The view from Pakistan

Regarding the Af-Pak situation, here's commenter Vaneeza at Library Grape, lightly edited:

The situation is much more complicated than it seems and definitely too complicated for Sarah Palin to understand. The war in Afghanistan is not one that can be "won". I think the Obama administration still understands the situation better than the Republicans. We are seeing changes in their way of dealing with us. When Hillary Clinton came to Pakistan, although her visit was short still she utilized it pretty well. She did a number of debates with our top journalists on tv who asked many difficult and critical questions. The way she answered them and took all the questios and criticism tactfully and gave replies to them was wonderful. I myself watched many of her interviews on TV. She went to a number of mosques and shrines. She showed her respect by covering her head going there. These are the things that mean a lot to the common man here. For me, it was a refreshing change that she pronounced “Pakistan” correctly unlike other Americans.

The aid that is coming from America, for the first time is going to non-governmental organizations instead of the pockets of our corrupt politicians. They will get some part of it but the fact that any part of it will be going directly to NGOs too is amazing. Although the common man can still not be won by just these measures as the history of mistrust goes back to decades but these measures still do at least some pat in easing the tension. Increasing troops in Afghanistan might help a little but you need to understand that Pakistan is at the center-stage of this whole drama. Some Taliban in Afghanistan are locals but most of them are foreigners and we all know that a huge number of them come from Pakistan who are trained at here. Whenever the America launches a full scale military offensive against them, they just come here to Pakistan which they consider a safe haven and as soon as things get better there they go back.

Even if they are stopped from escaping to Pakistan by tighter border control and lets say all of the Taliban are killed in Afghanistan, more will be recruited from these same madrassahs and extremist training camps from Pakistan. America keeps launching drone attacks from time to time in our tribal areas which have been effective but have caused a large number of civilian casualties as well. What needs to be done is better intelligence services and attacking the militant safe havens and training grounds in Pakistan secretly in association with Pakistani government. This goal can be achieved with the help of American intelligence agencies. It is true that Pakistani government needs to do more in fighting these terrorists. Unfortunately our politicians are just as bad as the military dictators. I do believe that the government in some ways is trying to make things bad here to get more aid from America which obviously wont go to the people but to the pockets of the politicians themselves.

Some people do believe that some or even most of the bomb blasts in Pakistan are actually arranged by the government so they can show to the world and especially America that “look what Taliban have done and what they are capable of and what they can do to you also, so give us more and more money in aid and funds that we can use to fight Taliban”. Most of the money in fact goes to their own pocket and little goes to do what it was given for. The government of Afghanistan lead by Hamid Karzai is also very corrupt. He is sometimes called the “the corruption king”. Until more schools and hospitals and factories and jobs are created in Afghanistan and the quality of life of afghans is improved , no real change can come. Sometimes they become Taliban because that’s the only option they have. Also there are a number of madrassahs still operating in Pakistan who turn regular people who just want to get knowledge about Islam into terrorists. Even in a lot of mosques, the Friday sermon is more America bashing speeches than anything related to Islam. There are religious shows and channels on TV that preach extremist ideology and urge people to take up arms.

Nothing is being done about them by the Pakistani government . All that is very important, because nobody can deny Pakistan’s role in the war that is going in Afghanistan. There is a lot of social unrest here in Pakistan. The poverty, unemployment and inflation are out of control. People are selling their children and committing suicide because they cannot provide for their families. It is much easier to persuade a person like that to take up arms to go on a “road to heaven” than someone who actually has some part of his/her life in control. Our mullahs come in all shapes and sizes, hair styles, beard styles and clothing to cater to the religious needs of all social strata. It is more like a business. The other day a more modern looking mullah on TV with a shorter beard and a pant suit with few sentences of English sprinkled here and there in his speech was urging young people to India as it was the prophecy of prophet Muhammad. This is so frustrating that these type of psychos are allowed to spread their message of hate and war on TV with no restrictions.

So America should urge Pakistani government to do something about these mullahs and madrasshas and TV channels also who are misleading people, recruiting more Taliban and making things worse for America in Afghanistan.

Pre-emptive usage of Hillary Clinton condemned

Thank you for flip flopping (or in leftspeak, "caving" -- to reality, usually)

Phil Levy:

For the second time in a week, the Obama administration has discarded a major campaign pledge on international economic policy. In its decision last week not to name China a currency manipulator, and now to forswear renegotiation of NAFTA, the administration avoided two potentially costly mistakes.

Greg Mankiw is delighted:

My biggest fear about international economic policy was that the President might actually follow through on his campaign rhetoric. So this news is a great relief.

Original blame lies with the vagaries of Democrats' primary politics; Hillary Clinton was just as bad. I'm glad President Obama and his advisors are smarter than Candidate Obama and his base.

Back in the sandbox

Dayo Olopade:

[..] The weather was so nice in fact, that, after President Obama received his economic briefing and met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the Oval Office, the POTUS and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to hold their 4:15 meeting out behind the White House—next to the swing set installed for the Obama girls in March.

Striding out from the West Wing, the two seemed thick as thieves—smiling, Secretary Clinton casually swung her leg over the bench on the east side of the playground, and the president grinned and waved to gawking reporters and staff as he sat down across from her. After all, it was just a year ago that Clinton could be seen crying, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

This is the first meeting of the two former rivals since Obama returned from Turkey and Iraq.

"Smart diplomacy" ? I'd say questionable...

Bowing to a Saudi king?

Gifting the Queen of England an iPod?

Gifting the Prime Minister a set of 25 classic American movies that won't play in European DVD players?

C'mon Obama -- you're a Harvard-educated lawyer, not Sarah "you can see Russia" Palin -- or George "looked into his soul" Bush.

Why, even the Bush administration could give decent gifts:

President and Mrs. Bush gave Her Majesty a bronze statuette “High Desert Princess” with a personal inscription on the bottom of the base. It is a replica of the original life size statue that is located in front of the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Ft. Worth, Texas.

President and Mrs. Bush gave The Prince Philip an exclusive sterling silver eagle box by Tiffany & Co. with personal inscription on the inside lid.

President and Mrs. Bush gave Their Majesties a leather presentation box filled with a collection of documents from the National Archives. One of the items was a copy of an original letter from President Roosevelt to her father, King George, written in 1938. There were also photos from previous royal visits and a DVD of the footage from the Queen’s visit to the United States when she was Princess Elizabeth in 1951.

As for bowing to a Saudi, I'm not sure it's more perturbing...


Personally, I'd rather bow and get it over with.

ThinkProgress offers another flashback:

President Obama — in a departure from President Bush — has made a point during his G20 visit to emphasize that the economic crisis demands a collective global response. Indeed, in a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last October about the financial collapse, Rudd told Bush that the best response should involve the broader G20, including China — while Bush wanted response to be handled within the G7. Bush, however, reportedly didn’t have a clue what the G20 was:

Informed sources have confirmed the discussion took place on a speaker telephone with a Rudd staffer taking notes.
After the President explained the pressure from Europe for a G7-brokered action on supporting the credit sector and reforming regulation, Rudd immediately insisted the G20 was the solution.

Rudd was then stunned to hear Bush say: “What’s the G20?” 

Um, yeah.  I think we traded up. And not just a little...

I also think this helps explain why Clinton makes a decent Secretary of State. She's surely better at protocol-droidness than the Obamas, though hardly without her own gaffes.

Maher on the marijuana question

As I said a few posts down:

Some people simply can't understand that if drugs were legal, our enemies wouldn't have a monopoly on them and be out of their lucrative business. So when you tell them enemies are financed by opium, they think we need to double down on the task of eradicating drug trade. They have no perspective on how intractable that is, or how badly we've been failing at it for decades.

Salmon Rushdie here is an example of a smart guy who doesn't get it. Good of Hitchens to set things straight.

Condi gets it

My view is, we got to do our way. We did our best. We did some things well, some things not so well. Now they get their chance. And I agree with the [former] president; we owe them our loyalty and our silence while they do it. […] These are quality people. I know them. They love the country and they won’t make the same decisions, perhaps, that we did. But I believe they’ll do what they think is best for the country.

I've always considered Rice to be one of Bush's better choices. Going by the other people serving under him, I think his administration was better with her than it would have been without.

Under a competent Republican president such as Reagan or Bush Sr. I think her tenure might well have been considered successful.

That's not to say she'd be near my first choice for National Security Adviser or Secretary of State, but she's relatively sane and empathetic. For instance she's pro-choice like most prominent female Republicans.

Bill Maher spoke with Madeleine Albright recently and commented that we seem to have a new tradition of women Secretaries of State. Colin Powell was also not a typical face for the U.S. It seems to me that for what it's worth picking foreign representatives from outside the white men's club has worked relatively well for the country. Obviously the effect hasn't been too noticeable with neocons making bad calls from higher up, but they do count for something in the game of international diplomacy and now that Hillary has revitalized the State Department I think the positive effect may be more noticeable, especially with Obama himself as the most visible figure.

Hillary succeeds in China

I'm pleasantly surprised.

Samantha's back

The foreign policy wonk who said what we were all thinking during the primaries gets back on board:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Samantha Power, the Harvard University professor who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a "monster" while working to elect Barack Obama president, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, The Associated Press has learned.

Secretary of BRAAAAAAAAAINNNSSS

Do not click this link.

Clinton cheered at State

TPM:

Hillary Clinton's grand arrival at the State Department this morning, greeted by a cheering crowd of employees, had a single constant message: The era of the Bush foreign policy really is over.

The extent to which career diplomats were demoralized by the Bush administration does not get emphasized enough.

Hillary Clinton's grand arrival at the State Department this morning, greeted by a cheering crowd of employees, had a single constant message: The era of the Bush foreign policy really is over.

"There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy and development," Hillary said. "And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear as we go forward that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States."

And above all, Hillary promised openness and debate:

"This is going to be a challenging time, and it will require 21st-century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I'm gonna be asking a lot of you, I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can, I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate, and the kind of dialogue that will make us better."

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also be visiting later today. Their reception should probably be at least as celebratory as this one, if not more so.

Update:

Obama's (first?) inaugural address

Text as prepared -- as delivered -- Reax -- C11 reacts

And for one last time, remember: It could have been Ms. Clinton speaking this day. Ugh! You can forget now.

Domesticated PUMAs

TNR:

The women of EMILY's List, one of Hillary Clinton's most intensely loyal organizational supporters, jubilantly throng an Obama merchandise table after the group's inaugural luncheon on Sunday.

For whatever it's worth, I had pretty much the opposite experience as Seyward did at a PUMA outpost. Seyward found little love for Obama at a Gloria Steinem-headlined women's lunch on Saturday, but the EMILY's list women's lunch overflowed with it. The event -- which was packed with more than 2,000 women giddily taking commemorative snapshots with each other at their tables -- kicked off with a huge video montage of Obama photos shown on Jumbotrons. Ellen Malcolm, the group's famously Hillary-devoted leader, told attendees at an EMILY's list June luncheon that she was feeling "emotionally fragile," but there was no more public hesitation yesterday: After the women-and-Obama themed video, she took to the podium and screamed, "We did it! Bush is going back to Texas, and Barack Obama is going to be president of the United States!", grinning and raising her arms -- which were draped in a red veil -- like some kind of prophetess come in to Zion.

Kennedy a serious contender for NY Senate

Andrew Sullivan et. al. have loudly decried this "fairy tale" as nepotism, arguing that she's never been elected to an office and isn't manifestedly qualified for it. (Sullivan argues that Palin would be more qualified, sadly enough)

Possibly. But Ms. Kennedy shunned the limelight intentionally, and there's some virtue to that.

Moreover, when your father and uncle have both been victims of political assassination, cries of nepotism at being given a chance to carry on their standard ring pretty hollow to me.

Kennedy is a NY and DC attorney who's written constitutional books and engaged in charitable public service.

Is she "patently qualified", as Sean wonders? No, but neither is she patently unqualified, and the polls indicate a fair level of support among Democrats. Yes, it's largely name-recognition-based, but see above about the assassinations. Rather than disqualifying her on nepotistic grounds, this "fairy tale" has something of an "arc of the universe bending towards justice" feel to me.

I trust Paterson will give her a fair hearing. The Larry King idea isn't too bad either, though I personally can't stand that particular show.

As far as her politics go, I gather they're close enough to HRC's for this to be a fair replacement. Clinton, by all accounts, will be fine with Kennedy replacing her.

Meanwhile, some on the right are having fun.

Obama doesn't kid around

Secretary Clinton. Remember this debate?



We all laughed, but apparently the man means what he says.

The right kind of change isn't a lurch to an inexperienced and dovish left.

Jeremy Scahill isn't happy: This is change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

I actually think a good number of these old hands are the right kind of change. I never expected nor wanted Obama to fill his administration with far-lefties. He's much too practical for that. All that screaming about his liberal voting record before the election was a silly distraction from his stated aims.

Clintonites who've individually shown themselves to be competent over the years are desirable. Remember, Clinton's was a successful administration! The hard left wasn't stoked about his people then nor now, and of course neither was the hard right, but this is a FEATURE.

Hawks are also desirable, to an extent. We'll always need people who are serious about national security. But we need a responsible decision-maker in charge as well. Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq and stepping up efforts in Afghanistan, and by all indications that's what he's going to do.

The change we voted for wasn't to some radical liberal agenda the NROites were foaming over, but rather away from the Bush-Palin-Huckabee ignoramus axis.

We need a change in competence that avoids quagmires like Iraq. Surrounding yourself with a bunch of newbie doves wouldn't be a responsible change for the better. It'd be swapping one set of problems for another.

Initially I wasn't thrilled with Obama's reconciliation with Lieberman and the prospect of Hillary as SoS, but there is some logic to both. Obama basically owns Lieberman now, and can pretty much twist him into voting any way he wants on fillibusting, etc. That can be useful.

I'll let Frum explain Hillary.

Hillary helped Obama

What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger?

About those coattails

Douthat worries about a Democratic supermajority. I worry too, but the Republican party deserves it.

Douthat thinks conservatives would "prefer" Hillary Clinton in charge of such a majority than Barack Obama. He's right if what you care about is Nixonian-style rightwingery.

But if you're a libertarian conservative who cares about things like civil marriage equality, civil liberties, dispensing with torture, and trying to restore America's "shining beacon" in the world, as Obama put it...then I don't see how you can want that statist Nixon-in-a-pantsuit.

Obviously Republican congresspeople would rather run against Hillary because she's familiar territory. It would be better for their electoral prospects. Republicans know how to fight the culture war with the Clintons; they've done it all before.

But this black guy with his funny-sounding name and soaring speeches about hope...that's getting weird. Where'd he come from? Terrorist! Risky! Be scared people: