The most important U.S. political event from this past weekend, which was so under-reported by the U.S. news media as to be almost unreported, was not the work done on behalf of the congressional "economic stimulus" plan, but rather Vice President Biden's trip to, and subsequent speech and meetings in, Germany regarding U.S. strategic relations with Europe and Russia. (The stimulus plan will be enormously important news when it comes up for a vote, of course. I don't mean to discount its importance, but rather to show that other news items are being under-reported due to the media's fixation on it.) The Russian response to Mr. Biden's words was positive in nature in that their representatives seemed genuinely impressed with Mr. Biden's sincerity and generally impressed with his calming, realistic comments regarding U.S./Russian relations.
Quite frankly, Russia's piggy bank is smashed to pieces right now (what with the low price of oil and the worldwide financial collapse), so they can't really afford to be as belligerent in tone towards the West as they were in the recent past. For its part, the U.S. government realizes the necessity to avoid getting caught up in any sort of strategic conflict with Russia at present, given the various powder-keg Middle East issues with which it must deal, as well as the potential for increasing tensions with China and an understandably jittery India desperate to avoid getting dragged into any of these messes.
If worst came to worst and the situation in one or more of the potentially crucial Middle Eastern and/or Indian Subcontinental countries (Israel/the Palestinian territories; Iraq; Iran; Afghanistan; Pakistan; etc.) deteriorates badly, or if relations with China sour over China's perceived artifical currency valuations, the U.S. will want to avoid any sticky situation with Russia, whether it would have to do with Eastern Europe or the region including and around Georgia. (And if the present financial squabbles between the West and China escalate, Russia might very well be needed as a potentially leveraging factor against China, particularly with India's attention turned at present in the opposite geographical direction.)
Yet given that U.S. military equipment is bound for Poland sometime soon (though proposed interceptor missiles are not bound for that region, at least for the time being), this will be a delecate balancing act to pull off. So far, so good, so score one for Joe.
Not that anyone in the rather myopic major U.S. media outlets seemed to notice....
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Ten Heavenly Reasons To Daydream About Spring
I love George Harrison's spring-themed Beatles tune "Here Comes The Sun," in which he sings, "...it's been a long, cold, lonely winter." Anyone who has spent a dark, damp, chilly winter in England could tell you why such a line resonates with everyone there. Though I lived in England for some time, at present I'm back in my native land--the Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.A. Minnesota winters are far colder and far snowier, but also far sunnier and (thankfully) far less damp, than English winters. Hence, I found that in moving to England I simply exchanged one "not-to-be-sniffed-at" set of winter circumstances for another, and I've found in recently moving back to Minnesota that I have simply closed the winter loop; I'm right back where I started.
While the song is obviously set in England ("...it seems like years since it's been clear..."), anyone who has spent a winter in Minnesota might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Harrison also had our neck of the proverbial woods in mind ("...I feel that ice is slowly melting..."). As I spent my university years in Nebraska, which features a winter that is milder than in Minnesota but still often quite vicious, it's the case that Mr. Harrison's song is ubiquitous when measured against the winter experiences of folks in the three places I've lived for years at a time.
There is a lovely line in the song that cannot help but bring about in the listener the same change that the people in the song are undergoing as winter morphs into spring, as Mr. Harrison observes, "...the smiles [are] returning to the faces." I say this because even Minnesota has occasional winter thaws (though for some odd reason folks here insist on referring to the word "thaw" as "un-thaw," which when you think about it would seem to mean, uh, "freeze"). In the midst of a cold, classic winter, this coming weekend is predicted to feature a few days of above-freezing temperatures and thawing snow banks. It will also certainly bring smiles to the faces of my fellow Twin Citians, and it will most likely send our thoughts in the direction of spring, which is still many weeks away but for a few days might seem deceptively near.
So, what follows are ten heavenly reasons for me to daydream about the coming springtime, which, to borrow Mr. Harrison's words, "...seems like years since it's been here." These reasons are listed in no particular order. Here they are:
1.) I'm a runner. I run outdoors year-round (even in Minnesota's "freeze-your-rear-end-off" winter). Running in the springtime leaves me with a sense of vitality and renewal unmatched by even my favorite season, which is autumn.
2.) Listening to Major League Baseball on the radio is one of my favorite past-times, and something I missed terribly while away from the United States.
3.) I miss riding my bicycle during cool springtime mornings and/or evenings, meandering through the local neighborhoods with no real destination in mind.
4.) Here's a yearly Hasslington ritual: reading Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" prior to Major League Baseball's opening day. I defy today's athletes to try to write as effectively as did Mr. Bouton, a former major league pitcher.
5.) Just thinking of sitting outside on the patios at the local pubs makes me hope that the winter blows itself out early this year, though I'm sure there's not much of a chance of that happening.
6.) "How will the Minnesota Twins do this year? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Let's speculate...."
7.) The prospect of the forthcoming summer vacation is always an appealing thought to teachers. Lucky for me, that's what I do for a living.
8.) "Shall we go inside and buy something or just stay out here? I guess it doesn't matter. What matters is that we suddenly don't feel compelled to automatically go inside, so I vote for staying out here."
9.) A lot of local cats will be released from their necessary all-indoor winter living arrangements. As I love watching cats trot around town, this is an appealing thought.
10.) "It's spring. I guess we should plan our forthcoming trip back to England, and our forthcoming road trip to somewhere here in the U.S.A...."
While the song is obviously set in England ("...it seems like years since it's been clear..."), anyone who has spent a winter in Minnesota might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Harrison also had our neck of the proverbial woods in mind ("...I feel that ice is slowly melting..."). As I spent my university years in Nebraska, which features a winter that is milder than in Minnesota but still often quite vicious, it's the case that Mr. Harrison's song is ubiquitous when measured against the winter experiences of folks in the three places I've lived for years at a time.
There is a lovely line in the song that cannot help but bring about in the listener the same change that the people in the song are undergoing as winter morphs into spring, as Mr. Harrison observes, "...the smiles [are] returning to the faces." I say this because even Minnesota has occasional winter thaws (though for some odd reason folks here insist on referring to the word "thaw" as "un-thaw," which when you think about it would seem to mean, uh, "freeze"). In the midst of a cold, classic winter, this coming weekend is predicted to feature a few days of above-freezing temperatures and thawing snow banks. It will also certainly bring smiles to the faces of my fellow Twin Citians, and it will most likely send our thoughts in the direction of spring, which is still many weeks away but for a few days might seem deceptively near.
So, what follows are ten heavenly reasons for me to daydream about the coming springtime, which, to borrow Mr. Harrison's words, "...seems like years since it's been here." These reasons are listed in no particular order. Here they are:
1.) I'm a runner. I run outdoors year-round (even in Minnesota's "freeze-your-rear-end-off" winter). Running in the springtime leaves me with a sense of vitality and renewal unmatched by even my favorite season, which is autumn.
2.) Listening to Major League Baseball on the radio is one of my favorite past-times, and something I missed terribly while away from the United States.
3.) I miss riding my bicycle during cool springtime mornings and/or evenings, meandering through the local neighborhoods with no real destination in mind.
4.) Here's a yearly Hasslington ritual: reading Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" prior to Major League Baseball's opening day. I defy today's athletes to try to write as effectively as did Mr. Bouton, a former major league pitcher.
5.) Just thinking of sitting outside on the patios at the local pubs makes me hope that the winter blows itself out early this year, though I'm sure there's not much of a chance of that happening.
6.) "How will the Minnesota Twins do this year? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Let's speculate...."
7.) The prospect of the forthcoming summer vacation is always an appealing thought to teachers. Lucky for me, that's what I do for a living.
8.) "Shall we go inside and buy something or just stay out here? I guess it doesn't matter. What matters is that we suddenly don't feel compelled to automatically go inside, so I vote for staying out here."
9.) A lot of local cats will be released from their necessary all-indoor winter living arrangements. As I love watching cats trot around town, this is an appealing thought.
10.) "It's spring. I guess we should plan our forthcoming trip back to England, and our forthcoming road trip to somewhere here in the U.S.A...."
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
K.B.O. Through The Detritus Of Cyberspace
I have recently inserted a "blurb" or "tag-line" under the title of this blog, due to the fact that sarcastic responses such as "Obama's going to save the world!" have found their way onto the comments section of this blog-site of late. Of course, such unhelpful comments are part and parcel of the blog-o-sphere, and I therefore accept some of them as the waste product from an otherwise useful communication tool.
What I do not accept, however, is the notion that people who wish to engage in actual political give-and-take should be forced into simultaneously engaging in such emotionally-stunted exchanges, which are the domain of point-scoring individuals who seem either incapable of or unwilling to discuss differences of opinion in manners that are constructive. Yet this may be the ultimate point for some people, who for whatever unfortunate reason would rather hide behind the moniker "Anonymous" while writing things to which no adult would ever want their name attached than carry on actual discussions with their peers. After all, real conversations tend to frighten them.
I find it one of the least amusing ironies of the internet that those who would lower considerably the conversational bar in a given blog-site are also sometimes that blog-site's most consistent readers. ("After all," they must think, "how else can we spread the angst around so efficiently?") I also find that open-minded, adventurous people who tend to read widely and travel widely both inside and outside of their own country tend to shy away from the childish, emotionally-stunted crowd. Then again, saying this will elicit little more than blathered shouts of "Elitist!" from the aforementioned culturally myopic crowd, so....
If anyone is interested in seeing how someone might approach an actual adult conversation (whether it focuses on agreement with or disagreement between two people), they might be interested in modeling the tone of--and the language in--the comment posted by "Travis" on my January 21st post called "Preserving the 'Inaugural Moment'...." Then again, anyone who is willing to view that exchange in an open-minded manner is not likely to need to model it, because they most likely write (and talk, and think) in an adult manner already.
As for my "gut" response to this latest bit of depressing childishness, I'll use a Winston Churchill term that the man himself used many times: "K.B.O." For Mr. Churchill, this stood for "Keep Buggering On." I'm no Winston Churchill, to be sure, but I have the feeling that he'd let me borrow his term for this particular occasion. So, I'll keep buggering on, and on, and on. And on some more.
Call me presumptuous, but I have the sense that I am most certainly not alone in the blog-o-sphere in my willingness to K.B.O., despite those who would rather force everyone into neatly-labeled, trademarked groupings so that they don't have to deal with those wonderful traits called "complexity" and "ambiguity" that are where the real fun is at. They just don't know what they're missing. Or perhaps they do know what they're missing, but for whatever reason they refuse to engage in it, anyway.
What I do not accept, however, is the notion that people who wish to engage in actual political give-and-take should be forced into simultaneously engaging in such emotionally-stunted exchanges, which are the domain of point-scoring individuals who seem either incapable of or unwilling to discuss differences of opinion in manners that are constructive. Yet this may be the ultimate point for some people, who for whatever unfortunate reason would rather hide behind the moniker "Anonymous" while writing things to which no adult would ever want their name attached than carry on actual discussions with their peers. After all, real conversations tend to frighten them.
I find it one of the least amusing ironies of the internet that those who would lower considerably the conversational bar in a given blog-site are also sometimes that blog-site's most consistent readers. ("After all," they must think, "how else can we spread the angst around so efficiently?") I also find that open-minded, adventurous people who tend to read widely and travel widely both inside and outside of their own country tend to shy away from the childish, emotionally-stunted crowd. Then again, saying this will elicit little more than blathered shouts of "Elitist!" from the aforementioned culturally myopic crowd, so....
If anyone is interested in seeing how someone might approach an actual adult conversation (whether it focuses on agreement with or disagreement between two people), they might be interested in modeling the tone of--and the language in--the comment posted by "Travis" on my January 21st post called "Preserving the 'Inaugural Moment'...." Then again, anyone who is willing to view that exchange in an open-minded manner is not likely to need to model it, because they most likely write (and talk, and think) in an adult manner already.
As for my "gut" response to this latest bit of depressing childishness, I'll use a Winston Churchill term that the man himself used many times: "K.B.O." For Mr. Churchill, this stood for "Keep Buggering On." I'm no Winston Churchill, to be sure, but I have the feeling that he'd let me borrow his term for this particular occasion. So, I'll keep buggering on, and on, and on. And on some more.
Call me presumptuous, but I have the sense that I am most certainly not alone in the blog-o-sphere in my willingness to K.B.O., despite those who would rather force everyone into neatly-labeled, trademarked groupings so that they don't have to deal with those wonderful traits called "complexity" and "ambiguity" that are where the real fun is at. They just don't know what they're missing. Or perhaps they do know what they're missing, but for whatever reason they refuse to engage in it, anyway.
Monday, February 2, 2009
President Obama's Environmental And Political Pragmatism
The Bush Administration worked actively to obstruct states from setting up many of their own tough environmental standards, particularly insofar as carbon emissions are concerned. Given that the incoming Obama Administration was clearly more left-leaning in these regards, the question that consistent political observers tended to ask themselves was not whether or not President Obama would work to tighten and toughen environmental standards having to do with CO2 emissions, etc., but rather how he would go about the process of tightening and toughening them. We now have an early answer to this question (with more to come, I'd guess), and this answer is probably indicative of a savvy sort of political pragmatism that President Obama is at present applying to a number of items on his political agenda.
The new president did not, for instance, push for increased environmental regulations at the national level in his initial moves in this policy area. (He may eventually push for tougher nation-wide standards, but he's yet to do it.) Instead, he eased a number of Bush Administration obstructions placed on states that were designed to discourage certain states from setting their own tougher standards. (California is often mentioned as a state that might quickly work to establish its own tougher standards, perhaps even in the current economic climate.) That is, instead of raising national standards across the board--which might have proven to be a political liability, even in this increasingly "green" era, given the dire national economic outlook--President Obama has thus far left existing national standards in place and encouraged states to set higher standards on their own.
This is savvy from a number of perspectives. First of all, it appeases a solid chunk of the environmentalist crowd (at least for the time being) who abhorred President Bush's policies and wanted President Obama to take some quick action to counter them, while at the same time it avoids a lot of the "business-vs.-environment" fighting that surely would have occurred in this financially-difficult time had national legislation been proposed. (Business groups, large and small, may have soured quickly on the new administration if they felt they were going to be squeezed financially due to increased national environmental standards.) Secondly, it allows states in which stricter environmental measures are at present a popular idea to move toward setting tougher standards, which would tend to prove politically beneficial to both environmental groups in those states as well as the president himself, who will surely be listed among the reasons that such statewide-standards were able to be put in place.
Then there's this third pragmatic reason why such a move makes political sense: it doesn't hurt the president's popularity in states that would rather avoid setting tougher emission standards for the time being, because those states will be allowed (again, for the time being) to stick with the existing standards and avoid the necessity of raising their standards considerably, the latter of which would come as part and parcel of national legislation. So, let's say California raises its environmental standards, but for the time being Ohio does not; in theory, the president looks okay on the issue to a majority of people in both states. In theory, then, this is a "win-win" scenario at a time when the president needs to stay popular in order to more effectively deal with the national economy, foreign policy, and so forth.
Cynics from both sides of the political aisle may initially dislike this "wishy-washy" strategy, but to me it seems to come from necessity, political and otherwise--the president clearly wants to toughen environmental regulations, but he also knows that he needs to be politically careful for the forseeable future. For the time being, then, he's attempting a "middle-way" approach to the environment and several other policy areas, knowing that even very centrist policies will seem quite progressive in the wake of the Bush years. As to whether these policies will work in the long-run or will have to be altered sooner as opposed to later, we'll have to wait and see.
The new president did not, for instance, push for increased environmental regulations at the national level in his initial moves in this policy area. (He may eventually push for tougher nation-wide standards, but he's yet to do it.) Instead, he eased a number of Bush Administration obstructions placed on states that were designed to discourage certain states from setting their own tougher standards. (California is often mentioned as a state that might quickly work to establish its own tougher standards, perhaps even in the current economic climate.) That is, instead of raising national standards across the board--which might have proven to be a political liability, even in this increasingly "green" era, given the dire national economic outlook--President Obama has thus far left existing national standards in place and encouraged states to set higher standards on their own.
This is savvy from a number of perspectives. First of all, it appeases a solid chunk of the environmentalist crowd (at least for the time being) who abhorred President Bush's policies and wanted President Obama to take some quick action to counter them, while at the same time it avoids a lot of the "business-vs.-environment" fighting that surely would have occurred in this financially-difficult time had national legislation been proposed. (Business groups, large and small, may have soured quickly on the new administration if they felt they were going to be squeezed financially due to increased national environmental standards.) Secondly, it allows states in which stricter environmental measures are at present a popular idea to move toward setting tougher standards, which would tend to prove politically beneficial to both environmental groups in those states as well as the president himself, who will surely be listed among the reasons that such statewide-standards were able to be put in place.
Then there's this third pragmatic reason why such a move makes political sense: it doesn't hurt the president's popularity in states that would rather avoid setting tougher emission standards for the time being, because those states will be allowed (again, for the time being) to stick with the existing standards and avoid the necessity of raising their standards considerably, the latter of which would come as part and parcel of national legislation. So, let's say California raises its environmental standards, but for the time being Ohio does not; in theory, the president looks okay on the issue to a majority of people in both states. In theory, then, this is a "win-win" scenario at a time when the president needs to stay popular in order to more effectively deal with the national economy, foreign policy, and so forth.
Cynics from both sides of the political aisle may initially dislike this "wishy-washy" strategy, but to me it seems to come from necessity, political and otherwise--the president clearly wants to toughen environmental regulations, but he also knows that he needs to be politically careful for the forseeable future. For the time being, then, he's attempting a "middle-way" approach to the environment and several other policy areas, knowing that even very centrist policies will seem quite progressive in the wake of the Bush years. As to whether these policies will work in the long-run or will have to be altered sooner as opposed to later, we'll have to wait and see.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Will The Boss Help Deliver A Super Bowl Upset?
While in the midst of a cold, classic winter, we tied an all-time record high temperature in the Twin Cities today: 46 Fahrenheit, which is about 8 Celcius or so. We hadn't been above the freezing point prior to today in three or four weeks, and many days this winter have seen highs way, way below the freezing point (as in 0 Fahrenheit, or about -17 Celcius). So I'm in a very good mood today.
It's therefore the case that if it's "nuance" (or what passes for it) you're after, check out my January 26, January 27, and January 29 posts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to giggle at someone's shot-in-the-dark football prediction, today's posting might be just the ticket.
So, here are my Super Bowl thoughts: a lot of folks are talking about the fact that Pittsburgh has won multiple Super Bowls, whereas Arizona has never been to one. Some people seem to think that matters, while others do not. I don't really think it matters, due in large part to so many players shifting teams so often these days; in a sense, there really are no "set" teams from year to year anymore. This is sad in a way, but it also means that each season (and post-season) is more of a unique adventure than was the case, say, fifteen or twenty years ago and prior to that.
This would seem to mean that Arizona has a shot at winning the Super Bowl this year. Yes, they do. Yet Arizona is the feel-good, quirky club in this year's Super Bowl equation, whereas Pittsburgh is simply the more solid all-around (if also more boring) team. History suggests that the more solid all-around team wins more often than not. Hence, I pick Pittsburgh to win, though I must admit that I will hope for an Arizona victory...and a great halftime show by Bruce Springsteen. (It may be more likely that we get the latter than the former....)
Hasslington's Super Bowl Prediction: Pittsburgh Steelers 20, Arizona Cardinals 17.
It's therefore the case that if it's "nuance" (or what passes for it) you're after, check out my January 26, January 27, and January 29 posts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to giggle at someone's shot-in-the-dark football prediction, today's posting might be just the ticket.
So, here are my Super Bowl thoughts: a lot of folks are talking about the fact that Pittsburgh has won multiple Super Bowls, whereas Arizona has never been to one. Some people seem to think that matters, while others do not. I don't really think it matters, due in large part to so many players shifting teams so often these days; in a sense, there really are no "set" teams from year to year anymore. This is sad in a way, but it also means that each season (and post-season) is more of a unique adventure than was the case, say, fifteen or twenty years ago and prior to that.
This would seem to mean that Arizona has a shot at winning the Super Bowl this year. Yes, they do. Yet Arizona is the feel-good, quirky club in this year's Super Bowl equation, whereas Pittsburgh is simply the more solid all-around (if also more boring) team. History suggests that the more solid all-around team wins more often than not. Hence, I pick Pittsburgh to win, though I must admit that I will hope for an Arizona victory...and a great halftime show by Bruce Springsteen. (It may be more likely that we get the latter than the former....)
Hasslington's Super Bowl Prediction: Pittsburgh Steelers 20, Arizona Cardinals 17.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Part 3 Of: "Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones"
In addition to the topics about which I wrote in my first two installments of this series--which can be found directly below this post--I believe that there have thus far been a few other early Obama Administration decisions/announcements that are generally impressive in nature. (Remember, please, that I number them only to differentiate them from one another, and not necessarily in order of importance.) Here is another one of them:
DECISION #3
Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Russian Policy
Decision/Announcement: The U.S. will review the feasibility of its proposed Eastern European missile defense system prior to deciding whether or not to move forward with it.
Analysis: Russia is being hit hard by the worldwide economic crisis both because of the bad geopolitical state of trade and commerce and because of the low price of oil at present. (Much of Russia's recently-generated wealth comes from oil revenues.) Hence, it has been looking for political "cover" in order to suspend its recent missile development project, which was a very expensive program meant to counter U.S.-backed interceptor missiles and accompanying radar technology in Eastern Europe.
This week, the Obama Administration gave Russia the "cover" it needed to save political face by suggesting that the U.S. will take time to review carefully its interceptor missile program prior to deciding whether or not to move further with the program. (The Bush Administration, by contrast, planned to move steadily forward with the program.) Furthermore, the general tone of this Obama Administration announcement was one of skepticism regarding the workability of the technology associated with the program. Russia's response to this was an almost immediate announcement that it planned to suspend its own program.
In the recent past--such as the period just prior to the worldwide economic crisis--Russia would never have made such an announcement simply because an American administration made its own announcement to review its plans in what seemed to be a skeptical manner. Instead, Russia most likely would have waited in order to see what the ultimate decision of the U.S. was, and then countered that decision in a like manner in order to show the "West" that it will counter any perceived "aggressive" maneuvers regarding what it considers its area of influence. In other words, the Russian "Bear" would have been skeptical of America's new-found skepticism regarding its Eastern European defense program.
But "The Bear" isn't as bullish in these regards as it was even a few short months ago, and this is basically because of dwindling amounts of capital. Russia simply doesn't have the resources at present to reasonably counter an expensive Western missile program with one of its own, which would have to be of a comparable caliber if it were to be taken seriously in an international context.
So the Obama Administration, which was seeking an at least temporary end to Russia's plans for a counter-program, got what it wanted when it gave Russia enough political wiggle room to drop its plans without looking like too much of a paper tiger in the process. As a result, the U.S. received a temporary "thaw" in its relations with what had been an increasingly belligerent and troublesome Russia, and the U.S. needs such a thaw right now, given the various other geopolitical crises with which it must deal, in the Middle East (which is not too far from Russia's southern border) and elsewhere. For its part, cash-strapped Russia avoided embarrassing itself with what may very well have turned out to be a clunky, Soviet-style, "mend-and-make-do" type of missile system aimed in the direction of a more state-of-the-art Western missle system.
For a day, at least, both the U.S. and Russia were able to breathe a sigh of relief about a mutually-beneficial (at least for the present) decision made by the other side. As to whether this temporary thaw in relations continues, particularly given recent developments in increasingly-democratic and independent Russian satellite countries like Georgia and Ukraine, only time will tell.
DECISION #3
Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Russian Policy
Decision/Announcement: The U.S. will review the feasibility of its proposed Eastern European missile defense system prior to deciding whether or not to move forward with it.
Analysis: Russia is being hit hard by the worldwide economic crisis both because of the bad geopolitical state of trade and commerce and because of the low price of oil at present. (Much of Russia's recently-generated wealth comes from oil revenues.) Hence, it has been looking for political "cover" in order to suspend its recent missile development project, which was a very expensive program meant to counter U.S.-backed interceptor missiles and accompanying radar technology in Eastern Europe.
This week, the Obama Administration gave Russia the "cover" it needed to save political face by suggesting that the U.S. will take time to review carefully its interceptor missile program prior to deciding whether or not to move further with the program. (The Bush Administration, by contrast, planned to move steadily forward with the program.) Furthermore, the general tone of this Obama Administration announcement was one of skepticism regarding the workability of the technology associated with the program. Russia's response to this was an almost immediate announcement that it planned to suspend its own program.
In the recent past--such as the period just prior to the worldwide economic crisis--Russia would never have made such an announcement simply because an American administration made its own announcement to review its plans in what seemed to be a skeptical manner. Instead, Russia most likely would have waited in order to see what the ultimate decision of the U.S. was, and then countered that decision in a like manner in order to show the "West" that it will counter any perceived "aggressive" maneuvers regarding what it considers its area of influence. In other words, the Russian "Bear" would have been skeptical of America's new-found skepticism regarding its Eastern European defense program.
But "The Bear" isn't as bullish in these regards as it was even a few short months ago, and this is basically because of dwindling amounts of capital. Russia simply doesn't have the resources at present to reasonably counter an expensive Western missile program with one of its own, which would have to be of a comparable caliber if it were to be taken seriously in an international context.
So the Obama Administration, which was seeking an at least temporary end to Russia's plans for a counter-program, got what it wanted when it gave Russia enough political wiggle room to drop its plans without looking like too much of a paper tiger in the process. As a result, the U.S. received a temporary "thaw" in its relations with what had been an increasingly belligerent and troublesome Russia, and the U.S. needs such a thaw right now, given the various other geopolitical crises with which it must deal, in the Middle East (which is not too far from Russia's southern border) and elsewhere. For its part, cash-strapped Russia avoided embarrassing itself with what may very well have turned out to be a clunky, Soviet-style, "mend-and-make-do" type of missile system aimed in the direction of a more state-of-the-art Western missle system.
For a day, at least, both the U.S. and Russia were able to breathe a sigh of relief about a mutually-beneficial (at least for the present) decision made by the other side. As to whether this temporary thaw in relations continues, particularly given recent developments in increasingly-democratic and independent Russian satellite countries like Georgia and Ukraine, only time will tell.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Part 2 Of: "Several Reasons Why President Obama's Early Decisions In Office Have Been Generally Good Ones"
NOTE: WITH THIS POSTING, I CONTINUE TO HIGHLIGHT DECISIONS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IN WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED HIS "FIRST SEVERAL DAYS IN OFFICE" THAT MIGHT BODE WELL FOR HIS PRESIDENCY OVER THE LONG-TERM. THESE DECISIONS WILL BE NUMBERED, BUT ONLY TO HELP READERS DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM ONE ANOTHER. THEY WILL NOT NECESSARILY APPEAR IN ORDER OF "IMPORTANCE" (WHICH IS SOMETHING ONLY TIME CAN SORT OUT, ANYWAY).
DECISION #2
Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Middle East Policy
Decision/Announcement: Vice President Biden engages early and often with a number of Middle East scenarios. Also, President Obama gives an exclusive interview to al-Arabiya television.
In his previous capacity as a sitting U.S. senator and the vice president-elect, Joe Biden traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait in order to sit down with various political leaders of those countries and other influential people in the region (Americans and non-Americans) with the intent to set a transitional tone and begin to create an accompanying template from which the Obama Administration would operate in and around the region. (It astounds me that his trip was somewhat ignored by the major U.S. media outlets, at least in comparison to the levels of attention it should have received.)
According to the few media reports that saw the public light of day, many of the political leaders he met were left with a dual sense of continued U.S. resolve to root out radical Islamic terrorist cells and a renewed spirit of cooperation (to a far greater extent than present in the Bush Administration's policies) with the principle regional players.
This was an important step toward sending the following messages: 1.) the U.S. will not back down from necessary fights; 2.) the U.S. is not looking for any more unnecessary fights that would serve to distract from the necessary ones; 3.) the U.S. will stay very actively involved in the region; 4.) that involvement will be both military and non-military in nature, and the nature of both types of involvement will likely shift over the next several months, in some cases in minor manners only, and in other cases in major manners; 5.) the U.S. will continue to push its agenda aggressively, but it is increasingly part of the U.S. agenda to listen to the concerns of its partners and integrate some of them into many of its strategies; 6.) the Obama Administration will be savvier regarding the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent than the previous administration, and it is willing to consider more options as being potentially "viable" ones; 7.) hence, the Obama Administration will have done its collective homework and will not likely be hoodwinked by pie-in-the-sky thinking, but rather it will be ready to engage in complex thinking in order to calibrate better how American might (cultural, military, economic, etc.) is brought to bear in the region.
Following this trip and after the inauguration, Vice President Biden told the major U.S. media outlets that American casualties will surely rise in Afghanistan, due to the fact that the U.S. needs to reinforce its personnel there in its (and NATO's) flagging fight against al-Qaeda-inspired Taliban forces and the like.
The above Biden-related decisions represent careful, strategic thinking on the part of the Obama Administration, because they send two accompanying messages to people in the U.S. and throughout the world: 1.) that the U.S. is ready to alter some of its policies in the Middle East in order to better handle the various complications in that region, which will appeal to foreign policy progressives and pragmatists; and 2.) that the U.S. needs to prepare itself to fight necessary fights, such as the post-9/11 Afghanistan fight, even as it seeks methods of curtailing its military (if not political) activities in fights-of-choice, such as the Iraq scenario. The first message is likely to appeal to left-leaning folks (and those on the right who stress the root word "conserve" in their definition of the political term "conservative"), and the second message is likely to appeal to moderates from all political backgrounds whose takes on the struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq differentiate greatly from one another.
Ultimately, the Obama Administration, through the mouthpiece of Joe Biden, is suggesting that Americans are now not only ready but also willing to paint the Middle East with less of a broad brush than U.S. policy might have suggested was the case until now. This, then, suggests that, broadly speaking, Americans are now willing to back a multiplicity of different strategies to deal with the complexities of the region.
IN A RELATED UPDATE: today President Obama took part in a major "sit-down" interview with al-Arabiya television. In the context of the ongoing worldwide fight against extremist Islamic elements, the president said the following: "The language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."
(Note: I became aware of the President Obama's "broad brush" statement after writing my "broad brush" statement above.)
The president is doing a few things here, and they all relate to the following: he is working to recover the idea of American moral authority by speaking in an articulate manner about tolerance with a Muslim news organization. He is putting his presence forward as representing what the Obama Administration would like the Muslim world to see as being the "real" American majority viewpoint on these matters. This is another move to put the pressure and focus back on the extreme ideology of radical Islamist terror groups, and take it off of what has been perceived throughout much of the world as the rather myopic, tone-deaf nature of the Bush Administration's policy on these matters. One ultimate reason for doing this is to place blame for international terrorism back squarely on the shoulders of international terrorists themselves by making the U.S. look intellectually and humanely reasonable to those in the buffer zones of world opinion who were vascillating between where to place to blame.
It surely makes sense, too, that President Obama went on al-Arabiya television in order to do this, as al-Arabiya is often seen as a more moderate upstart challenging the Middle East media might of al-Jazeera. If al-Arabiya gets a prolonged ratings boost out of this, that might be a smart marketing move insofar as U.S. public relations in the region are concerned.
DECISION #2
Policy Area: Foreign Policy/Middle East Policy
Decision/Announcement: Vice President Biden engages early and often with a number of Middle East scenarios. Also, President Obama gives an exclusive interview to al-Arabiya television.
In his previous capacity as a sitting U.S. senator and the vice president-elect, Joe Biden traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait in order to sit down with various political leaders of those countries and other influential people in the region (Americans and non-Americans) with the intent to set a transitional tone and begin to create an accompanying template from which the Obama Administration would operate in and around the region. (It astounds me that his trip was somewhat ignored by the major U.S. media outlets, at least in comparison to the levels of attention it should have received.)
According to the few media reports that saw the public light of day, many of the political leaders he met were left with a dual sense of continued U.S. resolve to root out radical Islamic terrorist cells and a renewed spirit of cooperation (to a far greater extent than present in the Bush Administration's policies) with the principle regional players.
This was an important step toward sending the following messages: 1.) the U.S. will not back down from necessary fights; 2.) the U.S. is not looking for any more unnecessary fights that would serve to distract from the necessary ones; 3.) the U.S. will stay very actively involved in the region; 4.) that involvement will be both military and non-military in nature, and the nature of both types of involvement will likely shift over the next several months, in some cases in minor manners only, and in other cases in major manners; 5.) the U.S. will continue to push its agenda aggressively, but it is increasingly part of the U.S. agenda to listen to the concerns of its partners and integrate some of them into many of its strategies; 6.) the Obama Administration will be savvier regarding the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent than the previous administration, and it is willing to consider more options as being potentially "viable" ones; 7.) hence, the Obama Administration will have done its collective homework and will not likely be hoodwinked by pie-in-the-sky thinking, but rather it will be ready to engage in complex thinking in order to calibrate better how American might (cultural, military, economic, etc.) is brought to bear in the region.
Following this trip and after the inauguration, Vice President Biden told the major U.S. media outlets that American casualties will surely rise in Afghanistan, due to the fact that the U.S. needs to reinforce its personnel there in its (and NATO's) flagging fight against al-Qaeda-inspired Taliban forces and the like.
The above Biden-related decisions represent careful, strategic thinking on the part of the Obama Administration, because they send two accompanying messages to people in the U.S. and throughout the world: 1.) that the U.S. is ready to alter some of its policies in the Middle East in order to better handle the various complications in that region, which will appeal to foreign policy progressives and pragmatists; and 2.) that the U.S. needs to prepare itself to fight necessary fights, such as the post-9/11 Afghanistan fight, even as it seeks methods of curtailing its military (if not political) activities in fights-of-choice, such as the Iraq scenario. The first message is likely to appeal to left-leaning folks (and those on the right who stress the root word "conserve" in their definition of the political term "conservative"), and the second message is likely to appeal to moderates from all political backgrounds whose takes on the struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq differentiate greatly from one another.
Ultimately, the Obama Administration, through the mouthpiece of Joe Biden, is suggesting that Americans are now not only ready but also willing to paint the Middle East with less of a broad brush than U.S. policy might have suggested was the case until now. This, then, suggests that, broadly speaking, Americans are now willing to back a multiplicity of different strategies to deal with the complexities of the region.
IN A RELATED UPDATE: today President Obama took part in a major "sit-down" interview with al-Arabiya television. In the context of the ongoing worldwide fight against extremist Islamic elements, the president said the following: "The language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."
(Note: I became aware of the President Obama's "broad brush" statement after writing my "broad brush" statement above.)
The president is doing a few things here, and they all relate to the following: he is working to recover the idea of American moral authority by speaking in an articulate manner about tolerance with a Muslim news organization. He is putting his presence forward as representing what the Obama Administration would like the Muslim world to see as being the "real" American majority viewpoint on these matters. This is another move to put the pressure and focus back on the extreme ideology of radical Islamist terror groups, and take it off of what has been perceived throughout much of the world as the rather myopic, tone-deaf nature of the Bush Administration's policy on these matters. One ultimate reason for doing this is to place blame for international terrorism back squarely on the shoulders of international terrorists themselves by making the U.S. look intellectually and humanely reasonable to those in the buffer zones of world opinion who were vascillating between where to place to blame.
It surely makes sense, too, that President Obama went on al-Arabiya television in order to do this, as al-Arabiya is often seen as a more moderate upstart challenging the Middle East media might of al-Jazeera. If al-Arabiya gets a prolonged ratings boost out of this, that might be a smart marketing move insofar as U.S. public relations in the region are concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)