RSS

January 8, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

Bush was neither a hero, nor a disaster, although he had moments in which many had tagged him with both of the extreme labels. After all "we were all Americans" on September the 12th 2001 and probably few of us believed when GW stated the "mission accomplished" of May the 1st 2003. But it is hard to agree with Mr Luttwak's assessment in many points. Had the islamic extremism been conquered, we would have probably never had to face London or Madrid attacks, let alone Lebanon and Gaza conflicts. Had GW contained Iran, Syria and other nuclear-hopefuls, the US wouldn't have beeen so keen on the missile defence system that spoiled so much and so wrongly the transatlantic relations. Had he succeeded in takcling al-Qaueda, the Predator drones wouldn't have been so busy in Afghan-Pakistani border. Had he defended the US economy, the world wouldn't have had to face the current crisis. And so on. But he was acting under enormous pressure and in trying times. He, himself not an intellectual, was surrounded by lobbies and ideologists, who at times managed to steal the US policies at home and worldwide. We shoud be happy that the closer to the end of his term, the more pragmatism prevailed over ideology - it's a pity of course it had taken so much cost. It is tempting to compare the current leaders to their legendary predecessors. Many already compare Barack Obama to JFK. Untrue, unwise. Just like comparing GW Bush to Harry Truman.

January 9, 2009

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)

Rather than assign blame, expiate guilt, or otherwise deal in value judgments, it would be more useful to examine global strategic issues -- more to look toward future actions than to judge past performance.

What factors currently favor those who bolster their attacks on capitalist and democratic institutions by appeals to Islam, other religions, or other ideologies? Despite growing income disparities within the U.S., have inequities lessened around the globe? Do ordinary people in third-world nations see cause for hope in a better tomorrow? Are Western nations still playing the game of the terrorists by being drawn into fights that kill and injure bystanders with minimal costs to the aggressors? Do people in third-world countries enjoy truly responsive governments?

Culturally, what is the trend world-wide with regard to human rights, with the opportunities for individuals to choose for themselves rather than being programmed or coerced by others?

Economically, are Western nations pursuing a course that will bring the living standards of all countries into parity? Are Western nations investing in the third world at an appropriate rate to ensure that further growth is made while avoiding environmental degradation?

Is the overall trend toward growing cooperation among nations? Are there notable exceptions due to failure of insight or effort on the part of the major nations?

What is the trend of the general environment as influenced by global warming? What is the rate of change of negative factors such as habitat destruction?

We can only hope that Obama and other world leaders make the best choices. How can we as ordinary world citizens further this goal?

January 10, 2009

Adrienne Cseh

All human beings need to meet their basic human needs. Safety is one of those basic needs. Unfortunatelly, many human beings are not fortunate enough to have shelter, food and safety in their every day lives.
Todays society's must find a way to distribute wealth to those who lack of these basic needs - At the same time we need education to stop greed thus corruption in the world. I believe, Bush had other interior motive than the war on terror theme, and by focusing to much on this, caused him to be ingnorent of other major issues, such as the financial health of USA. This mistake turned out to be counter productive.The Bush administration might made a tiny progress on war on terror, but certainly was a major contributor of today's international economic disaster.

January 10, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Dear Mr. Swierczynski, Dear Mr. Moran,

Thank you for your comments. In an examination of global issues, one of the difficulties America and Europe face moving ahead is to agree on the importance of a strategic focus.

The United States leadership must decide if the country is to adopt a multilateral approach in practice, which would push the European Union to address global challenges by developing its own strategic agenda.

India is likely to be a key player for both continents geostrategically provided the subcontinent can manage its own regional relationships with Pakistan and China. In the aftermath of Mumbai, it is in India's interest to work with the leadership in Pakistan to address transnational criminal activities, particularly as these relate to the situation in Kashmir.

The United States and the European Union must continue to focus their attention on the situation in Afghanistan as forces are removed from Iraq. The Pakistani state is weak and the possible scenarios after Mumbai, particularly conflict between India and Pakistan, are a cause for concern. The fates of Afghanistan and Pakistan must be understood as mutually interdependent even though each is a sovereign nation.

Non-proliferation remains a priority although not one that ranks as high as global poverty or climate change or corruption in states around the globe. I do not agree with Luttwak's analysis that the Bush Administration's policy vis-a-vis Iran has succeeded where the E3 approach has failed. No approach is likely to address Iran's security concerns without the direct involvement of the United States in bilateral and multilateral negotiations.

In order for America and Iran to get to the table, myths that have come to influence their relations, which date to crises in 1953, 1979, and 1986, must be understood.

Ordinary citizens have opportunities to inform themselves about the challenges in our world today in unprecedented ways through fora such as this one and through innovative educational initiatives that new technologies make possible.

One of the goals the Obama Administration can strive to achieve, particularly in education, is cooperation to enlarge the scope of national participation and outreach to peoples around the world about matters of mutual concern in economic and social development, environmental degradation, uncontrolled growth and population, world health problems, and religious fundamentalism.

I agree that pragmatism must prevail over ideology. It is also true that a sense of ethics must prevail over expediency.

I would like to hear your views. Greetings from New York. Sincerely, Colette Mazzucelli

January 11, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

In a mammoth piece of journalism the NYT reveals that GW Bush and his aides are probably more aware of the dire consequences of hasty dealing with Iran than many think. If the NYT report is true, we should thank Mr Bush for stopping short of another war, one that a few years ago was thought to be almost certain within Bush second term. How would the world look like if the financial crisis coincided with Iran war? The Israelis are portrayed here once again as those who are unwilling to compromise on their security, nevermind the costs. Of course, they are much more exposed to Iranian threats and ultimately they might have been right to have demanded hitting the Natanz facility. There is still time to do just that, but the view of an overt aerial atack is now much less likely. But one has to remember that the CIA - which seems to be the winer in this case - had many setbacks in countering terrorism and state terrorism in the past. Are we witnessing another one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?pagewanted...

January 12, 2009

Member deleted

Any evaluation will need a hindsight in th near future, with the knowledge of the objectives. There is always a larger picture at hand that is publicly available, and there always are constraints that are not stated - behind any given policy-decision.
The reality-gap between values and the constraints on the ground often may force decisions that may not be so obvious or even palatable.
Doing business in a third world terrorist state that swings between its avowedly a 'wannabe west' and the anti-west populations may warrant identification of the wannabe 'west' - and if they do not portend to religious affiliations as many christains in india tend to control and express thoserealities are. Their reasons are business via conversions and the staedy flow of cash, while it serves the Church's larger purpose of the control of the state machinery via such agencies. They often do encourage the anti-west forces. Given the unclothing of such forces and the drying-up of the cash-flow from the 'west', the very same wanna-be west religious brigades often turn into an anti-west. Just an example. So how does a state determine its presence in other states that manifest these kinds of pathologies, while doing business and wondering about regional stability in a region that is nuclear-armed, to top the complexity of a bad neighbourhood coupled with a bad household!?
Moreover, you are not alone in the world.
Just an example of the particular constraints. Hence any evaluation would need a balanced hindsight in the future. But yes, it will need to evaluate the availability of alternative choices at hand, where choices also exhibit feasibility. Policy-decisions rarely are sentimental ones, even if many non-american states having particular kind of pathologies may actually end up having 'affinities' that render the situation quite complex and yes, very un-american. Just an example, again.

January 12, 2009

Member deleted

One hopes that you would forgive the typographical errors. Had to mention this: The United States as a champion of the 'free-world', i.e democracy, etc. also would necessarily have to be a state that supports and secures Human Rights. Human Rights (condensed as the Right to Life with Dignity - within liberal democratic comprehension of such phrases) necessarily forms the bastion of modern democracy, where the so-called post-modern versions are, in effect, exercises to deepen and broaden democracy whose first function is of the Right-to-life-with-dignity. The older slogans of Liberty, Equatlity & Solidarity ( a more gender-neutral term in lieu of Fraternity) and the differing emphasis upon those values - as the crux of modern politics has long been transcended, with the end of the Cold War. Even then, the objectives behind any political ideology remain inescapably of "the right-to-life-with-dignity", where politics necessarily is the negation of violence. Where the conditions of positive peace and negative freedom are achievable - as the conditions for civilized anarchy or the heaven-upon-earth utopia - (we know why many a post-modern enthusiasts often end up creating pre-modern conditions that are more reminiscent of a Hobbesian nightmare!) and for starters - the movement is supposedly towards the banishment of even indirect violence. Within such visions and goals and objectives, and the qualifier of the interpretation of the condensation of Human Rights into The-Right-To_life-With-Dignity in liberal democratic terms is what I would look at - as the parameters determining the quality-of-life! Such an idea of Americanism. Assuredly absent in the religious-convert wannabe 'west' forces at display in third world morass - leave alone one caused by a single family's private matters!

January 12, 2009

Lawrence Efana

Luttwaks' reasonings are indeed thought provoking. The two main phases, short of being comprehensive though, still allow readers insight into the elements of those reasonings.

I do not know if enough people saw the program "Intelligence Squared Debate", over the BBC if not in New York when it was directly sent? The public that listened and voted after the debate the way its members did, I presume left a lot of possible answer in response to matters relating somewhat to the reasonings found in Luttwaks.

Two commentators make real good sense about the reasonings: Patric Edwin Moran and
Colette Grace Mazzucelli. The first is interesting from the point of view of the openning statement "Rather than assign blame, expiate guilt, or otherwise deal in value judgements, it would be more useful to examine global issues - more to look toward future actions than to judge past performances"; and the second from the point of view of selectively lining up things of interest contextually. Otherwise Luttwaks' reasonings have many textures, which also make the need to look back [reflect], depending on who does that anyway inevitable. Can diplomacy be right in doing that, but not overplaying too much?

On the spectrum of the "outgoing" and especially "incoming" Presidents, I would wish to highlight an important "HOT ISSUE", especially if we agree on the mumentum of us having to look toward future actions. Therefore here open Democracy Website contributions by way of articles and comments parallel to what we have from Atlantic Community Org., are complementary in that they work on materials as objects and subjects of learning - what we want that can help us hold the balance, not overplay even with diplomacy.

Many, including myself surely give thoughts to the realities and problems of assessing the era of the outgoing president, in order to pave way for improvements for the incoming! For and about these, "personality types" could provide the basic paradigm, but we also know there is a host of things in that - the challenges and nervouseness of shifting environments for political decision-makers and heads of states are not the easiest of our new realities in contemporary times. For those believing, it means humbling down to pray well for all of them wherever they may be.

But one thing - the most important part of my comment], is drawing attention of writers and discussants to the fact that they must not forget that nearly [to be candid] all HEADS OF STATES have a body of advisers around them. In my opinion, it is probably here the we may see much to also demand much from democracy and pragmatism driving culture of representative government or deligation of authority and power, in spite of rationality of what rule of law strictures stand for in the process.

Of these bodies of advisers, may be lifted out the NATIONAL INTELLIGENTIA, which we also know to be the products of our differentiated structures and national systems, making one see and however appreciate democractic models. But that does not mean perfection or that sacrifices cannot still be made to convincing proof the democratic what to serve all:
best possible consensual model]. Any Head of State, besides lobbists, etc., is surrounded by the ARMS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: those of the armed forces and police and other agencies falling into other classes - all very useful for the safety and progress of the state. I love them so when I write, I mean no harm, except try to contribute to the way they might publicly benefit if they become more efficient, that those we know they ultimately produce through their advices do not become losers at the end. Where is personality-type theory place here? But beyond whatever that sort of theory has to tell, has the outgoing president been partially or fully a "victim" - latent or manifest of intelligence analyses and failures of both the human, protective, and technical dimensions? Thoughts of the kind make me particularly open to the new laws about entry into the United States on the eve of the swearing-in of the President-elect. It was neither bad move nor is democracy - green culture end on the part of America!

Alongside bold measures, analytically sifting the news or events either as a part of the desk engagements to estimate risks of one type or the other, must not be left to people with biases - poorly constituted psychologically, poorly disciplined, relatively uninformed or badly processed educationally. That is because they simply must remember that their inputs can mess-up the Head of State and nation on the long-run. I mean to emphasize that the quality of intelligence and that of the people who lead the Head of State obviously cannot be underestimated in what becomes the history of his era of experiment with the task of governance. In many situations, one could venture to say that it is the national intelligence that rules and that the Head of State could be undully subjugated. It is all due to the poduct released! I seem to feel that nation states and the world could probably have greater peace to enjoy if the mindsets of the intelligence community advising them are made to inwardly look into and reassess the potentials. The world is there to truly win but it could be the question of methods, wrong conception of status-quo, infexible strategic stance at least on the short-run. Let us look into these seriously in our systems and world, a thought making me sad when I contemplate over Africa as a continent, and what good examples and training could bring about for governance and sustainable progress rather than conflict and tribal mess there. This is of-course "transatlantic issue", but we all belong in our world. Help our leaders with good intelligence and save them blackmail after it will be worth it all and the world will benefit - what we all want.

January 14, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Dear Mr. Swierczynski (or Marek, if I may),

I agree with your analysis of the Bush decision as reported in the New York Times article. A military strike is likely to line up the nationalist elements in Iran behind the current president and distract the public from the devastating economic conditions the majority of Iranians face, especially the youth.

The timing is particularly sensitive with the national elections for the Iranian presidency expected to take place in the spring. If more moderate leaders come to power in Iran, this would coincide with the new US Administration and open a window of opportunity for a bilateral dialogue to develop at the working level.

I believe that direct US engagement with Iran without preconditions is essential to explore given the crisis in Gaza. The conflict between Israel and Hamas lessens the prospect of a two-state solution. This fact provides an impetus for the US to try and broker a security arrangement that promotes regional integration in the Middle East through an intensive American diplomatic engagement.

One pragmatic step is the US aim to establish its economic interest section in Tehran. Another goal can be to encourage the development of bilateral trade relations between Iran and Israel. In the interest of a pragmatic approach to policy in the region, a security arrangement must take the concerns of all the main actors into account and focus on troubled relationships, particularly the one between Egypt and Iran at present.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Greetings from New York.

Sincerely, Colette Mazzucelli

January 14, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

This is the second time that I read how the legacy of the Bush government is praised. Perhaps one can say that not everything he did was failure. And unfortunately we have no direct comparison to a hypothetical Gore-presidency of 8 years. However, I think that the facts speak their own language, and can only wonder how the grave decline of American and western power can be re-interpreted as success.

This discussion reminds me strongly to David Irving's book "Hitler's War". Excellently written, and full of details which are usually omitted in other accounts, it leads to a re-evaluation of his rule just by presenting events from a slightly different perspective. Now suddenly many decisions, which were normally assessed as most brutal or illogical, become understandable.

However, while such a change of perspectives may allow to understand why leaders took particular decisions, taking it as basis of a re-assessment clouds facts. There can be no doubt that the rule of Hitler was doom for Germany, Europe and the World. And there can be no doubt that the rule of G.W. Bush was a catastrophe for the US and the world.

It will take decades to repair the damage, if that can ever be achieved.

January 19, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

My sense is that the incoming president and his closest advisors will face even stronger pressure from special interests and Washington corporate lobbies, which will try to influence US foreign policy decisions on the basis of narrow self-interest. That game is likely to intensify as the present crisis worsens.

In this context, missile defense is not only driven by the international context. In fact, the timing of initiatives, which was all wrong, suggests otherwise. There is too much economic gain for special interests at home that will be lost if the incoming administration says "no go" to the plans to move ahead.

In the current financial environment, there is more than enough pain to go around for everyone to share. President Elect Obama has the ability to speak plainly to Americans and those around the world about the genuine challenges the country faces at this juncture.

He can use communications technologies in innovative ways to articulate his plans and encourage public interest / community discussion about the obstacles and opportunities America confronts in domestic / global policy making.

History is likely to judge that there has been a collective irresponsibility in government, the banking world, and the citizenry that has led the United States to commit those errors that have put the country and the world in a crisis situation.

This is a time for the American government and society to step back from the brink and not rely on the optimism that anything broken can be fixed in time.

The President Elect realizes that the decisions made today have consequences tomorrow and beyond. One of the strongest challenges Mr. Obama faces is to lead a government that inspires by the example of responsible decision making and does not simply acquiesce to the pressures of special interests.