EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

obamaun[i-obamaun]An interesting piece in New American headed: "Pachauri's Lucrative World of Climate Change".

It has Pachauri talking about the "business opportunities" afforded by climate change, citing the Booker column and our article in The Daily Telegraph.

They also cite an interesting piece in The Daily Express, which I missed – which explores the murky world of carbon trading and Tata Steel. I wonder if they have also received a letter from Diana's favourite solicitor.

The New American concludes with a tantalising reference to Obama, and his enthusiasm for going "above what is going to be legislated," when it comes to climate change. This is not unconnected with the Chicago Climate Exchange, for which Pachauri is currently a member of the external advisory board.

Therein lies a dark and dirty tale. The Pachauri angle is just the tip of the iceberg. Serious money is involved here, to say nothing of corruption on an industrial scale, which goes all the way to the top. We have only scratched the surface so far.

PACHAURI THREAD

barack-obama[i-barack-obama]It is the New York Times that is now telling us that Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan. The process includes considering a plan advocated by vice president Biden to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.

This amounts to a "wholesale reconsideration" of a strategy the president announced with fanfare just six months ago, helpfully summarised by Newsweek. That strategy involved defeating the insurgents, preventing Al Qaeda from re-establishing a sanctuary and working to set up a democratic and effective government.

Crucially, it also involved training Afghan forces to take over from US troops and coaxing the international community to give more help. There was also an added element, focusing on Pakistan - "assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunities for the people of Pakistan."

In pursuit of the Afghan end of what became known as the AFPAK strategy, Obama agreed to despatch an additional 17,000 troops to the theatre and then another 4,000 to help train Afghan security forces. And it was that strategy which Gen McChrystal took as his brief, working to produce his "assessment" of how it should be implemented.

What has actually confused the issue is that McChrystal writes extensively about needing a new strategy. In fact, the strategy had already been determined. What he has offered is a "significant change in ... the way we think and operate."

As we know, the essence of this "significant change" is defined as "take, hold and build", the first step having been achieved in part with the 17,000 extra troops. But now the coalition forces have taken more territory, McChrystal finds – as he always would – that he needs more troops to hold it. The figure of 30-40,000 has been mentioned.

Now – or so it would seem – Obama is having to confront the inevitable consequence of a strategy defined last March, which effectively rubber-stamped what Bush had put in place, and is now having second thoughts. Thus do we learn that Obama met with his top advisers on 13 September to "begin chewing over the problem", only to find no consensus – in fact, quite the reverse. "There are a lot of competing views," said one official.

Major factors which have prompted the second thoughts, though, are deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and McChrystal's own report. However, there is view that Obama might just be testing assumptions — and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war — before ultimately agreeing to additional troops.

This notwithstanding, the debate seems to have polarised into two separate camps, on the one hand a counterinsurgency strategy – on which basis McChrystal has been working - and, on the other, a focus on counterterrorism. The latter is not dissimilar to that advocated by George F. Will known as "offshore balancing" which, as the New York Times observes, "would turn the administration's current theory on its head'.

Given that in May, Gen David D McKiernan was replaced by Gen McChrystal, who was empowered to carry out the "new" strategy, McChrystal can perhaps feel aggrieved by now having his assessment second-guessed at this late stage, after so much effort and energy has gone into responding to the original brief and the strategy has been partially implemented.

The "game changer" though appears to have been the Afghan presidential election, which has undermined the administration's confidence that it had a reliable partner in Karzai. As Bruce O. Riedel – the man who led the AFPAK strategy review – observes, "A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That's in doubt now."

Obama, says the NYT, now has to reconcile past statements and policy with his current situation. And, says former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, "The longer you wait, the harder it will be to reverse it." In fact, Obama has left it a bit late now to question the very basis on which McChrystal was working, when strategy issues should have been settled from the outset – as indeed they appeared to have been.

COMMENT THREAD

climate[i-climate]
The more you think about it, the more striking the phrase used by Martin Newland becomes. His "moral infantilism" so aptly labels much of what is currently wrong with society – or, more specifically, our leaders.

The chart above, reproduced from Watts up with that is perhaps a good illustration of the phenomenon. There we have the expression of the public view of what is really important yet, by contrast, we have Obama strutting the world stage, telling us that "climate change" is the problème du jour - and nothing is more important.

Arguably, the inability correctly to assess priorities – to distinguish between what is truly important and what is irrelevant fluff – is one of the key signs of "moral infantilism". It accounts for the disconnect between our leaders and the rest of us, and between the media and us. They have lost that vital ability to focus on the important.

In that context, it is interesting to see that the public ranks the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, effectively, as five times more important than climate change. Yet, while there is an urgent need for Obama to make a decision on Afghan strategy, he fritters away his time grandstanding at the UN, while the BBC liveblogs the show and completely misses the point on Afghanistan.

In fact, the British media, in general, is displaying advanced signs of "moral infantilism". Today, the main focus is almost entirely on Baroness Scotland, but addressed in terms of personality politics.

The woman has been caught out breaking the law on employing an illegal immigrant, but what is perhaps far more important is summed up in a letter to a newspaper. This tells us that Home Office has admitted that: "Currently, employers do not have a reliable means of establishing whether a job applicant has the right to work here."

There lies a major – if not scandalous – defect in the system. We have a law, with all its penalties, with no reliable means by which an employer can actually avoid breaking it.

The focus on Baroness Scotland is all very well, but the intent is to secure another "scalp" – the resignation of another minister. But her resignation will solve nothing yet, should that be achieved, the media and political caravan will pack its tents and move on, hunting for the next scalp. There is no real interest in the substantive issue.

Thus, no one will argue that the "technical breach" of the law, as Baroness Scotland would prefer to call it, is not important. But the media chooses to focus on securing a ministerial resignation which then turns an important issue into a sterile witch-hunt and trivialises the entire affair. And therein lies the "moral infantilism". The disease is rampant.

COMMENT THREAD

[Loband: Object Removed -]

So they say. It barely got any publicity over here, and then the crowd was reported "in the thousands" when one estimate was 1.2 million.

The Guardian did note that the size of the demonstration on Capitol Hill "took the authorities by surprise", but dismissed it as "the largest manifestation yet of the angry anti-Obama sentiment being whipped up among rightwing Republicans."

The organisers of the march, we were told, "represent a ragbag coalition of disparate groups, joined at the hip by their hatred of Obama's perceived radicalism. They include right-wing thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute, small government campaigns like Americans for Tax Reform and Tea Party Patriots, and internet-based protest networks such as ResistNet."

So that's alright then. Right wing nutters - we can ignore what they say and carry on with what we are doing. Freedom works, say the organisers, but only if you are a "liberal", it seems. If it had been anti-Bush rally, it would have been all over the front pages here.

COMMENT THREAD