Conan in Israel and Palestine

Conan's been doing more travel segments, which are really fun and occasionally amazing! It seems like a great way for Americans to get exposed to the lifestyles and culture of different countries. Most of the time, our understandings of others are just one-dimensional caricatures, but we don't even realize.

Recently he went to Israel and Palestine, which has resulted in a mix of silly and serious clips. I really like this one in Bethlehem.

Someone commented on the video

Makes you wanna think why we fight with people who we would have loved

So true.

Sometimes the interests of different groups of people really are at odds, but a lot of times geopolitical conflicts are fueled by old grudges and the vested interests of a small number of powerful actors. It's so sad that the respective publics of rival nations get caught up in the enmity. People trying to debate without a mutual understanding of the same words inevitably talk past each other, and they don't even know it. We are always in the Tower of Babel even when we are speaking the same language.

An expanded version of this post on Medium
https://medium.com/@mirthbottle/conan-in-israel-and-palestine-1c8d7a57127f

Defending the Establishment

When this primary season started, I was dead-set against voting for Hillary Clinton because I believed that she was corrupt.  I thought that even if she was effective, all the progress would be for naught if a scandal erupted.  It could discredit the progressive cause for at least two election cycles and possibly more.  I wasn't quite feeling the Bern, but he seemed promising.  I have now done a pretty dramatic 180 on Hillary, and I guess a less dramatic -90 on Bernie Sanders.

After looking into the past scandals involving the Clintons, I found that they were all pretty much engineered by Republicans.  Given how much Republicans hate them and how much they've been investigated, I now really doubt that the Clintons are really corrupt or that there is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

With that out of the way, I am more supportive of Hillary for president.  She is a believer and practitioner of incremental change.  Sanders is a proponent of a "political revolution."  I certainly ascribe more to her theory change, particularly for the presidency while Congress is still dominated by Republicans and the Tea Party.  I expand on this train of thought in an essay, where I use examples from my professional field of responsible investing.

Dreaming of Incremental Change




The one thing that really still bothers me about Hillary is that she is too much of an interventionist on foreign policy.  This is where I often diverge with liberals because they usually want to go in to every conflict and support every rebel and of course posture at China!  I don't really think she's a neocon, though, but rather she is in line with the foreign policy elite in the US.  She seems like the classic bleeding heart liberal, actually.  I hope that after working with Obama and Biden that her views have moderated.  With that said, maybe it's more important that the foreign policy elite's views moderate.

No More Bin Laden

But there are some systemic causes to terrorism that still need to be addressed.

Friedman's most recent op-ed gives some more background about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Ian Bremmer on US China relations

Interesting clip from the Wall Street Journal. Americans are becoming much more knowledgeable about China, but things are also changing fast.

No Point in Afghanistan?

Mathew Hoh resigns the foreign service because he does not think it makes strategic sense to stay in Afghanistan. While I think there are problems with pulling out, I have to agree with him in general. While it would be great if Afghanistan had a modern government, the US really does not have the money to be over there.

Asymmetric Warfare

I just saw a headline that quoted someone as saying "you've got nuclear bombs. we have suicide bombers."

Here's a poorly thought-out idea:

Is it possible that if Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, terrorism would stop?

Although on the other hand, as long as Afghanistan is politically, socially, and economically unstable, it seems unlikely for terrorism to stop so I don't know how much it really has to do with Iran.

Unrest in Iran

Americans didn't take to the streets when Bush won in 2000 or 2004.

Kind of exciting. Perhaps there will be a revolution.

I think it'll be historic.

Obama's Cairo Speech

review from the NYT



White House.gov blog post with link to transcript

some highlights:

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.)

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.

This was awesome because he said all this stuff praising Islam and the Muslim audience was really feeling good, but you could tell people were balking at the idea that they also need to change their perception of America but that they still wanted to get behind what Obama was saying because it was so logical. Obama made it clear that it is a two-way street.

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

People have been saying that Obama is mainly a realist like Bush I, except he uses idealistic rhetoric. People have expressed disappointment that he has "given up" on promoting democracy. I think that's a good thing, though. And while I'm glad he's a pragmatist like Bush I, I think his world view and foreign policy is much more nuanced and embodies a new kind of idealism that's more ambitious in some ways than conventional liberal idealism. Bush I was a pragmatist in that he didn't really know what to do, and he was not particularly interested in promoting peace or solving problems around the world. On the other hand, Obama is interested, but he has a pragmatic approach to solving these problems. He has strong convictions about the nature of these problems and strategies on how to solve them. The key parts of his policy that's really idealistic are :

1.) lead by example instead of demanding democratic reform
2.) win people over by being nice to them to marginalize extremists

Castro and the USA

some members of the black caucus went to visit Castro at his house. weird. they were saying all these nice things about each other. what is going on? time to make nice with cuba finally?

A Better Clinton?

Clinton acknowledges that the US shares blame for Mexico's drug wars.

I feel working for Obama is allowing her to say what she really thinks, but that's just a theory.

Mitchell in the Middle East

Obama sent George Mitchell to the Middle East. The Israeli right wing don't like him, and I think is plus points.

Political Theater

Lots of acts around the world.

In the US, the whole dance around seating Roland Burris, the black American who was appointed to the senate in place of Barack Obama by Rod Blugoyavich. They ended up seating him, though, so yeah, touche Blugoyavich, touche.

Russia and Gazprom and Ukraine and EU are doing some kind of square dancing. It's all very horrible and embarrassing. And now many people are very cold. On the upside, it looks like the EU is actually refraining from taking sides, although admittedly, probably Russia is being a jerk.

In the Middle East, all that nonsense is still going on, and Osama Bin Laden has called for a Holy War. Uh huh. It remains to be seen if Mr. I_live_in_a_cave_somewhere is even relevant anymore.

News Analysis About Israel Bombings

This is a really good article by the NYT assessing Israel and Palestine's options from a political standpoint. Yes, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't, but for me, I really think it's damned for sure if you keep bombing, and mostly likely damned but perhaps not if you don't.

McCain, NeoCons, and Georgia

Toby sent me this article by Pat Buchanan, which is really interesting.

And None Dare Call It Treason

Now I have a better understanding about what is going on with Georgia and where McCain stands. McCain's foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, who is a neocon. He is a lobbyist who works for Orion Strategies who works for nations like Georgia and Latvia to get them "a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia."

Perhaps people like McCain really believe in supporting Georgia because of its "budding democracy." However, I still wonder how can they miss the irony of supporting Georgia while most of the people in South Ossetia really want to be part of Russia, and when Georgia resorted to using force. At the same time, they like to say they support Free Tibet because of self-determination. To me, there is a clear contradiction, and I feel embarrassed for people when I hear them talk about supporting Georgia in the news.

The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.

Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?

Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?

Washington Post article about Randy Scheunemann

Russia vs. Georgia

what the hell?

Foreign Policy stuff

I'm currently reading Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. "Blowback" is a jargon term used to describe unintended consequences of policies (and CIA missions). The book analyzes the consequences of a US foreign policy that tends to favor military force over diplomacy, and imperialistic misconceptions over factual investigation, especially with respect to Asia. The two chapters on China--the current state of affairs and issues like human rights and Tibet--are really good. Johnson's grasp of the big picture is refreshing, especially in a time when it's easy to jump on the bandwagon heckling China, albeit sometimes hypocritically. Once I finish the book I'm going to blog about the book in more detail.

Also on a related note, this NY Times article lists some of the individuals who make up the 300 people foreign policy advisors to Obama, including Susie E. Rice, Anthony Lake, Gregory B. Craig (all three served under Clinton), Dennis Ross (Middle East envoy for Presidents Clinton and Bush I), Ivo H. Daalder (Brookings Institution), and Richard Holbrooke (UN ambassador).

Which lead me to find a list of US think tanks on Wikipedia. How many do you recognize?

Obama: Time to Get Out

Obama wrote a NYT Op Ed.

They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

Obama Asia Policy

Obama's main Asia guy is Jeffrey A. Bader.

Here's an article about him vs. McCain's advisor Rich Armitage.

Bader is pretty good. His answers to some questions on Tibet are very good.

I believe the key to communicating concern to the Chinese about Tibet is to persuade Chinese that we are approaching them not as adversaries but as friends who wish China well. If they are approached as adversaries, they will have the natural reaction of people in any country, namely to circle the wagons and reject outside scrutiny. They will see criticism and suggestions as part of a broader plan to embarrass, humiliate, or even destabilize their country. We should acknowledge that every country has problems in relationships between ethnic groups, and between majority and minority populations, that issues involving religious conflicts, territorial claims, and disparities of income such as Tibet presents are not easy. Therefore, our suggestions and even our criticism should be offered in the spirit of trying to help them help themselves, not in order to judge them as morally deficient.

Danwei

Danwei has a lot of good posts today. (check out links at right).

Mei-zhong has a post where they translate some essays about what Chinese think of Obama and his China advisers.

Samantha Power

She is another adviser to Obama who is obsessed with genocide and human rights. I'm not sure what kind of action she really advocates, though. It seems that she wants more political and diplomatic action to prevent genocide, not necessarily military action. I am skeptical about whether the US even has resources to do more, though. At any rate, she is not the typical human rights advocate who always wants to impose sanctions on people and is all about free speech and democracy. She is very focused on genocides specifically.

PBS Profile