Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
He'll have to stand up to his own party better than he has on health care, though...
August 17, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 4:29pm | 22 Comments
''If Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it,'' he declared in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
He accused members of Congress of using the Pentagon budget to protect jobs back home, including on wasteful projects he said were diverting money needed for U.S. military forces battling everything from nuclear weapons to ''18th century style piracy and 21st century cyber threats.''
Obama thanked America's veterans and praised U.S. fighting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also spoke harshly of a ''defense establishment (that) has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world.''
Must admit, I would like to
Must admit, I would like to see one pro-obama analysis, instead of hystericals fighting for their one lobbyist cause...
President Obama also used
President Obama also used this occassion to declare that the war in Afghanistan was:
A "War of Necessity" and not a "War of Choice."
So much for the 18-24 month, etc., time frames.
"Obama thanked America's
"Obama thanked America's veterans and praised U.S. fighting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he also spoke harshly of a ''defense establishment (that) has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world.''
Its the fckin truth. Nuff said.
''If Congress sends me a
''If Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it,"
If only other pork laden bills had been vetoed (yeah, yeah, by the last guy, too....)
New proposed STRATEGIC DIALOGUE for Abu M: How to wean the politician from the public trough! Is there a COIN doctrine for that? Be heroes, CNASters, come up with one, thx.
(What happened to the My Thoughts On Afghanistan post below? Like, everyone arguing for the past week or so melted away.....I guess you done good, or else internet ADHD has caused the bloggers/commenters to move on to the next topic Like healthcare.
I told you last fall it would be difficult, not as a partisan, but as a grumpy in-the-trenches-at-a-teaching-hospital-doc, but did you all listen? No, no, you did not. How's that for internet bravado and confidence? I guess I just lost all credibility, huh? Whatever. If you can't say what you think, really think, then what's the point of it all?)
Oops, I wish to retract my
Oops, I wish to retract my 'everyone has melted away' on the My Thoughts On Afghanistan Strategy post comment, assuming my original comment here shows up. Why does it take so long for comments to post? That's annoying, yo.
So, people ARE commenting. Heart-ache! Itchy blog-comment trigger finger gets you in trouble, every time.
The primary challenge of the
The primary challenge of the 21st Century -- and the goal of all democratic and republican administrations since the end of the cold war -- has been to transform the Third World such as to make it more "open" and more "market-friendly" and, thereby, make the Third World better able to accommodate the needs of the expanding global economy.
This is seen as the Number One critically most important mission of the United States.
How else (other than by transforming the Third World to make it more market-friendly) can the United States hope to provide the resources that China, Russia and India, and the other developing nations, need to make them successful in their capitalist / democratic initiative.
It is considered exceptionally critical to the United States that these developing nations succeed in this endeavor and that they do not fail in this capitalist attempt and, thereby, slip back into communism or something worse.
Thus, the "Post-Cold War World," which the President wants the defense establishment to adapt to, is one in which the United States military -- and other instruments of state-craft and private enterprise -- are together used to transform the Third World such that it can meet the needs of these "rising" nations.
This is the lense through which United States actions (or lack thereof), in Afghanistan, Iraq and Honduras, and elsewhere throughout the Third World, are most easily viewed and best understood.
Wait, what,
Wait, what, Bill?
'......more "open" and more "market-friendly...." '
How about even 'more open and more market-friendly'?
Ok, Congress will just stick
Ok, Congress will just stick the pork in some other bill. Obama didn't have any problems with the so-called "stimulus" bill, a good portion of which was pork.
"Obama told the veterans
"Obama told the veterans that overhaul would not change how they get their medical services -- and that nobody in Washington is talking about taking away or trimming their benefits." - NYT
Okay, sorry to spam the comments with my comments, I'll stop after this (but, it IS healthcare, you started it.)
So, I know that quote was veteran specific, but can you see how people are skeptical of DC health care bills? We will cover more people - everyone enrolled - you get to keep your plan if you like it, no program you like will be trimmed or cut, and, oh yeah, due to the cost-curve bending EFFICIENCY of the government, all of this will help our bottom line as a nation. Deficit Neutral!
Oh, okay. I believe you, Mr. President.
The sad thing is, something will be passed, and it will be tweaked and finessed by grandees on Senate committees and who really knows what the long term effects of all this tinkering will be? What does it matter? The connected will exempt themselves from the worst of it.
The above Visitor was me,
The above Visitor was me, please don't bring up healthcare again, I swear, you all are giving me high blood pressure.
I have to stop now. This can't be healthy.
'If Congress sends me a
'If Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it,"
I guess a little bit of pork is ok then? hehehe.
Off Topic
I can't believe that Obama is outsourcing the most defining piece of legislation (healthcare) to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That single piece of legislation will ultimately define the Obama Presidency and while as a republican I would love an epic fail, I still can't believe that he isn't more out front in all this.
I'm not quite sure I
I'm not quite sure I understand the post here. Is Obama cowtowwing to the left or right wing of the party currently? You could make an argument that he's deferring too much to Max Baucus rather than pushing through a bill along straight party lines. You also could argue that he's embracing too large a reform and should scale it back to get broader bi-partisan support by giving up things like the public option (I think he could offer a bill that was just straight tort reform and the GOP establishment would still fight it for political reasons, but that's a different argument). I was wondering if someone could clarify this for me?
So you're saying we're
So you're saying we're getting a public option? Because that'd be nice. And unlike Defense pork, the out-years might actually come *down* in cost.
Madhu: I agree. At least a
Madhu: I agree. At least a couple of corrections are in order:
a. At my Paragraph 1: "... even more open and more market-friendly" (as you have suggested).
b. At my Paragraph 3: End with a question mark instead of a period.
c. At my Paragraph 4: "... slip back into 'pre-capitalist' communism or something worse." (Important to add that 'pre-capitalist' notation -- for the sake of China -- which was pre-capitalist communism back in the day and is capitalist-communism now.)
Very important, I think, to understand the predicament that the United States is facing in this "Post-Cold War World." We must try not to let Russia, China, et. al. fail and then "backslide" back into pre-capitalist communism -- or something worse -- and, in order to do this, we must transform Third World such that it might better meet the needs of these and other developing nations.
This puts the United States at odds with certain Third World peoples, nations and cultures that do not wish to "transform" in the manner that we and the rest of the world require.
Thanks.
Bill - Thirty years of
Bill - Thirty years of experience in work allied to health care provided many examples that the transformation of the medical system to "better serve" an expanding economy, rather than improving delivery of sustainable services, results in unacceptable costs.
What you suggest as being in our national interests is a continuation of policies followed by our last several political administrations - of both parties. What indicators can you provide to support the possibility of success in doing so? As I read the blogs and news, and drive the streets, I don't see much reason for believing that such a direction is beneficial for the nation - much less other nations and people.
Fnord - My local newspaper has begun an analysis of the issues involved in health policy; my hope is more information will help people calm down and come to greater agreement. I think the data available is sufficient to clarify what seem to be scary unknowns, if only it is made available in place of what has been put out so far. I know I need more specific information about the suggested alternatives - I've resisted getting deeper into proposals that appear to ignore some of the basic problems we have now.
MA: Indeed. The problems
MA:
Indeed. The problems with these "transforming the Third World to sustain the developing world" concepts" is the potential cost(s) to the United States in blood, treasure and political capital; and the significant potential that such efforts will compromise -- rather than enhance -- a security environment conducive to the needs of the developing world.
But with the Obama administration, we do not see any hesitation or change as to this overall goal of transforming the Third World. In fact, as the huge and historic changes being made in DoD and DoS indicate, this (transforming the Third World) is still the mission that provides us with our main marching orders today.
The only change with the Obama administration would seem to be that the United States will attempt to do this mission in a "smarter" (smart power) way -- by much heavier and much earlier engagment with the Third World.
The overall strategy for these future engagements is to (1) to use DoS to increase the dependency of these Third World governments on various forms of United States aid (thus making them more dependent upon us and more likely to do our bidding) and (2) to use DoD to train up their military and police forces IN ADVANCE of the time when the inevitable clashes might occur.
This would, it is believed, increase the chances that a smooth(er) transition can be made. This does seem to make pretty good sense, yes?
Relax a bit will ya? He'll
Relax a bit will ya? He'll get co-ops which is nothing to the political class, the 4-5 million people actually in the shite have a chance at getting out of it that way....that's if it doesn't fall apart.
Stand up: Yes Andrew, correct. Mind you he has his reasons. Political. Health Care fell apart in 93 cuz Mommytrix acted like a dictator to Congress. Here he's gone too far the other way in letting them go crazy. The pyschological bill and the debt from TARP and Stimulus are doing him in as well.
And he isn't out in front on his own bill.
Finally, the stupid far left shit fits; semi totaltarian actions, thug 3d world politics of attacking churches during the transition, busing in professional protestors where the people can see it - then accusing every ordinary citizen who asks a question at a town hall meeting of being a thug, terrorist or hired plant ....is really pissing people off.
News flash -- the Repubs aren't busing people in, or paying them to come. The Dem accusations of same are clearly more and more each day projection, or in other words an admission of guilt. The fact that this extremely ignorant of America press Corps apparently has a problem with American Democracy - much more than the Administation - doesn't help him either. The funniest moment last week was Robert Gibbs gently lecturing the White House press corps that town hall meetings are fundamental to American Democracy (uh, since the Pilgrims) and not some kind of revolutionary threat.
Bill - yer talking past Madhu.....
Bill - Eight months on, I'm
Bill - Eight months on, I'm not ready to conclude I understand Obama's game plan. He's accustomed to working with communities, which means people as well as interest groups. It isn't easy for people to reach agreement, as was demonstrated here. When I consider the various situations with which he is dealing, and observe the outcry --from tea-baggers to people fearful at having gov't foolin' with their Medicare to people antagonized by a female SecState and on and on-- I see incremental progress as better than not having issues raised.
Which seems to fit the short-term situation in Afghanistan also, excepting extra-judicial killings, torture and political imprisonment, and if one can trust that the outcome will not be more cost overruns increasing profits for US corporations, with mysteriously unaccounted sums, as in the past, but rather investment directly in activity sustaining the economic life of the people, with any profits invested back into Afghanistan and not flowing out to international corporations. (Ask me again in a year or so about that, because I won't believe it until I see it.) At least I have confidence that there are plenty of passionate people asking and answering questions. Hopefully those who are informed will remain vigilant.
However, the continuation of policies of targeted assassination, invasion and military action when not under direct threat are, imho, immoral and militate against civil society. I think there is sufficient information available to recognize that social stability isn't just an internal matter nor something to be achieved by isolation of states. IMHO, considering the economic interests of a state as a casus bellus is suicidal. Let's not be killing people because we need jobs; no job is worth it. Equally suicidal, in the long run, again imho, is to condition human rights on the basis of citizenship.
Madhu - yeah, screaming isn't seemly, is it? But spitting, now that's something else, don't you think, when you're hanging around with the military?
OK, Andrew, then riddle me
OK, Andrew, then riddle me this:
During his speech to VFW, Obama praised former GEN Shinseki for his "new reform effort" to provide affordable health care and other benefits at VA and then grumbled about wasteful DoD procurement policies, such as the FCS.
Uhhhh, FCS was one of Shinseki's babies. How can Shinseki get praise for being a can-do fighter of waste and abuse but then evade Obama's ire for the FCS, a program his SecDef killed because it was deemed a weapon "better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan?"
It's not a lie, I guess, if it's told b y a politician. Then, it's rhetoric or, when told very well, it's statesmanship.
MA: You have introduced a
MA:
You have introduced a very important and critical element to the debate re: transforming the Third World -- such that it meets the needs of the developing world -- to wit: "Moral Authority."
One generally needs (or wishes to have) "moral authority" -- so as to be able to obtain public support, international assistance and, most importantly, "freedom of action" -- all of which are needed today to prosecute such a huge agenda in numerous foreign lands.
Thus today, and in the recent past, we have seen a significant campaign be orchastrated to try justify our actions in the Third World.
Consider for a moment just how many times -- in the recent months and years -- you have heard such terms as: "dispute resolution," "disease reduction," "prevention of disorders," "poverty reduction," "prevention of injustices," "weak, fragile and/or failed states," "human dignity," "tyranny," "peacekeeping," "peacemaking," "anti-market authoritarianism," "conflict prevention, "conflict resolution," "terrorism," "humanitarian assistance," "reconstruction," infrastructure development," "regional stability." The list of such "Third World-centric" terms goes on and on and on.
This represents the "advertising campaign" or "public relations" portion of this agenda to transform the Third World.
These terms are used in the hope that they will provide enhanced public support, international assistance, but, most importantly, "moral authority" and "freedom of action" -- such that we might better prosecute this campaign.
But this is all part of the same ball of wax (part of the major 21st Century initiative to transform the Third World).
The hard part comes when we realize just what this initiative might require:
a. The potential need to deal harshly with generally innocent portions of the population(s) whose only crime may be that they do not wish to be "transformed."
b. The potential need to overthrow and / or replace officials and governments who prove to be ineffective or inefficient at making the desired market reforms.
c. And the potential need to marginalize and / or compromise long-sustaining but not market-servicing cultures.
This, I think, will prove to be the very hardest part of this task.
@SNLII Surely you're too
@SNLII
Surely you're too well-read and intelligent to be puzzled, shocked, or surprised by a politician's deliberately inconsistent interpretation of reality?
Add your comment