon the commitment to a timetable will likely grow louder.  As Ambassador Eikenberry's cables highlight, there's reason to doubt whether General McChrystal's famous "bell curve," on which the administration's timetable is based, was ever realistic to begin with. But this should not shake the administration's resolve.  With Afghanistan’s fate so dependent on the right kind of involvement by its neighbors, signaling an end to the era of coat-tail riding is a positive step, and the U.S. should  The alternative is staying forever. 

Standing Ovation for Securing all Vulnerable Nuclear Materials Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Aware of the growing threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, President Obama reminded Americans of the dangers nuclear weapons present.

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons.  I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April’s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

The response? A standing ovation…from both sides of the aisle. I hope Senator Kyl had a chance to stretch… 

Shali Agrees with Obama on Don't Ask Don't Tell Posted by Heather Hurlburt

from our friends at the Palm Center:

SANTA BARBARA, CA, January 27, 2010 – In a statement released today through Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s office (D-NY), former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili gave the strongest signal to date that now is the time for military leadership to move forward on repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and law.  He stated, “As a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military. It is time to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline.”

Bold Move on DADT Posted by James Lamond

The president just announced that:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. 

This is strong move, but in line with more and more military leaders and experts. Just today former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili released a statement saying:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was seen as a useful measure that allowed time to pass while our culture continued to evolve. The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. I believe that it has.

... Studies have shown that three-quarters of service members say they are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians. Two-thirds say they already know or suspect gay people in their units. This raises important questions about the assertion that openly gay service would impair the military. In fact, it shows that gays and lesbians in the military have already been accepted by the average soldier.”

In 2008, a bi-partisan panel of retired General and Flag officers carefully reviewed this matter for a year and concluded that repeal would not pose a risk to the military's high standards of morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment, or retention

In addition, an article in Joint Force Quarterly (which was incidentally reviewed by Adm. Mullen’s office) this September arguing forcefully for repealing the policy –saying  that there is no evidence that repealing the policy will negatively affect unit cohesion –won  the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.  Even Colin Powell, former Chairman JCOS and former Republican Secretary of State thinks that the policy should be reviewed.  It is a promising sign that the president is making such a strong move on the policy saying: "Its the right thing to do."

Keeping Promises to America's Vets Posted by James Lamond

The president just said:

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

After eight years of neglect towards our nation's veterans the Obama administration and progressives in Congress have been taking the lead to keep our promises to America’s veterans. Just some of the details:

What Successful Counterterrorism Means Posted by Patrick Barry

A controversial difference between this administration and the last is that this one appears to see the connection between U.S.’ ability to project power abroad rests on the power of its example.  Philosophically, this means “reject[ing] the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values.”  Concretely, it means doing things like trying terrorists in civilian courts, closing Guantanamo, and not torturing.

It’s worth pointing out that the administration doesn’t do these things just because it feels good to do them or because it strikes some kind of intellectual balance, but because they’re actually proven elements of successful counterterrorism:

Rep. Jane Harman (D - CA) explained earlier this month, "I think if we really want to do counterterrorism right, we have to eliminate one of Al Qaeda's top recruiting tools, that's Guantanamo Bay."

Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards: civilian courts are 65 times more effective than military commissions.  “Critics “scowl and declare that our American courts will not, or can not, convict terrorists.  They seem pretty damned certain of that.  Which is weird since nearly 200 terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts in the last nine years (that's 65 times as many as have been convicted by military commissions).”

Former FBI agent, Ali Soufan, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that torture, “from an operational perspective, are slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida,”

Pay Attention DeMint and Kyl Posted by James Lamond

The president just said that 

“The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators.”

This has been one of the most ridiculous obstructionist measures that the GOPers have been employing.  From Jon Kyl’s hold on Ellen Tauscher for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security –obviously an unimportant job as the U.S. and Russia were trying to negotiate a major nonproliferation treaty-to Jim DeMint’s holds on Thomas Shannon, Arturo Valenzuela for ambassador to Brazil and Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric affairs conservatives have consistently obstructed the Obama administration’s efforts to conduct foreign policy and played politics with national security.

No Shortage of Ambition Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So you will have noticed that, even though people have been declaring the global trade agenda dead for a year or more now, there's two paragraphs on trade.  Why does this matter?  Groups such as Oxfam have argued that a Doha round that concluded favorably to poor-country agriculture -- and required changes to US and other developed-country agricultural subsidy practices -- would do more to reduce poverty than all the aid currently given.  You will also notice that the trade section lists the countries with which the US concluded bilateral Free Trade Agreements which Congress has declined to ratify for human rights, labor rights or domestic economic considerations -- but doesn't say "we will get the agreements ratified."  what that says to me is that the Administration is going to go looking for a new consensus on trade -- one that progressives and centrists were struggling toward in 2000, but that effort stopped pretty completely after the 2000 elections.

 Third, we need to export more of our goods.  Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America.  So tonight, we set a new goal:  We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.  To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. 

 We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Climate CHANGE! Posted by James Lamond

The President's line about some conservatives disagreeing with the overwhelming evidence on climate hange was pretty entertaining.  As we all know climate change is a serious national security issue, yet GOPers continue to deny the challenges:

• Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee: "Between the years of 1998 and 2005, I was the only member of the United States Senate who would take on what I call 'the Hollywood elitists' and the United Nations on this hoax called global warming and I went through seven years of purgatory on that issue."
• Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) called climate change “a hoax” on the floor of the House, receiving applause from his conservative colleagues.
• Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), chairman of the House Republican Caucus: “the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming.”
• House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear.”

It's the Economy, Stupid Posted by Patrick Barry

In a speech that's already being couched as one with a domestic, not international focus, the President does a pretty nice job of pointing out why it's silly to separate the two:

How long should we wait?  How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse.  Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy.  Germany’s not waiting.  India’s not waiting.  These nations aren’t standing still.  These nations aren’t playing for second place.  They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure.  They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

There are already signs that China and India are recovering faster than other countries affected by the global downturn, including the U.S.  What's one of the biggest reasons the disparity is not even greater? Some readers might not recall, but it's because the administration passed a massive stimulus package.  All this makes me conclude that fast trains are not only beneficial because of their coolness factor, but because they make us more economically competitive with countries that have them already!