The day comes to a close and Christmas is near. Here is what I found interesting:
1. My first thought was on what Obama can do next
2. Did repealing DADT give Obama momentum?
3. Karl Rove and I find common ground
4. What did Jesus look like?
5. Foreign Policy: addressing tactical nuclear weapons and Obama’s successes and failures
Filed under independent internationalist, reflection
The biggest debate during the START Treaty ratification process was about tactical nuclear weapons. The START Treaty focused primarily on strategic nuclear weapons. The GOP was against the the treaty because it did not address these weapons, but since that was such a small part of the debate amending the treaty and sending it back to the negotiating table was not worth it. Micah Zenko writes in Foreign Policy that the exact number of tactical nuclear weapons is vague:
Although exact numbers are murky, the disparity between the U.S. and Russian arsenals is arresting. The United States reportedly has 400 operationally deployed tactical nuclear weapons and an equal number in inactive reserve. Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal, on the other hand, is estimatedat a whopping 2,000 operationally deployed weapons, with another 3,400 in inactive reserve. They are maintained either in operationally deployed status at nuclear-certified military bases, or in inactive reserve status at permanent storage sites.
He provides some solutions:
Washington and Moscow must then turn to the hard work of forging a bilateral agreement that establishes a verifiable regime combining cuts to each countries’ tactical nuclear weapon arsenal and confidence-building measures between the parties. Specifically, a treaty must include three components.
First, each country should reveal its tactical nuclear weapons inventory, location, and operational status, publicly or through a private data-exchange mechanism. Cryptographic technologies exist that permit Washington and Moscow to securely exchange detailed stockpile data between each other while denying access to countries not party to the treaty.
Second, both sides would need to establish methods to verify implementation of the treaty. Verifying limits on Russia’s operational tactical nuclear arsenal would be challenging because of the inherent secrecy of the Ministry of Defense and armed services. However, U.S. officials closely involved in the negotiation and verification of previous nuclear-weapons treaties with Russia think that there are sufficient verification procedures — including radiation detection, remote measurement, and tamper-indicating tags — to ensure Russian compliance with treaty provisions.
Finally, Washington and Moscow must clearly differentiate between tactical nuclear weapons that are can be used in the near-term and those in storage. The two sides should draw up a list of bases housing only “operationally deployed” weapons, and another list for permanent storage. The United States and Russia each have a clear understanding of the differences between these sites. Ultimately, to make tactical nuclear weapons limitations permanent, both sides could verifiably dismantle non operational warheads at disassembly facilities.
Photo Credit: Google Images
Filed under independent internationalist, nuclear weapons, Russia, START
The START Treaty was the big foreign policy initiative that was pushed during the lame-duck session of congress. I expect that next foreign policy conundrum to be Sudan’s civil war, then the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in July, and eventually the ratification of South Korean free trade agreement that the finishing touches are still being worked out. President Obama is not much of a foreign policy president, though no one really expected him to. James M. Lindsay, a Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenburg Chair at the Council on Foreign Relation points to some of Obama’s foreign policy successes and failures in an interview. He says:
What would you say are the president’s principal achievements?
I would highlight three successes. First, he did change the tone of American foreign policy, both by his very election but also by speeches he gave early on. That change has had some benefits. Second, he kept his promise on Iraq to reduce U.S. combat troops. We’re now on schedule to have all U.S. troops leave Iraq [by the end of 2011]. Third, President Obama has gotten the support of the other great powers for tougher sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions have had much more bite on the Iranian economy than anyone expected. And he was able to get sanctions on Iran expanded in part because he changed the tone of the debate, and made it less about American mistakes, and more about Iranian behavior.
The setbacks or the failures would have to include some of the big foreign policy initiatives, like the Middle East?
I would offer five areas where the president hasn’t had success. One, the president and his administration probably put too much emphasis on working with the Chinese. They were very solicitous of Beijing. They were hoping Beijing would respond in kind. That didn’t happen, and what we’ve witnessed in the last six months or so is the administration undergoing a bit of a course correction on China.
Second, the administration mishandled the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The demand for a complete and total moratorium on housing settlements in the West Bank was a bridge too far. The administration in the last month recognized that mistake, threw in the towel, and is now trying to rethink its strategy.
Third, the president’s gotten deeper into Afghanistan. The surge has produced some military successes, but as the recent strategy review points out , it is fragile progress. I would put the emphasis on the “fragile” part. And we’re not seeing the sort of progress on the civilian side that you need. We’re running the risk of expending more blood and treasure in Afghanistan and not being in a position to have anyone to hand over authority and power.
Fourth, the president has largely ignored trade as an issue. That’s an issue that has led the United States to sort of fall further behind, particularly in East Asia, on trade issues. Trade may be an issue the administration is going to move up in 2011, but certainly the president hasn’t built the political basis for moving forward on trade.
The fifth failure–and I would put this as a long-term failure–is about restoring America to fiscal stability. The American economy [and] American fiscal well-being are crucial to the long-term health of American power around the world. It is very hard to sustain a role of global power when you are gushing red ink. And the president has yet to really come to grips with that problem.
Filed under foreign policy, independent internationalist, Obama
This is a old 60 Minutes piece that tries to describe the actual appearance of Jesus Christ. It is quite interesting.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf
Filed under independent internationalist, religion
It is not often that the Republican political guru and I are always in sync on topics, but here I agree with him. Unless President Obama does reach across the aisle to work with Republicans he will be lost in the political wilderness. Will he be a Clinton and triangulate or be a stubborn prima dona? As I stated earlier, January will be the test.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
Filed under Democrats, economic policy, GOP, independent internationalist, Obama, politics, Republicans
Politics (Not) as Usual
