From the category archives:

United States

Welcome back!

Apart from color, demeanor, and facility with the English language, the substantive differences between our current President and his immediate predecessor seem fairly insubstantial.

An Associated Press article in today’s newspapers reports that General David Petraeus, appearing this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press program, described Afghanistan as a “tough and enduring fight that would require its ‘character and its size being scaled down over the years.’” That sounds as if we can expect our troops to remain in Afghanistan in strength well beyond the end-2011 deadline announced earlier by President Obama. General Petraeus also said that if the U.S. loses, there would “likely be a bloody civil war followed by a takeover by extremists. If the U.S. succeeds and Afghanistan stabilizes, the country could become the region’s new “Silk Road” with the potential to extract trillions of dollars worth of minerals.”

The General does not speak for the President, but Petraeus, as savvy a political operator as ever wore an Army uniform, is not about to repeat Stanley McChrystal’s mistake which, minus the frat boy banter, consisted of publicly disagreeing with the President. If he said this on a network TV broadcast, it is likely that the President agrees with his assessment, and may even have approved his remarks as a sort of trial balloon for the bad news he (the President) will ultimately have to break to the American people. [click to continue…]

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 7 comments }

You don’t get to be a four-star general in the U.S. Army by being undisciplined. Men who attain this rank – and so far they have all been men – tend to be hyper-smart, educated, focused, dedicated, and driven. Ability counts, but so does the political savvy needed to climb the greasy pole of the military bureaucracy. By all accounts, Stanley McChrystal exemplifies the breed. So what was he thinking when he allowed a Rolling Stone reporter unfettered on-the-record access to his inner circle, a decision that led directly to his dismissal? [click to continue…]

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Benjamin Franklin said, “Of two things you can be certain: death and taxes.” What was true in the 18th century is somewhat less so in 21st century America, at least where taxes are concerned. On this day, April 15, when most Americans are either submitting their annual tax returns or struggling to request extensions of the deadline, it is appropriate to consider the current state of taxation. It is widely reported that 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, a number that has increased dramatically under the Bush and Obama presidencies. Yes, the members of this 47 percent remain subject to withholding for Social Security (pension) and Medicare (post-retirement health care) contributions, but they are exempt from personal income taxes. This obviously increases the burden on those who do pay taxes, but a far more important consequence is the establishment of a more or less permanent class of people who feel free to demand ever-more generous services from government knowing that someone else will pick up the tab. As a people we have already grown used to fighting wars in which other people will serve and die in our place, and we now have a society in which the demand for services is increasingly disconnected from any notion of responsibility to pay for them. This can’t help but erode the notion of what it means to be a citizen. [click to continue…]

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about the strangest things. I should be like Dagwood and go down to the kitchen to make myself a sandwich, but instead I fire up my computer and start Googling. It’s less fattening, I guess.

I awoke last night wondering whether, in the wake of the Federal Government takeover of GM and Chrysler, the Feds were favoring their new subsidiaries when it came to buying government cars. Instead of returning to my vivid dream of being stranded on a desert island with a bevy of Singapore Airlines stewardesses, I decided to look it up. I couldn’t find any conclusive evidence one way or another, but I did learn a few interesting things.

One provision of last year’s Recovery Act (aka the “stimulus package”) was the Energy-Efficient Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement program, mandating the purchase of thousands of fuel-efficient cars from American car companies. I know, I missed it too the first time I read through the 1,400 page law. According to Edward Niedermeyer, writing on a blog called “The Truth About Cars,” a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to the General Services Administration revealed that as of June 2009 a total of 17,205 cars were purchased under the plan, of which 7,924 came from Ford, 6,348 from GM, and 2,933 from Chrysler. So there’s no indication the Feds bought more from government-owned GM and Chrysler than their relative market shares and/or production volumes would suggest. [click to continue…]

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

We have all seen the moment in countless movies when the intrepid band of commandos or bank robbers runs into an unforeseen problem and one of the group says, “Maybe it’s time to go to Plan B.” Someone else says, “What is Plan B?” and someone else, usually the leader of the group, says, “There is no Plan B.” This heightens the tension and drama, always a good thing in a thriller movie. In real life, at least in the public spheres of business and government, tension and drama are not such a good thing. Recent events, however, have made me suspect that not only do we not have a Plan B, we don’t even have a real Plan A.

In the movies, if you remember, Plan A  involves meticulous and detailed planning, usually requiring big expenditures, advanced technology, painstaking practice and rehearsal, and a team of crackerjack experts, each one the best in his field. There is a specific and measurable goal and a clear, if sometimes flawed, plan of execution. But in the current political and economic crisis, though we have the big expenditures and advanced technology, we seem to have neither a goal nor a plan. I don’t want to single out the Obama Administration, since governments in many other countries are equally culpable and besides, President Obama has inherited the result of eight years of less than meticulous planning by the Bush Administration. But we do have a problem.

Richard Cohen, in today’s Washington Post says the main issue is “the President’s inability to simply say what he wants and why that’s good for us,”  and he cites health care reform and the war in Afghanistan as two cases in point. It’s true that for all his “town hall meetings” and press conferences the President has not clearly told the American people what the problem is, why it’s important, what he plans to do about it, and, crucially, what success will look like, with respect to health care, Afghanistan, or any of a half-dozen other issues. Mr. Cohen chalks it up to Mr. Obama’s “coolness, an above-the-fray mien that does not communicate empathy…the fear that this man in the White House does not appreciate the anxiety that middle-class Americans feel.” If you follow this line of reasoning, if only we could get Bill “I Feel Your Pain” Clinton back in the White House everything would be okay.

On the health issue, President Obama says he wants universal coverage, lower costs, no increase in the budget deficit, no rationing of care, and no tax increases, but he knows it is impossible to achieve all of these things. He fears alienating any part of his political base by admitting this, structuring a reform package built around the bits he thinks are most important, and then taking his case to the people. So instead we get something no one understands and almost everyone opposes. It has nothing to do with empathy.

On Afghanistan, the New York Times reported yesterday that the White House “has been concerned about declining support for the war among the American public.” As he called for an increase in troop numbers in Afghanistan, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  said, “the President’s given me and the American military a mission, and that focuses on a new strategy, new leadership, and we’re moving very much in that direction.” Excellent. Now if only someone could tell us what that mission and strategy are.

Seasoned counter-terrorism experts tell us it could take another 10 or even 20 years to end the Taliban insurgency, and historical examples from Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, and other countries support these estimates. Is President Obama prepared to commit the U.S. to fighting in Afghanistan for the rest of his Presidency and far beyond? If not, how do we decide we’ve finished the job and can come home?

For all his talk about being the one who makes the hard choices, it’s becoming distressingly apparent that President Obama can’t or won’t confront an issue and take a decision that might disappoint some part of his political base. This, more than the specifics of any particular problem of the day, is the tragic flaw likely to make Mr. Obama’s Presidency end in failure.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }