Welcomes with Warnings
16 November 2008 5:00 am by Taylor Marsh
“I always think of the apocryphal statement attributed to the chancellor of the exchequer in the United Kingdom in 1927: ‘We are running out of money, so we must begin to think,’ ” Clapper said. “I think we are going to be in another era like that.”
I doubt this comes as a shock to President-elect Obama or his team. That doesn’t make it any less chilling.
Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world’s most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.
U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the
Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said. …
Covered in the same piece is the number one challenge, as far as I’m concerned:
As bad as economic conditions are in the United States and Europe, where outright recessions are expected next year, they are worse in developing countries such as Pakistan, a state that was already struggling with violent insurgencies and widespread poverty. Some analysts warn that a prolonged economic crisis could trigger a period of widespread unrest that could strengthen the hand of extremists and threaten Pakistan’s democratically elected government — with potentially grave consequences for the region and perhaps the planet.
[...]U.S. officials are following developments with particular concern because of Pakistan’s critical role in the campaign against terrorism, as well as the country’s arsenal of dozens of nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda has appealed directly to Pakistanis to overthrow their government, and its Taliban allies have launched multiple suicide bombings, some aimed at economic targets such as the posh Marriott hotel in Islamabad, hit in September. …
Moving on to the military, Spencer Ackerman has a piece up that I heartily suggest you read today. It’s Sunday, so it’s a good day for this stuff. One particular portion made me jump up and say “I second.” Remembering back to WJC taking office, his gays in the military debacle infuriated me on multiple levels. One Pentagon speaking frankly off the record encapsulated my feelings precisely:
… Defense Dept. officials today still believe Clinton’s early capitulation set a troublesome precedent. “If Clinton had simply ordered the military to lift the ban on gays in the military “as Truman did with racial
integration against near universal opposition,” said one Pentagon official who requested anonymity, he would have been much better off in dealing with the military for the rest of his administration. There would have been a big fuss, but they would have respected him more.”The lesson for Obama, this official continued, is “not to get rolled or railroaded by the top brass, as Clinton and his civilian team were by Colin Powell,” who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time.
“Obama and his team need to be respectful and solicitous of senior military advice, but leave no doubt about who is in charge.” …
One thing Bush and the Republicans do, championed by their wingnut radio barkers, is to not only defer decisions to the military, instead of just guidance and expertise, but to also hide behind the military to completely neuter the commander in chief, who is intended to be civilian by design. It provides cover for the
inept, like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, while implying that anyone who doesn’t carry out military suggestions as being tantamount to traitorous. While the Bush-Cheney crew expanded executive powers into places that eviscerated the Constitution, they simultaneously made the president’s commander in chief role second to the military. Obama needs to make clear the buck truly stops with him, which includes that he will listen intently to our military generals and Joint Chiefs, but in the end his strategic decisions are made over the globe, with diplomacy and other matters factors military advisors need not always consider.
Indeed, the differences between Obama and Petraeus or Odierno on Iraq might turn out to be healthy for civilian-military relations. Judging from how the July meeting with Petraeus in Baghdad went, “Obama should be in good shape,” said the Pentagon official. “It will be a refreshing change from recent years, when civilian political leaders have shirked off tough questions about — and responsibility for — their war policies by claiming, in effect, that they’re just taking directions from the commanders on the ground, in effect, hiding behind the skirts of the military.”
Something else that should give everyone comfort is that Rand Beers is handling the homeland security transition. As regulars know, I’ve interviewed Beers, also once having a partnership with NSN on interviews in the past. Check out Democracy Arsenal.
A bit about Hillary for State, with Kerry and Richardson also in the running, both no doubt qualified. As for Bill Richardson, I’m not a fan. That was the case long before the past election season nonsense. I also wonder how he reconciles this stuff with the Obama questionnaire. Richardson certainly doesn’t offer prowess on the women’s rights as human right’s issue. Clinton does.
[...] Less well known is the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the pioneers of the principle that eomen’s rights are human rights and that women’s status in the world is one of the critical international issues. This feminist principle challenged the once prevailing notion that women’s inequality was just women’s issue, not something universal. Under that conception of the problem, particular local and national customs — genital mutilation, the burning of widows, forced marriage of youth, etc. — denying women’s rights were allowed to stand unchallenged.
The change occurred at the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing China. The official Platform of Action enshrined the principle of women’s rights as human rights. The victory was a large one, and thousands of women internationally contributed to making it happen. Nevertheless, Clinton’s speech
at the conference has been widely credited as being instrumental in the movement.
(Text
and audio here.) …Hillary Clinton: A 21st Century Choice for Secretary of State
There are many women in the Democratic Party who are still bruised after the primary and how they feel Clinton was treated inside the party itself. I stand outside this group. Clinton at State might heal the remaining wounds, though that’s certainly not a reason to nominate her. That Hillary has the stature to do the job is not in question, as well as the foundational knowledge and skills. She’s known and beloved around the world as well. That she’s a team player has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Meanwhile, people are once again raising questions about Bill.
In Iraq… Iraq’s Cabinet to vote on security pact with US. Yeah, how’s it goin’ over there?
A series of bombings Saturday pointed to the fragility of security gains in the past year. The violence also was likely to strengthen the argument of the pact’s proponents, including the interior and defense ministers, that there is still a need for U.S. forces. In Tal Afar, a suicide car bombing struck a commercial district, killing nine Iraqis and wounding 40, according to the U.S. military. Iraqi police and hospital officials said seven people were killed and up to 32 were wounded. There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.
In Baghdad, a bomb in a parked car exploded near the National Theater in the mainly Shiite district of Karradah, killing at least five and wounding 23…
