You know, one thing about this Honduras thing that I now realize is that I have no idea where Zelaya falls on any sort of political spectrum. The dispute that led to the coup seems to have been entirely about his attempts to hold onto power through dubious means. He could well be less than stridently pro-US, but I haven't seen any mention of that.
(And, yes, I could easily look this up, and it probably has been mentioned in numerous detailed news accounts that I haven't read. But to the casual news consumer, like me, the lack of political content to these events is striking.)
Discriminating news consumer, teo.
I like the joke about there being "numerous detailed news accounts", too.
You may have noticed I haven't been around here much lately, possibly because I'm no longer as discriminating a news consumer as I once was. I'm still pretty casual, though.
Anyway, regardless of the number of detailed news accounts (which I had a suspicion was near or at zero, but, you know, casual news consumer), I still don't know anything about Zelaya's politics. Do you?
Nope!
I am so discriminating a news consumer that basically nothing passes muster with me.
Generally left, allied with Chavez, viewed as hostile by business interests, pro drug legalization, and periodically attacks the US rhetorically. That said, he has indeed alienated most of the political spectrum in Honduras.
All I need to know: Should I stockpile bananas or can I wait until my usual Saturday trip to Whole Foods?
3 - Randy Paul's comments seem to indicate that he's on the Ortega/Chavez axis of left-populist authoritarian dicks who don't like America as opposed to the Uribe axis of right-populist authoritarian dicks who like America. I know even less about Honduran politics than I do about Nicaraguan or Colombian politics, though, so I can't speak to anything beyond that.
... the emerging Obama approach to foreign policy seems to be marked by an overwhelmingly refreshing guiding principle: caution.
What about Afghanistan?
I feel like I haven't heard or seen from Hilary Clinton at all since she became Secretary of State (yeah, she went on some trips, but they were low-profile; apparently she was annoyed by someone somewhere, blah blah). I, like teofilo, am perhaps a more casual news consumer than I should be, but seriously, what gives? Am I missing her being active, or is she simply not making the news?
I might be biased, but this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
http://www.allourmight.com/?p=678
A lot of people in Honduras are pissed at Zelaya because he was elected center-right and then zagged left during his term. That, and his attempts to allow for his own reelection are "legal" only under a very broad interpretation of that word.
What about Afghanistan?
In fairness, Barry O. didn't *start* that one and seems to be conducting a sincere effort to get out. It's certainly a mess that's fallen into his lap.
I feel like I haven't heard or seen from Hilary Clinton
She broke her elbow and has been working largely from home. Just cancelled a trip to Russia.
What about Afghanistan?
So far he's doing what he campaigned on, for better or worse. The caution is in dealing with emerging situations.
seems to be conducting a sincere effort to get out
This is not at all my take on his Afghanistan policy.
Just back from Afghanistan as a bold new military offensive gets underway, National Security Advisor James Jones sounds confident about President Obama's surge strategy.
"The pieces are there and over the next two months we will see what develops," he told ABC News in an exclusive interview in his West Wing office. 17,000 additional combat troops are arriving this month, and 4,000 additional trainers will be in by next month.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Honduras just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Yeah, I was aware of the troop build-up and just-launched offensive. I think it's a long strategy to get out. No idea if it's a fool's errand.
Smells an awful lot like Nixon's "secret plan" to get out Vietnam by expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia.
I knew about the broken elbow. I guess I just expected her to be a much more active member of the cabinet than she seems to have been so far....
Maybe he's taking a page from the GOP playbook, and using State as the place you stick potential critics/rivals to neutralize them (ask Colin Powell about this one).
Should I stockpile bananas
Overripe bananas are what the devil feeds you in hell, so no. Buy Jamaican.
I think there's something to 20, but at the same time, I think that opportunities for HRC to stand out have been few. A quick review:
Economic crisis/G-8: Obviously BHO's show
Iraq: stay the F away
Afghanistan: military project, no State role
Iran: admin playing it cool, HRC would be too high profile
Honduras: ditto
Israel: BHO has laid down a marker, and is waiting to see if Bibi blinks; no role for HRC (yet)
Pakistan: strikes me as a place where HRC could play a big role fruitfully but hasn't. But of course I could be wrong.
Am I missing any other high profile spots?
Other than that, she's been flying around, doing some generic State stuff. Possible that she's also been at work trying to whip State back into shape after 8 years of malign neglect. Don't forget that her MO in the Senate was to put her head down and work first, take on a higher profile later.
I suspected 20, but I hadn't remembered 22.last, which seems reasonable. Thanks!
Overripe bananas are what the devil feeds you in hell, so no. Buy Jamaican.
I buy from apo's dog who craps bananas.
State's job is to help the President announce his brilliant and astonishing diplomatic achievement, like Camp David or Reykavik. State does the grunt work, like in embassies, and otherwise is invisible. Honduras is a great example:"The President's caution and competence."
The facts and domestic law of the Honduran crisis is apparently very complicated, and AFAIC the President has gone too far to one side already.
Zelaya politics: well. populism is not always leftism.
Heeerreee's Lenin on Honduras.
Honduras belongs to the CIA and DoD.
"Big push" is not a phrase that a Blackadder fan can view with equanimity.
Am I missing any other high profile spots?
Um, North Korea? Not that I have the faintest idea what she could or should be doing.
And I didn't know about the broken elbow. Huh. Apparently I am a more casual news consumer than I thought.
Witt--It's great having you around, but don't you have work that you want to finish up?
Oh, and isn't it the State Dept. that's supposed to be finding homes for all those Guantanamo detainees? So: Palau. Bermuda. Probably a lot of other super-secret negotiation. Maybe California would take some in exchange for an injection of cash.* I hear they're hurting.
*Nothing about this should be construed as an endorsement of pants-wetting hysteria over the supposed dangerousness of detainees.
We'll take them! Please send an allowance with them.
20,22: It may be appropriately so, but it has been low profile and most certainly nothing close to the drama the Entertainment Tonight: National Politics folks worked themselves into an anticipatory frenzy about.
||
Predatory Lending by the Obama administration. Brand new, you might wait for comments, or scroll down to the previous Yves Smith thread on the subject..
I have been expecting this. Because of assymetric information, and people's somewhat irrational desire to stay in their homes, this is just evil, the Obama administration is evil, and Obama is evil.
|>
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Honduras just doesn't have the same ring to it.
But great internal rhyme.
18: Except that he doesn't seem to have started bombing anyplace that hasn't yet been bombed.
I think the only sensible course forward at this point is to draw down sharply in Iraq, doing everything possible to get things stable and keep them there short of actually policing the place, and move lots of troops into Afghanistan to try to end the war that was put on hold for the idiotic imperialist adventure in Iraq. The other major thing that needs to happen is to drop the illusion that just because they were useful in the Afghan war against the soviets the Pakistan government is on our side (whatever the hell that means). Obama seems to be doing the right things in a very messy situation, AFAICT.
Except that he doesn't seem to have started bombing anyplace that hasn't yet been bombed.
He's stepped it up in Pakistan, certainly.
move lots of troops into Afghanistan to try to end the war
It's really unclear to me what useful thing more troops in Afghanistan could do. I could just be underinformed or underimaginative.
I've been having an argument with a former classmate who's supporting the coup in Honduras. The gist of his position is "Zelaya's referendum was illegal, and we must Stop Creeping Socialism in Latin America." So, meh. I figure, using the military to remove a democratically elected leader is never a good idea. In this case it appears to have been constitutionally legal, since Honduras' constitution was written during an earlier military dictatorship. It's true, though, that Zelaya's politically weird. Elected in the Liberal (i.e. conservative) party, swung left and joined Chavez' ALBA etc.
Weirder is that I'm having this argument on Facebook. Blog arguments, listservs, personal email, these are places I'm used to arguing. Facebook argument seems somehow inappropriate. Not that I'm backing down or anything - fuck that.
38: Just throwing troops at the problem isn't going to help, but a more troops can potentially make life harder for the Taliban and create enough stability to bring about material improvements in the lives of people who might otherwise look to the Taliban. I don't think Afghanistan can be made into a functioning state without boatloads of money and humanitarian aid (of the teach a man to fish variety, as well as the give a man a fish kind), but knocking the Taliban back on their heels a bit is a precondition for everything else.
That's a lot of caveats and ifs, but doing what we had been doing wasn't working, and leaving with the place in a shambles would not only be a disaster for the people living there, it would also empower extremist groups elsewhere. Bush took a truly colossal shit in the bed, unfortunately.
40: Right, but do we need combat troops or civil affairs or something else entirely?
I don't know nearly enough to know what I should be advocating for. All I can figure out is that Obama seems to be wanting to escalate things militarily, and I have a very hard time thinking that is going to solve any of Afghanistan's myriad problems.
40 and 41 together describe my confusion. I'm sure we should get out of Iraq, because they don't want us there. I'm less sure that there's nothing good we can do in Afghanistan, but damned if I know what it is.
Zelaya's referendum was illegal, and remains so, and wasn't even accepted by his own party. Military coups are always illegal. In this case they may have had good intentions (it's hard to say here), but nothing to the extent that justifies a coup. The constitutional structures were still in place and had blocked his referendum - so the military were justified in refusing to distribute ballots, but not much more. There were constitutional avenues still available, including impeachment, or just waiting out his term after which he would not be able to run again. There were also drug-running accusations around, so a conventional arrest and trial was also a possibility.
Basically, it was a stupid, illegal, and unjustified move by the military, who should have stayed the hell out and let things resolve themselves constitutionally.
So, what's the "good" outcome in Afghanistan? A secular, pluralistic and democratic state which can provide for its citizens and serve as a bulwark against fundamentalist Islam. Is there any possibility that this could be achieved by dropping more cluster bombs, laying more mines and detaining more random young men? We're in sparkly winged-unicorn land here, and we're not even asking for much more than what they've got in Turkey, which is no prize as states go. The US and the EU and the Russians should get out of Central Asia entirely immediately. Afghan solutions for Afghan problems is the only way things will ever get better.
At this point, a "good" outcome is a minimally functioning state that keeps the Taliban out of power.
45
So, what's the "good" outcome in Afghanistan? ...
No terrorist training camps for foreigners. Keep enough troops to prevent this. Otherwise minimize interaction with natives.
The trick is listening for the drums so you know when they're restless.
13
So far he's doing what he campaigned on, for better or worse ...
The Drum post I linked in 9 claims otherwise.
I got busy and unable to reply here, but apo's right in 18 and 20. I didn't mean to sound like I was giving Obama an A+ on foreign policy in the OP. But I do think his responses are noteworthy in the Iranian and Honduran examples when compared with US posturing under previous administrations.
And, yeah, I have no clue what to do in Afghanistan.
I'm wondering if the effort to kill much of the state department's influence and power has been successful but that fact hasn't become clear yet. Generally speaking, it seems like Cabinets are becoming more and more uniformly behind presidents than they used to be. I could be completely wrong about that, and there are arguments for and against that kind of centralization, but it doesn't seem like there's much autonomy in a "Secretary of" position. Not that Pinchot feuding with Taft is a great way to run a government.
45: Is there any possibility that this could be achieved by dropping more cluster bombs, laying more mines and detaining more random young men?
Laying mines? What are you talking about? Isaf isn't laying mines in Afghanistan.
Not that Pinchot feuding with Taft is a great way to run a government.
It could make an interesting rap battle, however.
That one's got a one-track mind, I tell ya.