WhirledView

COMMANDER IN CHIEF

By: Bill Stewart

One of the main Republican fears during last year's presidential campaign was that Barrack Obama simply was not ready to be Commander on Chief. He lacked vital experience. Even Hillary Clinton, Obama's chief Democratic rival, bought into that view with her famous who do you want answering the White House phone at three o'clock in the morning question? Actually, no president answers the White House phone at three o'clock in the morning, that's why there's a switchboard. But that's another matter.

This week, President Obama should have laid those fears to rest with his national security speech in the National Archives building in Washington. It was measured; it was detailed and it was forceful. None of that means he is right, but it does mean he is in command. No president is ever fully prepared for the job, especially when it comes to matters of national defense. National security is simply too complex to be learned on the road during a presidential campaign. Security threats and the intelligence that surrounds them are constantly changing, requiring daily briefings in which previous assumptions need to be reevaluated. That means the ability - and the courage - to change one's mind, if need be. An inflexible mind signifies an ideologue, the last kind of person we need in command. What matters most is good judgment, which means not only the readiness to listen to the experts but the maturity needed to sift through the evidence and make the right choice. Even so, a president doesn't always make the right choice. But the lack of those factors will guarantee that a president makes the wrong choice.

One of President Obama's first acts in office was to declare that he would close down the Guantanamo Bay prison by the end of the year. "Gitmo" had earned the world's opprobrium with allegations of prisoner mistreatment and the questionable legality under which many of the prisoners were held. During his national security speech, Obama repeated his view that the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo, and the use there and elsewhere of "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, had harmed our security rather than strengthened it. Following the speech, former Vice President Dick Cheney vigorously defended "Gitmo" and the use of those "enhanced interrogation techniques" as having helped to prevent further terror attacks against the US, and that Obama's actions were undermining US security.

The most troublesome problem of closing Guantanamo Bay is where does the US then put the 240 detainees currently imprisoned at the facility? The US Senate this week voted 90 to 6 to cut from a war-spending bill $80 million Obama had requested to close "Gitmo." Democrats joined Republicans in this act of political and moral spinelessness. No senator wanted it on the record that he - or she - had voted to have suspected terrorists moved to a maximum security prison in the continental US, on the assumption, presumably, that their presence in the US would increase the threat to our national security. It was a charge raised again by the former vice president. This, despite the fact that no one has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Obama's plan was not helped by a Pentagon report revealing that one out of seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from Guantanamo had returned to terrorist or militant activity. No doubt the issue will be resolved before the end of the year. But where leadership was called for in the matter of bringing the whole "Gitmo" issue to a close, the US Senate this week failed miserably.

Surrounded by the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, each a cherished symbol and a potent instrument of a nation of laws, Obama stressed that in the struggle against terrorism, we must remain true to both. He said that each of the remaining 240 prisoners was being reexamined by his administration. Some could be tried in US civilian courts. Those who violated the rules of war would face revamped military commissions, a decision that has dismayed liberal activists who say Obama is reneging on a campaign pledge to abolish the commissions. Some could be released while still others could be safely transferred to other countries, a procedure that so far has met with limited success.

The most difficult category of prisoners are those who cannot be prosecuted for one reason or another but who clearly present a threat to US security. These are the ones Obama is proposing to transfer to maximum security prisons in the US. Who else is going to take them? The tooth fairy? It's time to get real, something the US Senate so far is not prepared to do.

President Obama is finally getting into his role as commander in chief. It isn't an easy one, and he has already soured some of his support among liberal activists in the Democratic party. What is clear is that Obama is no radical. He is prepared to break new ground, but look at his closest national security advisors: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, a seasoned hold-over from the Bush administration; National Security Advisor James L. Jones, a retired marine general; Hillary Clinton, steeped in national defense issues, and Vice President Joe Biden, a frequent visitor to US battlefields as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They are sturdy supporters of the foreign policy establishment. And so is Barack Obama, even as he seeks to take a new approach.

Obama’s Speech to the Muslim World

By Patricia H. Kushlis

On June 4, 2009 President Barack Obama is slated to address the Islamic world from Cairo. The contours of that speech are likely to be being discussed, debated, written and rewritten as I post this even though the final draft is unlikely to have yet approached the finish line.

The speech should set the course this administration hopes to take in its dealings with the some 1.3 billion or more Muslims many of whom live - like the Egyptians - in countries that straddle the equator.

Certain individuals – particularly western human rights firsters – have criticized the administration for choosing Cairo as the location for the speech. They point to Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime in power since 1981 and its suppression of the political opposition arguing that Obama’s speech would better be delivered from Turkey or Indonesia, two moderate Sunni majority nations with multi-party democratic governments. Or even Malaysia, Indonesia’s neighbor to the northeast.

More Frames

by Cheryl Rofer

Could we make a rule that anybody who hasn't questioned the ability of Justices Roberts or Alioto to judge without being influenced by their ethnicity (white establishment male, Catholic if you care to add that in) is not allowed to question Sonia Sotomayor's ability on that count? (cf. Kevin Drum, Steve Benen) It's a tired frame: white establishment male equals the norm. Not any more.

And could we stop using child-discipline words to describe North Korea's behavior or possible responses to it? Yes, some of this looks like tantrums, but so did some of George W. Bush's statements on international affairs ("Bring 'em on!). What the childish descriptors do is to mess up our thinking on the matter. We can't spank North Korea, and putting sanctions on them is not an equivalent. The Washington Post and the New York Times do pretty well in today's reports, the Huffington Post, not so well.

Framing the North Korean Issue

by Cheryl Rofer

It's hard to know what the North Koreans are trying to tell us with their nuclear test. Are they demonstrating prowess? This would argue toward what I called the "Christy option" in their nuclear design. Are they simply determined to build a warhead that can fit on their missiles and make it work? That would argue that they changed some things from their first design and are that much closer to something workable.

Likewise, some analysts are arguing that the nuclear test was as much about the succession within North Korea as its relations with the rest of the world. They provide statements and a certain level of rhetoric, but it's hard to know how to interpret that, given that success in negotiating with them has had such a hit-and-miss character.

I do think that there is a pattern that shows that negotiating with North Korea has been more successful than not negotiating, although it's not definitive. Steven Bosworth, the special envoy who was on his way to North Korea when the test took place, thinks so too, as do Joe Klein and Steve Clemons.

Reflections on Memorial Day – Past, Present and Future

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Lest we forget: “Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service.”

The house around the corner flew a huge American flag and a Marine Corps one right below it all weekend. The church – likely Christian evangelical – a few blocks away displayed on its large billboard a reminder to those of us who just might have forgotten that it is our religious duty to honor the military. Not those who have “fallen in service to our country” but the military. End of story.

The president delivered his Memorial Day address at Arlington National Cemetery where he invoked those in attendance - or watching on television - to honor the military that have fallen in service to our country. Fine. As far as it goes.

But wait a minute. Let’s look a little more closely at the definition of Memorial Day. Here’s what I found in my Time Almanac:

“Memorial Day became a federal holiday in 1971 and is observed on the last Monday in May. It originated in 1868, when Union General John A. Logan designated a day in which the graves of Civil War soldiers would be decorated. Originally known as Decoration Day, the holiday was changed to Memorial Day within twenty years, becoming a holiday dedicated to the memory of all war dead.”

What is wrong with today’s picture?

Simply put: Those who died in America’s wars are more than the US military in whose name this holiday appears to have been hijacked.

Just walk into the lobby of the State Department through the Diplomatic Entrance on C Street and look at the ever growing list of names carved into the marble wall on the left – if, that is, the security guards will let you in. Those are names of American diplomats who died in service to their country beginning before the Civil War. This list is increased every year on Foreign Affairs Day which occurs on the first Friday of May. Sure, many included in it did not die in war zones, but some did.

The others?

Let’s just say they helped keep this country safe and out of war. Isn’t that as important if not far more so?

What about the CIA’s fallen? And what about war correspondents and civilians caught in the cross-fire? Shouldn’t they too be honored on Memorial Days past, present and future? Aren’t they too America’s war dead?

Seems to me its time to reclaim Memorial Day from its current exclusive military preserve. Of course: Honor the military who have died in America's wars – but not exclusively. We also need to remember that in the long run it’s not just the US military that helps keep this country free and safe.

India: Pip! Pip! Hooray!

By Patricia Lee Sharp e

Man Mohan Singh has been invited to form a coalition government led by the Congress party for another five years.  This is good for the long term health of the Congress.  It’s also good for India because the only plausible alternative, a coalition led by the BJP (Bharatya Janata Parishad) would most likely have led to increased tensions between Muslims (approximately 14% of the population) and the Hindu majority.  A restive 14% would be a very ugly prospect.

The Family Squabble

Among the candidates contesting seats in the Lok Sabha were two cousins, Rahul Ghandhi and Varun Gandhi, sons of the sons of Indira Gandhi, daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, who in turn was the son of Motilal Nehru, one of the original founders of the Indian National Congress.  Rahul is considered to be a rising star in the Congress Party; Varun is trying to make his mark through the BJP, which also claims the many talents of Maneka Gandhi, his ostracized-from-the-family and no doubt still embittered mother.

All three Gandhis ran successfully from their chosen constituencies in the recent elections, which means that Rahul will be opposing Cousin Varun and Aunt Maneka in the Lok Sabha.   And oh yes, just to make things clear—or to muddy them further, Rahul’s father Rajiv was Prime Minister (now Man Monhan Singh’s job) when a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber assassinated him, at which point Rahul’s Italian-born mother Sonia Gandhi became leader of the Congress party, which she still is—and more expertly than anyone dreamed possible back then. Now, Rajiv was PM because the previous PM, his own mother, the ferocious Indira Gandhi, mother also of Sanjay, husband of Maneka, was assassinated by angry Sikhs after she sent the Indian Army into Amritsar’s Golden Temple to quash a Sikh separatist movement.  And did I mention that Maneka is a Sikh?  (As is Man Mohan Singh.)

Sounds like something out of a soap opera set in Texas, doesn’t it?  For some down and dirty family details, read here and here and here.  

Kudos to India

But first, let’s wholeheartedly congratulate the world’s largest democracy for—once again!—running a nearly impeccable election, proving—once again!—how truly India is a democracy.  There were over half a billion voters by the time the final phase had been completed, some 60% of the eligible voters. (For a reasonably coherent collection of details, here’s a source.  And another.   Even the U.S., which tends be undeservedly smug about the reliability of  its electoral process, can’t hold a general election any more honestly.  In this case, the BJP renounced its government-forming ambitions as soon as ballot tallies made the trend disappointingly clear.  If there had been any doubt, if there had been the least sign of systemic corruption or procedural dereliction in any key constituency in the vastly complex, month long Indian electoral process, there would have been some very loud squawking and determined contestation.

Unfortunately the New York Times didn’t pause for hearty congrats once Congress got the go ahead to form the new government from India’s president.  Its editorial board launched with little preamble into the carping that has been India’s fate vis-à-vis the American intelligentsia and political class since day one, mostly (I think) because independent India has never felt, spoken or acted as if it should be subservient to the US and has even dared, at times, to offer itself as a rival light unto the world.  But President Barack Obama did a little better in the graciousness category when he accepted, a few days later, the credentials of the new Indian ambassador to the U.S.   That’s a welcome change, but time alone will tell if he really appreciates conversation more than sycophancy.

So—pip! pip!—here’s to India—with an admonition to the rest of the world.  Clearly, it’s not poverty or illiteracy that prevents a country from holding recurrent reliable elections.  It’s the absence of courage to face elections on the part of those who hold power.  In many ways, the US and Europe are not the best examples to hold up as models of meritorious electoral behavior.  India is.  If India can do it, any country can, and—China take note!—these  hotly contested, free and fair elections have been a stabilizing, legitimizing route to averting the once widely predicted dissolution of an ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse post-colonial republic. 

No to Foolish Nepotism

Next, from the intra-Congress point of view, why is it good that a jubilant Congress Party has united behind Man Mohan Singh?   Well, despite the fractious coalition he had to govern with after the previous election, Singh achieved enough to permit Congress to pick up the seats he needed to dominate a less bumptious coalition this time around. So he deserves it.  Success should be rewarded and built upon.  But that doesn’t always happen.  Especially where the potential for nepotism is strong.

The Quark Prizes

by Cheryl Rofer

3 Quarks Daily is offering prizes for the best blog posts in four categories. They plan to award them on the solstices and equinoxes, and yikes! the summer solstice is almost upon us.

The categories are Science, Arts & Literature, Politics, and Philosophy. The short fuse is on the Science prize. The deadline for nomination is June 1. Then there will be a round of voting and selection by the 3 Quarks bloggers and Steven Pinker.

So I will ask our readers to nominate one or more of my posts if they think that post deserves a prize. The way you nominate is by leaving the URL in the comment thread at 3 Quarks. Here are what I think are my best in science for the past year:

Prairie

Rotifer Love

The Question of Expertise

At Last - A Good Idea in Nuclear Reactors?

What You See When You Look!

Freedom’s Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose

by Cheryl Rofer

A seismic signal from northeastern North Korea seems to indicate another nuclear test. I haven’t seen a specific statement that the signal had the double peak characteristic of nuclear tests, but the location was the same as North Korea’s previous nuclear test, and preparations had been going on at the test site for a few weeks.

We’ll hear more about the yield later, as more of the seismology labs across the world weigh in with their estimates. Right now, Jeffrey Lewis and Geoff Forden are working their spreadsheets, which are changing rapidly, although they seem to be converging (along with others they link to) on a yield of less than 10 kilotons. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons were in the 15-20 kiloton range.

That’s higher than the first North Korean test in 2006, which was less than 1 kiloton, which amounts to a fizzle in nuclear weapons circles, although 500 tons of TNT could be pretty destructive.

The Technical Strategy
It’s embarassing to announce a nuclear test to the world and then have it show up not so well. The Indians and Pakistanis dealt with this problem in 1998 by setting off multiple tests simultaneously. This tended to mask the seismic signals from the tests, and it took the rest of the world quite a while to figure out that some of the tests were probably less than the testers expected.

When you don’t have a lot of fissionable material, however, that’s harder to do. The Pakistanis set off five devices. That’s almost equivalent to North Korea’s total store of plutonium.