Month: December 2008

Yglesias worries:

What is unclear at this point is whether Clinton joining the Obama team means that Clinton has gained faith in Obama’s approach, or that Obama has lost faith in his own. The very fact of Obama’s election would seem to tilt things in his direction: there was a consistent trajectory to their disagreements, and Obama was on the right side – a judgment vindicated by his victories over both Clinton and McCain. It’s not merely that he won, but that winning demonstrates his supposedly “risky” positions were not so risky after all.

In the end, I’d say, there was never much daylight between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy. Obama will be more "compassionate" than Bush, and will withdraw from Iraq. He has also committed himself to an unequivocal return to the pre-torture era. But allied to all these is a marshalling of all aspects of American strength. The man is a disciple of Niebuhr, not Chomsky. The war on Islamist terror continues – as it must.

Juan Cole prays that India doesn’t repeat Bush’s mistakes in the war on terror:

War with Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks would be a huge error. President Asaf Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani certainly did not have anything to do with those attacks. Indeed, the bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, which was intended to kill them, was done by exactly the same sort of people as attacked Mumbai. Nor was Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kiyani involved. Is it possible that a military cell under Gen. Pervez Musharraf trained Lashkar-e Tayiba terrorists for attacks in Kashmir, and then some of the LET went rogue and decided to hit Mumbai instead? Yes. But to interpret such a thing as a Pakistan government operation would be incorrect.

The point of terror is both to terrify and to polarize. The emotional impact affects far more than the actual targets of the attacks. What I’ve learned these past few years – and it has been a difficult lesson for me – is that the legitimate rage at these barbarians must not cloud our judgment in figuring out how best to defeat them. Reacting in the way the terrorists want may be morally understandable and emotionally unavoidable. But our goal must not be to give them what they want, or to compound the problem by over-reaction. If we haven’t learned that from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s hard to know what we have learned.

Blake Hounshell analyzes the tension between India and Pakistan:

…one can already see public anger in India leading political developments in a direction the terrorists wanted. Some Indian politicians have been less than careful in saying the terrorists were sent by Pakistan, the state, rather than that they came from Pakistan, the country (which hasn’t even been confirmed yet, anyway). India is considering halting talks over Kashmir and ending the five-year cease-fire along the Line of Control. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has vowed to "go after" those responsible for the attacks, which could box him into the dangerous step of taking action against Lashkar-e-Taiba within Pakistan-held territory.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s hackles are up, its military leaders raising the alert levels of their forces and threatening to divert troops from the Afghan border to the eastern border with India. Zardari’s about-face on sending ISI chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha to New Delhi is clearly a response to domestic pressure after Indian newspapers said Pasha was being "summoned." Similarly, the more vocally India calls on Zardari and Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani to crack down on militancy, the tougher politically it will be for them to do so lest they be seen as doing New Delhi’s bidding.

Walid Phares was recently interviewed by Venkatesan Vembu of the Daily News and Analysis of India. What was the motive for the attack?:

At one level, to instill shock and awe worldwide, much like the 9/11 attacks. On the regional level, there may be another motive. Jihadis in Pakistan have been under pressure, especially under the new President (Asif Zardari), because of the ongoing military operations in Waziristan. The jihadis’ strategic objective was to break down the rapprochement between India and Pakistan. If that happens, Pakistan will be forced to pull back units operating against the Taliban and move them to the border with India.

And how should India respond to Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to go after jihadis?:

This matter has to be internationalized: if we leave it to India and Pakistan, then anger will take over. The US, Europe and Russia should convene a meeting against the jihadi challenge.

Second, the Pakistan government must send out a strong signal that it will combat terrorism. Perhaps the Pakistan prime minister should visit Mumbai and declare from there that both countries are united in the fight against terrorism. Third, inside Pakistan, terrorist organizations must be given a strong message that ‘any attack on India is an attack on us’.

Full interview here.

In some ways, it’s the biggest and toughest first decision Obama will have to make. From my Sunday Times column:

The evidence we now have, undisputed evidence, proves already that war crimes were indeed committed – by the president and vice-president on down. I mean: why else Guantanamo Bay and secret black sites if the president believed he was obeying domestic American law?

There is, in the end, a simple and sobering truth: these people have to be brought to justice if the rule of law is to survive in America. In his constitutional soul, Obama knows this.

He also knows, however, the political exigencies of taking over a national security apparatus where continuity and lawful vigilance against terrorism remain vital.

 

How he bridges the demands of the law with the pressures of politics will tell us much about him. And because every act performed by the CIA will soon become his responsibility as much as President Bush’s, he has no time to dither.

 

The constitutional crisis is in some ways deeper than the financial one. We will find out soon enough if this really is change we can believe in rather than merely hope for.

If you are a member of parliament and get access to secret documents revealing that the government is immensely incompetent, get ready to be arrested. The outrage is just beginning:

The arrest of Damian Green last Thursday, his subsequent detention and interrogation, together with the police search of his home and his office in the Palace of Westminster, constitute the most serious breach of the privilege of Parliament in modern times. At least eight senior figures in the British Establishment were involved; they either initiated the action, agreed to it, conducted it, or allowed it to continue. Not one of them seems to have understood how serious a “high crime or misdemeanour” they were conspiring to commit.

The legal immunity of members of parliament, when exposing government incompetence or malfeasance is an ancient liberty secured by Englishmen against the prerogative of the Crown. No, we’re not going back to the days of Charles I, but if you think modern governments aren’t as liable to violating freedom as the worst in the past, you’re misreading human nature.

And Alaskans are beginning to notice:

It’s now been three weeks since the election. And Sarah has yet to set foot in Juneau. Next week she’s off to Georgia. And from there up to Philly. By the time she gets back to Alaska the Holiday Season will be full upon her. So it’s unlikely that Sarah will spend another night in the Governor’s Mansion until the Legislature returns to Juneau in January.