Barack Obama is an enigma, wrapped in glamor, enclosing the following riddle:

When is an image not an image?

Answer: when it is a chimera.

William Pfaff is one of the most perceptive political commentators in the English language. Here he examines the intentions of "The One".

William Pfaff - Obama and Afghanistan
Abstract: I have yet to see a serious explanation of what Barack Obama, if elected, expects to accomplish by expanding the fighting in Afghanistan. Obviously he, like the Bush administration and NATO, would like to keep the Taliban from coming back to Afghanistan. They all want to capture Osama bin-Laden (presuming he is still alive, about which there is some doubt). They want to defend the UN-endorsed Hamid Karzai government in Kabul, and to prevent the country from again being made into a “terrorist refuge and training ground,” to employ the usual shibboleth. But what makes them think that they are capable of doing this? Afghanistan is a huge country which has always suffered from ethic-based warlords. The Taliban belong to the biggest ethnic group in the country, the Pathans – 40% of the population, with millions more of them in adjoining Pakistan.(...) I am more inclined to think, with regret, that Obama has swallowed Washington’s Kool Aid on Afghanistan and Pakistan: that Force is the only thing Natives understand. This would seem surprising, given that he saw the trap in Iraq from the start, and knows what happened to the U.S. in Viet Nam. But he certainly sounds as if he thinks he has located the answer to the war on terror. At least in Vietnam one fought the actual enemy. In Pakistan-Afghanistan one is playing billiards. The U.S. threatens the Pakistanis; that is expected to make them do bad things to the Taliban; so that the Taliban then hand over Osama bin Ladin. Al Qaeda is mainly Saudi Arabian and Arab. The Taliban are not terrorists; they have never attacked the United States or European NATO. They just want their country back. They were running Afghanistan when the Americans came in 2001. They are not people you and I want to govern us. They oppress women, ban higher education, and apply Sharia law. But that surely is the Afghan people’s problem. They let the Taliban take over their country in 1996, and perhaps they are ready to do so again. What has this to do with NATO?(...) Invading other countries to nation-build seems the new American idea. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a long article in Foreign Affairs explaining that “we will be involved in nation building for years to come.” According to her article, American military and civilian agencies are being re-trained to carry out a “generational” task of “stabilization and counterinsurgency missions” to achieve “democratic state building” in Asia and the Middle East. Is this what Barack Obama contemplates?

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

The recently arrived-at conventional wisdom that by releasing troops from Iraq, the dire situation in Afghanistan will somehow magically improve also requires a more rigorous scrutiny. McCain and Gates are talking about deploying an additional 10,000 soldiers or three combat brigades there; Obama would send two. That would take total US and Nato force levels to, at most, 82,000 troops, plus 145,000 Afghan army and police of varying reliability. But to attain a lasting improvement in security while creating critical breathing space for reconstruction and institution building, a much larger presence may be deemed necessary. General Dan McNeill, a former Nato commander in Afghanistan, has estimated 300,000 well-trained, disciplined security personnel are needed. Some US counter-insurgency experts say an additional 150,000 fighting soldiers are required. These huge numbers should give pause, especially to Obama. Having opposed the Iraq quagmire and scored political points for doing so, the Democrat is in danger of putting his name to another escalating foreign military adventure that while arguably more justified, is just as likely as Iraq to go badly, bloodily wrong. Simon Tisdall - Guardian

It's true: Barack Obama reminds one of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

The grace, the glamor, the "soaring" rhetoric; it's all there.

The ecstatic Berlin crowds complete the picture.

I loved JFK... I was only sixteen when he got elected, I was heartbroken when he was killed. American politics have never recovered from that trauma.

However, part of my growing up politically was to sadly discover that JFK was probably the worst president of my lifetime. Much worse than Jimmy Carter, even worse than "The Decider" himself.

And paradoxically, part, probably the greatest part, of what made JFK so bad, was how well he spoke.

He literally talked the United State of America into Vietnam.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

How do you like them apples?

Of course, we found out that we couldn't "pay any price" or "bear any burden" (although we could get a hernia trying) or "meet any hardship" or "support any friend" or "oppose any foe"... Nothing like it...

It was all bullshit and it cost the lives of a couple of million South East Asians and 50,000 Americans and it ruined the dollar and ruined American politics.

If there was any lesson the American people should have learned, it was that one.

Hot off the wires:

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.(...) People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.(...) It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on history. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

How do you like them apples?

If you stop and think about it, isn't it wonderful, truly God's gift to Americans and to the people of the world at large, that George W. Bush is such a lousy speaker?

Because, have no doubt:

I come before you to say, that this is our time.

This is the moment.

People of Berlin and of the world.

This is the moment...

The moment, that when, and if, this young and brilliant man gets elected President of the United State of America,

That will be the moment, proud citizens, that our time will have come... again... to talk ourselves into some mighty deeeeeeeeeep and righteous shit sir... and that's a natural fact. DS
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

He was hiding behind an enormous beard, white ponytailed hair topped with an odd black tuft, and a new life so at odds with his myth as to deflect suspicion.(...) The fatigues-wearing leader of the Bosnian Serbs was unrecognizable in a guise that was part guru and part Santa Claus. IHT

G.K. Chesterton said, people who don't believe in anything end up believing in everything. This is a fairly good description of much of the New Agers. You know, one week it's yoga, next week reiki, week after that shiatsu or ayaguasca.

That's why I laughed out loud when I read that Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb's answer to Dr. Mengele,  had disguised himself as a guru and nobody around him ever caught on... No flies on this mass murderer. A perfect disguise.

There are no surroundings imaginable that are as uncritical or less "judgmental": where intense and skeptical scrutiny is more discouraged, than the ones "Dr Dabic" immersed himself in. No safer place for a cynic to hide.

Taking a cue from the article above, I sought out Karadzic's web page (BTW, how many mass murderers do you know that have their own web page?)

Now, my opinion of Radovan Karadzic, up till now, has been simply what I had read in the papers and online when he was doing his mass killing: impersonal reprobation, and a special dislike of his old haircut.

However, just a moment ago on visiting his web page, I came across this collection of "Dr Dabic's Favorite Chinese Proverbs", in English, and they really gave me the creeps. Here is the lot:

10 favorite ancient Chinese proverbs as selected personally by Dr. Dabic:

 * Behind every able man, there are always other able men.

* Teacher opens the door, but you must enter by yourself.

 * A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion.

* He who cannot agree with his enemies is controlled by them.

* If your strength is small, don't carry heavy burdens. If your words are worthless, don't give advice.

* A flawed diamond is better than a common stone that is perfect.

* Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere.

* If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime, teach people.

* You cannot prevent the birds of sorrow from flying over your head, but you can prevent them from building nests in your hair.

  * The one who gives up his own, should dig two graves.

That last one makes you believe in the devil, doesn't it?

Even the devil can quote scripture.

And what murderous, self-regarding, inhuman vanity hides behind, "A flawed diamond is better than a common stone that is perfect?"

Every proverb in the list is filled with sinister nudges and winks.

How he must of cackled to himself when lecturing to his rapt audiences.

If I ever thought that Karadzic was simply part of Hanna Arendt's "banality of evil"; just another gray, Eichmann-like brick in the wall of the 20th century's mass produced savagery, it disappeared when confronted with Dr Dabic's insolent narcisism.

They say that Karadzic has asked his jailers for a shave and a haircut.

When the barber has finished, that will be the end of the Dr Dabic incarnation. Requiscat in Pace.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

Looks like McCain is going to try to finesse Obama's "World Tour", by timing his Veep nominee to coincide with it.

I would like to go out on a limb and make a prediction. It´s either going to be Sarah Pallin or Bobby Jindal.

I don't think it will finally be Sarah Pallin, because the Hillary women who are not going to vote for Obama are not going to vote for Obama because they are not going to vote for Obama and Pallin wouldn't draw one single female vote more.

She is so beautiful that it is not sexist to say so, it only reveals a certain latent heterosexuality on the speaker's part.

I think it is going to be Bobby Jindal .

As a person of color Jindal can run against Obama in ways that McCain can't and his lack of experience is no problem as Obama has set the bar very low on that point. In fact it could be argued that Jindal has more actual experience than Obama. He also has strong economic creds among conservatives. As the governor of Louisiana he is also a person of color who Southern whites feel comfortable with, he is also a Catholic... If the Republicans are looking for a way for white people to vote against Obama without feeling racist, Jindal is the key.

I don't think it will be Mitt Romney because it would be too boring and wouldn't make much of a media splash. Media splash is very important because it obvious that the media are trying to black out McCain.

"Do you still beat your wife?" is the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. There is no satisfactory answer to it.

The situation the United States finds itself in the Middle East and in Afghanistan is like a bookshelf filled with tome upon tome of similar questions.

Just as answer to the wife beating question is self-incriminating, and based upon a hopefully false premise  -- you never beat her in the first place -- so it is too if we try to describe Iraq and Afghanistan <i>today</i> as an "either or" proposition. Taking troops from the "wrong war" and putting them into the"right war" is simply to pile error upon error and make worse a shameful situation, that might be salvaged to some extent and a setting off merrily to fall into a bottomless pit.

The war in Iraq is was a criminal error and the USA is stuck with the results. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it." We broke it and we own it.

In my opinion George W. Bush is a straight forward war criminal and should be tried by the Hague Tribunal, just like Milosevic. I also agree with Barack Obama when he says that it distracted from the priority of catching Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. However I would put emphasis on the use of the past tense... It <i>was</i> a distraction. It no longer is, Osama bin Laden is not who he was and "terror" (that threatens the USA) is not being fought in either country today.

The United States never should have invaded Iraq... but it did and that <i>cannot</i> ever be changed.  It is still a matter of argument whether the USA invaded Iraq for "oil" or for "Israel", I think that both were factors, whatever the reason, it has been a disaster for both oil and for Israel... But it could be worse.

Like many people caught in a criminal situation, the United States has to brazen it out. Repentance, Confession, Restitution, followed by Absolution, which is how Christians are supposed to handle such situations are unfortunately none of them options for a superpower.

Do you think that people all over the world accept dollars -- which the USA prints with nothing to back them up except a huge current account debt... <i>and military power</i> -- just because they think we are <i>cute</i>?

Try to imagine your life if America had to buy Euros in order to pay for oil.

In my opinion America's <i>real</i> challenge in Iraq <b>today>b> is to extract itself with mastodontic leisure in order not to terminally destabilize the Middle East.

Most of the Middle Eastern regimes are clients of the USA, this includes an extremely precarious Egypt, with its 70 million people, and most of the oil producers.

Any American enthusiasm for accepting Maliki's (of all people's) endorsement of a pre-established date for a complete American withdrawal from Iraq might have consequences similar to those that June to August 1914 had in Europe.

At this point the United States must not be seen to bow to any pressure, especially from a rogue puppet like Maliki a man that the USA installed itself.

"Act in haste (invade Iraq) repent at leisure" (leave at a time entirely of our own choosing) should be the guiding principal.

The damage has already been done, it cannot be undone, there is no hurry now. If the USA gets neither oil contracts, bases nor any safety for Israel out of this disaster, it will not only be (justly) accused of criminal behavior, but also thought (justly) to be weak, feckless and stupid.

If the United States, just because invading Iraq was a criminal mistake in the first place, now "declares victory" and withdraws within a time frame not entirely of its own choosing, a general war may break out between Israel and its neighbors within weeks or months. This is not a serious option and neither McCain or even Obama will finally do that, <i>no matter what they are saying today</i>.

Hold on, it gets worse.

Iraq is a war that strains America's armed forces "to the breaking point", but in fact has been "managed.", by a relatively small number professional troops and a pack of venal contractors.

Iraq is civilized, modern country, which we have done our best to destroy, but it is still able to <i>re-</i> organize itself. The situation, in Iraq, miserable as it is, could drag on for years and the USA would still control some of the world's best oil fields at what would probably be a decreasing cost to its forces.

Afghanistan is a completely different story.

To quote my favorite pundit, William Pfaff,

    There is a civil war going on in Afghanistan. There may soon be a civil war in northern Pakistan. The Taliban are involved in both, and the United States has every interest in staying out of both.
    In Afghanistan, the Taliban are not foreign invaders. They ruled the country before the United States sent B-52s to annihilate (if Hillary will permit me) their tribal army in 2001, as it resisted invasion by the rival Northern Force, backed by the United States.
    The Taliban want to rule Afghanistan once again. They are a radical religio-political sect, that arose in recent decades among largely uneducated tribesmen living in the historically ungovernable “tribal areas” on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
    They believe in a deeply obscurantist mixture of fundamentalist Islam and traditional tribal practice. They belong to the Pathan (or Pushtoon) people, which means that they are kinsmen to more than 40 million other Pathans in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere in Central Asia, whom no one has conquered since Alexander the Great.
    At various times the Taliban have been supported or manipulated by Pakistan military intelligence in connection with purely Pakistani or regional matters. The vast majority of Taliban undoubtedly are ignorant even of the existence of the United States of America, other than those currently being bombed by the United States in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
    At one point in their tangled history they afforded hospitality to their fellow-traditionalist Muslim, the Saudi Arabian Osama ben-Ladin. That was their big mistake. The Bush administration made the bigger mistake of becoming entangled with them, for which the United States will eventually be sorry. Barack Obama should think again about what he proposes to do.

To "win" in Afghanistan would mean bringing back the draft in order to put boots on the ground of every inch of Pakistani Waziristan for the next decade (at least). It would probably cause the disintegration of Pakistan itself and destabilize all of South Asia... And still lose!!!

Iraq and Afghanistan have no real connection to each other except the idiocy of George W. Bush. They are a "do you still beat your wife?" equation, to which their is no clean answer.

The harm done in and to Iraq can never be undone, the harm the USA does in the near future, to itself and those oil rich criminals upon which our way of life so depends, is still in the hands of the US armed forces.

Afghanistan, thought erroneously to be the "war we cannot lose", should be left to its own devices.

To not do so invites the fate that  Rudyard Kipling so colorfully described,

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."