Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39300)	12/8/2009 10:36:27 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Clinton 'heartened' by response to new Obama strategy It would take the sudden death of Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid to hearten Clinton.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39300)	12/14/2009 9:10:58 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama Gives Britain the Cold Shoulder Ideology and history explain the new U.S. disregard. DECEMBER 13, 2009, 6:46 P.M. ET. By CON COUGHLIN Britain is the only European country President Barack Obama can really count on to respond positively to his plea for NATO to provide extra forces for Afghanistan. So why is it, then, that the Obama administration can barely conceal its disdain for a nation that, by its deeds, time and again proves itself to be America's staunchest and most reliable ally? Shortly before Mr. Obama's Afghan policy speech at West Point earlier this month, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Britain was sending another 500 troops to that beleaguered country, bringing the total number of British troops to around 10,000. Yet the president never mentioned Britain's support—even though, unlike most other European countries, British soldiers are prepared to undertake combat operations, and have incurred significant casualties in so doing. While NATO officials trumpeted the fact that they had secured an additional 7,000 troops from a variety of NATO and other states to support Mr. Obama's surge strategy, there been only silence from France and Germany. For domestic political reasons, both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are reluctant to increase their military contributions. This makes Britain the most important European contributor to Mr. Obama's war against the Taliban, in which British soldiers are fighting alongside U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan. Add to this the close and long-established intelligence-sharing operation that exists between the two countries, which has prevented a number of major terrorist atrocities, and it is easy to understand why the bond between America and Britain has long been the cornerstone of the trans-Atlantic alliance. That is not how the Obama administration sees it. Before he became president it was said that Mr. Obama harbored a deep grudge against Britain for its colonialist past. It is alleged that his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, when it was controlled by Britain. In his autobiographical book "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama unflatteringly compares the British Empire to South Africa's apartheid regime and the former Soviet Union. Soon after his inauguration, he sent back to the U.K. a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The sculpture had enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office. There is also an important ideological reason that Britain's leading policy makers find themselves increasingly shunned by the U.S. Key foreign-policy advisers to Mr. Obama are keen advocates of a federal Europe, one in which the European Commission based in Brussels is the main center of power and influence, rather than the individual capitals, such as London, Paris and Berlin. In this context, Britain's dogged attachment to a "special relationship" with America is regarded as an embarrassing relic of a previous era. Michèle Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, is a leading supporter of an integrated European defense policy, which was anathema to the Bush administration because it would challenge the future of NATO. Philip H. Gordon, the State Department's assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, is another committed Europhile. Before taking office Mr. Gordon wrote that America should "support the European project" and warned that Britain's historic resistance to closer European integration could seriously damage London's standing in Washington. "Fully in Europe, Britain has every chance to remain America's preferred and privileged partner," he said. "Marginalized from the EU [European Union], Britain could find itself less influential in Washington as well." Yet in recent years, whenever the EU has been faced with a major international crisis, whether in the Balkans or the Middle East, the major European powers have tended to put their national interests first. This was graphically illustrated in Bosnia and during the build up to the Iraq war. And in Afghanistan, Europe divides between those who are prepared to fight, such as Britain, and those that are not, such as France and Germany. For this reason alone, Mr. Obama and his advisers may regret their disregard for their most important battlefield ally in Afghanistan. Mr. Coughlin is executive foreign editor of London's Daily Telegraph. online.wsj.com

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39300)	12/19/2009 9:11:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Georgia and the War in Afghanistan Why the young democracy is sending nearly 1,000 troops to the war effort. DECEMBER 19, 2009. By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI Following President Obama's speech on our common mission in Afghanistan, NATO members and other countries pledged about 7,000 additional troops. My country committed just under 1,000, which makes Georgia the highest per-capita troop contributor to the war effort. Some might be surprised that a small country not yet in NATO—and partly occupied by more than 10,000 hostile Russian troops—would make this commitment to an Allied mission abroad. Let me explain why it makes perfect sense. As President Obama pointed out, the threat of violent extremism endangers all nations that subscribe to the principles of liberal democracy. Those principles made America the target on 9/11. Spain was hit on March 11, 2004, and Britain on July 7, 2005. Any of our countries could be next. We see ourselves as firmly allied with the values of the U.S. and the trans-Atlantic community. That is why we are sending serious forces—a heavy battalion and two light companies—with no restrictions on the kinds of missions and combat in which they can participate. Almost 800 will be deploying with the U.S. Marines into Helmand Province, where some of the most intense fighting has occurred. Georgia is making contributions in other ways. The U.S. and NATO have already started using Georgian ports, rail lines and roads to transport nonlethal supplies to Afghanistan. American military experts have concluded this is a safe and cost-saving transit route, and we stand ready to expand its use. Less than a decade ago, Georgia was considered by many to be a failing state. But with the support of our friends in the West, we were able to make dramatic changes. Our experience as a young democracy gives us confidence that success is possible on the political and civil fronts in Afghanistan, and we will do everything possible to help strengthen Afghanistan's institutions. Our reform know-how could help in training Afghanistan's police forces and other civil servants, an effort that is crucial to achieving long-term stability and a more transparent government. The test of the bonds among nations is not what we do when it is easy, but rather what we do when it is hard. Georgia has been grateful for the extent to which the U.S. and Europe have stood alongside us over recent years. Now we are proud to stand—and fight—alongside you. Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia. online.wsj.com