Hope everyone had a terrific and relaxing Thanksgiving weekend. I'm off to Berlin this evening and staying for a few days to meet new players in the German government and to think through Barack Obama's next move on Afghanistan.

I'll be covering the Afghanistan speech on Tuesday evening from Berlin -- and commenting on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, as things now look -- pending the availability of a studio in the middle of the night.

For the rest, I'll be providing updates here and via Twitter @SCCLEMONS.

-- Steve Clemons

. . .you will see that the world has moved close to the financial brink again given the debt default by Dubai World.

Some believe that Dubai's confidence-jarring effort to reschedule its debt servicing may trigger a round of other sovereign debt defaults around the globe.

Three pages of copy on this crisis in the Financial Times. Just a bare glimpse of it in The Washington Post.

This is a very serious crisis that very well could trigger other bubbles that still exist in the US and some other Western economies in the corporate real estate sector.

I think John Paulson is prepared -- and has been waiting for this kind of event.

Watch for gold to surge.

-- Steve Clemons

The United States, during the Bush administration, started a very serious change of course in its strategic relationship with India -- a huge democratic nation that has been at best ambivalent about relations with the United States for decades.

Barack Obama's decision to throw his first State Dinner honoring the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh underscores this shift -- which needs to happen without ratcheting up fears in Pakistan and China.

Steve Coll -- one of America's leading experts on South Asia, author of the New Yorker blog "Think Tank", and President of the New America Foundation -- sent this comment to me about his view of the US-India meetings here in Washington these last few days:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a more important figure in India's post-Cold War transition toward great power status than he's generally credited with being.

In the early 90s, he helped pull India away from its failing socialist economy. More recently, he has proved himself to be courageous and visionary on the problems of Pakistan and terrorism.

Coll's insights are useful I think for those who are trying to put this US-India meeting in a broader, more serious context than I think the trip has been receiving.

-- Steve Clemons

(This essay was commissioned by and first appeared in The Huffington Post.)

Arianna Huffington asked me (and a sizeable gaggle of her other pals) to write something up for Thanksgiving. What am I thankful for? What moves me on Thanksgiving?

My significant other lets me know regularly how lucky we are to have our health, a couple of nice homes, jobs that pay reasonably well, friends and dogs who love us, family that we seem closer to each year, and causes that we are passionate about.

But he tells me this because I'm not often thinking about how great or not things are close to home. I know that there are many on the jobless rolls right now - and I think about them a lot. I know there are folks losing their homes and it really frustrates me to read in contrast about Wall Street's recent huge rebound. I know there are lonely people - with no connections to their communities, families, and without friends. I know a lot of sick people with marginal or no health care.

I can't stop thinking about these down trends from the American good life - and I worry about the macro challenges facing the country, our political system, and our new and fascinating President.

I am grateful that we have Barack Obama in the White House - because he has changed the face of the nation - and altered forever the horizon of what is possible for Americans who don't have the Anglo-Saxon cosmetic veneer that every US President before Barack Obama possessed.

I also am grateful for Obama's invitation for debate and fair-minded criticism. His decision to bring in policy practitioners who have divergent views from one another, his embrace of heterodoxy, and the manner in which these conflicts come right up to his desk reflect a profound self-confidence in our young President.

Obama's embrace of debate and political diversity can be both strength and weakness - but in the long run, it's better to have debate than not in a time when the world is at a major punctuation point in history and when things tomorrow will be quite different than they were yesterday.

There are many things I'm not happy about.

I'm not happy about the policy choices of Obama's economic team that have produced a Wall street bailout while banks still dither in their loans and small businesses still find an economic noose around their necks as they try to secure financing. I don't like how the administration has underperformed on job creation. I'm not happy that the tens of thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Armed Forces and National Reserve still have to live a lie as they put themselves on the line for the security and welfare of all Americans of every brand and stripe. The failure of the administration to secure a strategic leap out of the mess the Bush administration left in the Middle East and with Iran, Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan is very worrisome.

But what a change in a few years.

It's "safe" again to pose uncomfortable questions to the President of the United States and his team. It is actually "patriotic". Barack Obama embraces this patriotism of those who challenge him and dissent from his core policy positions and decisions. This is a stunning difference with the political world America has left behind.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, who has become the co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board and who was awarded two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, is someone who during the George W. Bush administration had his patriotism questioned. Vice President Cheney blasted Hagel for asking key questions about the solvency of thinking about the Iraq War and challenged his loyalty to President Bush, the Republican Party, and the nation.

This was outrageous - and indicated how deeply a climate of fear and vindictiveness had taken hold in and poisoned Washington as legislators on all sides of an issue fought over the course of public policy.

That is over. There are ferocious debates today over health care, climate change, education policy, the budget and America's long term fiscal position, over Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran, China, and economic policy.

But these debates are raging in a climate in which it is OK and safe to engage in civil debate.

In the Bush years, the efforts at thought control were so severe that spear-carriers like Tom DeLay sought to get those of a different political make-up fired from private sector jobs. Former Oklahoma Congressman Dave McCurdy, now head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, was one of DeLay's targets. Funders cut off think tanks that opposed the Iraq War. Hate mail campaigns were launched against those who expressed views independent of the Bush/Cheney machine.

I have a lot of criticism that I direct at the Obama White House - but I try to be civil and fair-minded, inspired by the President and how his team mostly operates (the Greg Craig situation being a major and disappointing exception).

But this White House embraces differences, rivals, and debate. This is extraordinarily important, and of all things this Thanksgiving - I'm thankful that challenging the government's course and trying to put better ideas on the table are unabashedly patriotic again.

Have a good, old fashioned policy debate with someone you don't necessarily see eye to eye with this weekend -- and feel good about it. Shake hands when it's over, and agree to disagree if things end up that way.

That is what we have back again -- and that's something to celebrate.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Daniel Levy, who served as the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative and directs the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Pugnacious Netanyahu Pushes U.S. to Call for 1967 Borders

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced yesterday his cabinet's decision, "To suspend new construction in Judea and Samaria." (Yes, they still call it Judea and Samaria).

The Obama Administration responded within hours with a statement released by Secretary of State Clinton followed by a press briefing from Special Envoy George Mitchell.

On the face of it, this was a step forward by the Israeli government, acknowledged and welcomed (though not blessed) by the US government, and a move that one hopes will facilitate Palestinian agreement to resume negotiations. But if one digs just a little bit deeper, it becomes very evident that it was nothing of the sort. Rather, today's events closed the first chapter in a game of dare being played out between the new leaderships in Washington and Jerusalem.

Today's statements appeared to be part of an elaborate and ongoing dance of suspicion between the two supposed allies.

During his first term as prime minister in the late 90's, Benjamin Netanyahu made an enemy of then US President Clinton and played the Republican congress against the Democrat president. This directly led to the collapse of Netanyahu's government and his fall from office. Judging by today, Netanyahu is keen for a repeat performance albeit under circumstances even less propitious for him politically. The response of the Obama team might be an interesting pointer as to where things might be headed on the peace front.

The Obama administration has been calling on Israel to make good on a settlement freeze commitment dating to the 2003 Bush-era Road Map (and, questionably to the 1993 Oslo DoP).

Netanyahu has been unwilling to do anything of the sort. He sought to codify a set of exemptions to a settlement freeze or in plainer English, guidelines for ongoing settlement expansion, and to have those blessed by Washington. The Obama team refused to become the first ever American government to formally authorize settlement expansion. That is the situation we have reached with today's announcement.

Netanyahu's cabinet clarified its so-called "settlement restraint" policy with today's decision (some have called it a "moratorium" or a "freeze" but as you will see shortly, it is nothing of the sort, and those words are an inappropriate description).

The only apparent restraint in the Israeli cabinet decision was to suspend issuing of new permits or beginning new construction in the West Bank for ten months. The less restrained side of the equation is this: 3000 units already under construction will continue; all public buildings and security infrastructure will continue to be built; no restrictions would apply to occupied East Jerusalem; and construction would resume after ten months.

Netanyahu also repeated the totally (meaningless) commitment of no new settlements or land confiscations (meaningless because since 1993, the official policy is no new settlements yet via expansion, new neighborhoods and outposts, the West Bank settler population has grown from 111,000 then to over 300,000 today, and because although the built-up area of settlements constitutes only 2% of West Bank land, double that amount is slated for growth, and a total of 40% comes under the Settlement Regional Councils, therefore land confiscation issue is a red herring).

While it is technically true that this "restraint" is a new Israeli commitment, its practical relevance is of very limited significance - building 3000 units in ten months neatly dovetails the regular annual settlement construction rates. Moreover, Netanyahu made sure to assertively mention all these caveats in today's announcement - in effect, poking the Obama administration, the international community, and the Palestinians in the eye.

While some claim this was a politically courageous act by Netanyahu, the real litmus test is easy to apply: Has this led to any shakiness, any crisis, any resignations in the most right wing coalition ever in Israel's history? The answer: absolutely not, and resignations in Israeli politics are about as rare as Turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Netanyahu's so-called "restraint package" was so minimalist that it kept his coalition happy while doing nothing to advance a genuine peace effort (Yes, there is some criticism from the far-right, and Netanyahu's supporters will point to it as proof of his bravery, but as I say, the real test is in his coalition - and there: not so much as a wobble).

The interesting development today, indeed the unprecedented development, was in the US response. Yes, Senator Mitchell did pro-forma explain why this is new, why this was progress from the Israeli government.

But the real American response came elsewhere, in Secretary Clinton and Envoy Mitchell's statements. They did not bless the Israeli non-freeze, explaining it fell short and that they expected more, and that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". (Admittedly they could have explicitly said that after ten months and the 3000 units, their expectation was for not a single new home to be built, they didn't).

The new language came in Secretary Clinton's description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be - for an "independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines". Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state "based on the 67 lines."

Every conflict and every situation has its own lingua franca. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, a state based on the 67 lines is the dog-whistle for what constitutes a real, no-B.S. two-state outcome. It is also language that the US has conspicuously avoided using - avoided that is until today.

Previous administrations would speak of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (but those are interpreted differently by the Israelis and Palestinians); the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 suggested percentages on territory, but never mentioned the 67 lines; in June 2002, President Bush used the phrase, ending the "occupation that began in 1967."

That language was adopted in the 2003 Road Map and used verbatim by President Obama in his September United Nations General Assembly speech. It is language very much open to interpretation. The "1967 lines" language add a far greater degree of clarity - and, as such, is an anathema to the Greater Land of Israel, anti-peace forces (many of whom are represented in today's Israeli government).

Interestingly, Secretary Clinton had begun to play with this language during her recent Middle East trip but had never been so explicit - until today. It is true that this adoption of new language comes late (perhaps too late) in the process and will need to be backed up by more concrete steps. It is though progress.

So the subtext of what went on today - the Obama administration is beginning to up the ante, at least declaratively, in the signals it is sending in response to Netanyahu's stubbornness on settlements, and in setting the table for the next phase of its peace efforts.

The question of course is - what next?

Senator Mitchell gave some hints about that also. He suggested that the US was still pursuing a comprehensive peace effort and notably discussed Syria at some length. He briefly mentioned the option of resuming regional multilateral talks with Israel and various Arab states on issues such as water and energy at an appropriate time. Most interesting perhaps, Senator Mitchell explained that negotiations, "will proceed on a variety of tracks," and while he continued to push for the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, he also spoke of parallel talks that the US would conduct with each of the parties.

This combination of back-to-back negotiations - US-Israel and US-Palestinians - combined with the reference to the 1967 lines may signpost the way out of the peace impasse. The US will need to elaborate and put flesh on the bones of its "based on the 1967 lines" parameter and then pursue a conversation, mostly with the Israeli side, on how to implement that, and if necessary go public with a plan and tie incentives/disincentives to its acceptance/rejection.

-- Daniel Levy

Maureen Dowd has somehow inspired an industry of folks who really dislike her work as an essayist. I ran into this when I wrote approvingly of an incredible Inauguration party she hosted at her home and which I attended. It was her "Star Spangled Inauguration Party", and I wore a star spangled tie.

Despite a big chunk of Hollywood there, no one dressed festively -- but I have to give credit to Maureen (who wanted the tie), Ron Howard, David Geffen, Jeremy Lingvall, Helene Cooper, Larry King (who also wanted the tie), Rahm Emanuel and others who chatted with me without making me feel uncomfortable at all for wearing a red, white and blue accessory.

I stand by my statement then that Dowd's gathering was the best in town -- and stand by my admiration of her work.

Today in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd shows why she is such a key part of high quality political journalism. In a piece titled "Thanks for the Memories," she punished the Obama administration for its worse than shoddy treatment of White House Counsel Greg Craig -- when it would have been quite easy for her to hold back and be part of the acquiescent political glitterati that throws soft balls at the White House and gets invited to State Dinners.

What I liked about Dowd's treatment of Craig, which I write about extensively here at The Daily Beast, is that she is no great fan of Greg Craig's but writes dispassionately about what crap he got -- and shouldn't have -- from Obama's highest level apparatchiks. She thought Craig took some perhaps inappropriate or low blow shots during the campaign at Hillary Clinton, a former friend of Craig's, but admired him for his passion and not running from what he did.

Dowd is right about Greg Craig being a stand up guy -- and being someone who has helped Barack Obama more than most on his team get through some rough campaign patches and pushing an agenda on detainees and transparency consistent with the President's own promises.

But some extra back story I have makes Dowd's essay even more commendable.

She published this on the day of the first White House State Dinner. I was listening to the conversation when Rahm Emanuel told David Geffen and his partner, Jeremy Lingvall, that they could both come to a State Dinner in their own right and bring their own guests -- winking at Maureen Dowd.

In other words, the power twosome of Geffen/Lingvall could possibly become a power foursome -- with Maureen Dowd and someone else (me perhaps?! Ron Howard?).

Who knows if Emanuel remembered his proposed scheme to get them all into a State Dinner or not.

What matters is that Maureen Dowd, whether she thought she'd be at this first State Dinner or many other Obama galas in the future, is still pushing the Obama administration in the way stand up journalists should -- and she has my respect and that of many others for doing so.

-- Steve Clemons

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

8:01 P.M. EDT

My fellow Americans,

On March 28th, I outlined what I called a "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." It was ambitious. It was also an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise that was heartfelt. I believed -- and still believe -- that, in invading Iraq, a war this administration is now ending, we took our eye off Afghanistan. Our well-being and safety, as well as that of the Afghan people, suffered for it.

I suggested then that the situation in Afghanistan was already "perilous." I announced that we would be sending 17,000 more American soldiers into that war zone, as well as 4,000 trainers and advisors whose job would be to increase the size of the Afghan security forces so that they could someday take the lead in securing their own country. There could be no more serious decision for an American president.

Eight months have passed since that day. This evening, after a comprehensive policy review of our options in that region that has involved commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, top intelligence and State Department officials and key ambassadors, special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, and experts from inside and outside this administration, I have a very different kind of announcement to make.

I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I've recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don't agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it's been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn't pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake.

During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan "the right war." Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn't supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it's important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that.

And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn't matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops -- which we essentially don't have available -- there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn't send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points:

1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people.

2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai's administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities. Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet.

3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously under strength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace.

4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression.

5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates -- and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this -- that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger.

6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war -- $65 billion -- and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home.

7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be service people on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure.

These seven points have been weighing on my mind over the last weeks as we've deliberated on the right course to take. Tonight, in response to the realities of Afghanistan as I've just described them to you, I've put aside all the subjects that ordinarily obsess Washington, especially whether an American president can reverse the direction of a war and still have an electoral future. That's for the American people, and them alone, to decide.

Given that, let me say as bluntly as I can that I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down. Over time, our troops and resources will be brought home in an orderly fashion, while we ensure that we provide adequate security for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Ours will be an administration that will stand or fall, as of today, on this essential position: that we ended, rather than extended, two wars.

This will, of course, take time. But I have already instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Special Representative Holbrooke to begin discussions, however indirectly, with the Taliban insurgents for a truce in place. Before year's end, I plan to call an international conference of interested countries, including key regional partners, to help work out a way to settle this conflict. I will, in addition, soon announce a schedule for the withdrawal of the first American troops from Afghanistan.

For the counterinsurgency war that we now will not fight, there is already a path laid out. We walked down that well-mined path once in recent American memory and we know where it leads. For ending the war in another way, there is no precedent in our recent history and so no path -- only the unknown. But there is hope. Let me try to explain.
Recently, comparisons between the Vietnam War and our current conflict in Afghanistan have been legion. Let me, however, suggest a major difference between the two. When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson faced their crises involving sending more troops into Vietnam, they and their advisors had little to rely on in the American record. They, in a sense, faced the darkness of the unknown as they made their choices. The same is not true of us.

In the White House, for instance, a number of us have been reading a book on how the U.S. got itself ever more disastrously involved in the Vietnam War. We have history to guide us here. We know what happens in counterinsurgency campaigns. We have the experience of Vietnam as a landmark on the trail behind us. And if that weren't enough, of course, we have the path to defeat already well cleared by the Russians in their Afghan fiasco of the 1980s, when they had just as many troops in the field as we would have if I had chosen to send those extra 40,000 Americans. That is the known.

On the other hand, peering down the path of de-escalation, all we can see is darkness. Nothing like this has been tried before in Washington. But I firmly believe that this, too, is deeply in the American grain. American immigrants, as well as slaves, traveled to this country as if into the darkness of the unknown. Americans have long braved the unknown in all sorts of ways.

To present this more formulaically, if we sent the troops and trainers to Afghanistan, if we increased air strikes and tried to strengthen the Afghan Army, we basically know how things are likely to work out: not well. The war is likely to spread. The insurgents, despite many losses, are likely to grow in strength. Hatred of Americans is likely to increase. Pakistan is likely to become more destabilized. If, however, we don't take such steps and proceed down that other path, we do not know how things will work out in Afghanistan, or how well.

We do not know how things will work out in Pakistan, or how well.

That is hardly surprising, since we do not know what it means to end such a war now. But we must not be scared. America will not -- of this, as your president, I am convinced -- be a safer nation if it spends many hundreds of billions of dollars over many years, essentially bankrupting itself and exhausting its military on what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. This is not the way to safety, but to national penury -- and I am unwilling to preside over an America heading in that direction.

Let me say again that the unknown path, the path into the wilderness, couldn't be more American. We have always been willing to strike out for ourselves where others would not go. That, too, is in the best American tradition.

It is, of course, a perilous thing to predict the future, but in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, war has visibly only spread war. The beginning of a negotiated peace may have a similarly powerful effect, but in the opposite direction. It may actually take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border. It may actually encourage forces in both countries with which we might be more comfortable to step to the fore.

Certainly, we will do our best to lead the way with any aid or advice we can offer toward a future peaceful Afghanistan and a future peaceful Pakistan. In the meantime, I plan to ask Congress to take some of the savings from our two wars winding down and put them into a genuine jobs program for the American people.

The way to safety in our world is, I believe, to secure our borders against those who would harm us, and to put Americans back to work. With this in mind, next month I've called for a White House Jobs Summit, which I plan to chair. And there I will suggest that, as a start, and only as a start, we look at two programs that were not only popular across the political spectrum in the desperate years of the Great Depression, but were remembered fondly long after by those who took part in them -- the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration. These basic programs put millions of Americans back to work on public projects that mattered to this nation and saved families, lives, and souls.

We cannot afford a failing war in Afghanistan and a 10.2% official unemployment rate at home. We cannot live with two Americas, one for Wall Street and one for everyone else. This is not the path to American safety.

As president, I retain the right to strike at al-Qaeda or other terrorists who mean us imminent harm, no matter where they may be, including Afghanistan. I would never deny that there are dangers in the approach I suggest today, but when have Americans ever been averse to danger, or to a challenge either? I cannot believe we will be now.

It's time for change. I know that not all Americans will agree with me and that some will be upset by the approach I am now determined to follow. I expect anger and debate. I take full responsibility for whatever may result from this policy departure. Believe me, the buck stops here, but I am convinced that this is the way forward for our country in war and peace, at home and abroad.

I thank you for your time and attention. Goodnight and God bless America.

-- Barack Obama, President of the United States

This is a guest note by Tom Engelhardt, acclaimed editor, author, and publisher of TomDispatch.com.

Tom wrote this piece as a "forward" to the speech above -- but I have decided to run it as an afterward. . .

Next week, President Obama is, it seems, slated to make address the American people in prime time about the war in Afghanistan. "It is my intention," he said in a press conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday, "to finish the job." Every sign indicates that he will be sending 30,000 or more new American troops into that country.

Undoubtedly, the President's speechwriters are already preparing the text for his address. In the nearly three months since he began his strategic review of the Afghan War -- with leaks pouring out almost every day -- the rest of us have had all the disadvantages of essentially being in on the president's councils, and none of the advantages of offering our own advice. But I don't see why we shouldn't weigh in.

What precedes this note, then, is my version of the president's Afghan announcement. Here's my President Obama -- in, I hope, something like his voice -- doing what no American president has yet done and what, unfortunately, he's not going to do. So sit down, turn on your TV, and see what you think. -- Tom Engelhardt

-- Steve Clemons

John Donnelly of Congressional Quarterly has a disconcerting piece out today noting that more US military personnel are dying from suicide than from either of the US military engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Donnelly writes:

More U.S. military personnel have taken their own lives so far in 2009 than have been killed in either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars this year, according to a Congressional Quarterly compilation of the latest statistics from the armed services.

As of Tuesday, at least 334 members of the military services have committed suicide in 2009, compared with 297 killed in Afghanistan and 144 who died in Iraq, the figures show.

Lawmakers in recent years have been increasingly concerned about the growing problem of military suicides, especially in the Army. They have been holding hearings, passing bills and approving billions of dollars more than requested to improve mental health care for military personnel and veterans.

But even those who have been most intensely focused on the issue said they found the new numbers alarming. So far in 2009, the Army has had 211 of the 334 suicides, while the Navy had 47, the Air Force had 34 and the Marine Corps (active duty only) had 42.

Maybe wars that never seem to really end has something to do with it.

-- Steve Clemons

Just a friendly head's up that at 1:06 pm sharp, I'll be chatting with the erudite Jerome McDonnell on Chicago Public Radio's "Worldview." Along with Brian Lehrer, Warren Olney, Diane Rehm, and a few others, Jerome is one of the best ideas wrestlers in serious radio journalism. The topic will be Afghanistan.

Then on CNN sometime during the day, I will be chatting about President Obama's Afghanistan course -- and perhaps something about his announcement that he will be going to the Copenhagen Climate Summit (and may even mention that he just saved "Courage" the White House turkey -- though Obama failed to say whether "Carolina", the alternate, gets carved tomorrow and Bo gets a drumstick).

And at 4:10 pm EST (not sure what time that is in Australia), I'll be chatting with radio personality Mark Parton about the big climate change politics unfolding in Australia and how President Obama's announcement about Copenhagen may change the gameboard.

-- Steve Clemons

Fadi Elsalameen, Publisher of The Palestine Note, and I interviewed J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami about a number of issues in the wake of J Street's highly successful national policy conference last month.

In this clip, Ben-Ami responds to questions about Iran, Obama's foreign policy course, the effectiveness of Israel-Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, and about the task and complications of being a progressive, pro-Israel organization when so many want to approach Middle East issues in a zero sum frame.

-- Steve Clemons

Big news from the White House. President Obama WILL attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit and has put forward specific targets that he is willing to put on the table.

This is important because previously the White House and many political advisers around this issue had begun to downplay Obama's willingness to have much exposure on the climate change challenge while still fighting a battle on health care and when ensnared in a the complications of redefining America's course in Afghanistan.

But this is bold -- and deserves credit for boldness. I really didn't think that President Obama would go -- so this is a big course correction.

The operative segment of the White House announcement on Obama's on climate change proposal is:

. . .the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President's goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030.

The White House statement follows after the break.

I am one who favors a constructive partnership with China in solving many of the tough global challenges out there -- and believe that Zachary Karabell is right that the two economies' fortunes are fused together for some time, and policy makers need to get their heads around what that means.

What it does not mean is spending very large sums of American government-tied stimulus money hiring Chinese state firms to do work inside the United States. This is a time when US and Chinese interests must put US workers back to work.

When the world economy was flagging in 1997/1998, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Alan Greenspan helped fuel a US consumption bubble to keep the good times going in China and Asia more broadly. Now, China should realize that the key to future global prosperity is rebalancing its economy -- and consuming US manufactured products and services.

But today, we learn that a $100 million Manhattan subway project has gone to a Chinese state manufacturing firm, China State Construction Engineering.

Here is the lead:

China State Construction Engineering Corp, the largest contractor in China, has bagged a subway ventilation project worth about $100 million in New York's Manhattan area, marking the construction giant's third order in the United States' infrastructure space this year.

The contract was given to China Construction American Co, a subsidiary, the Wall Street Journal quoted a source as saying.

"The new project, along with the $410-million Hamilton Bridge project and a $1.7-billion entertainment project it won earlier this year, signals China State Construction's ambition to tap the American construction market," said Li Zhirui, an industry analyst at First Capital Securities.

Li, however, said the order came as no surprise as the US government is spending massively on infrastructure projects.

The three orders only account for about 4 percent of the value of its total orders this year, Li added.

I hope that the next time Michael Bloomberg has a press conference, one of the media will ask how this policy is defensible at a time when American jobless rates continue to surge.

President Obama will be hosting in December a "jobs summit". This really should be on the docket for review.

-- Steve Clemons

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourge Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan-War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are NOT there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have DEFINITELY been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House of Reps Republican internationalist Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons

(The full guest list follows after the break.)

The 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) released last week rates Somalia as the World's most corrupt country and New Zealand the least. The CPI is a project of Transparency International, a global non-profit, that analyzes business and expert surveys to measure "the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world."

According to the CPI, the five most corrupt countries are Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, and Iraq. Prolonged conflict is the highest common denominator among these countries. Corruption has run amuck in the absence of legitimate governing bodies and political stability.

Somalia and Sudan have each been embroiled in civil war for decades leading to genocide in the case of Sudan and earning the title failed state for Somalia. Myanmar has been in a perpetual state of turmoil since the 1962 military coup. Rounding out the top five are Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries awash with U.S. military and money. Afghanistan has actually become more corrupt in the last year, dropping from fifth place to second, despite continued international pressure on President Karzai to crack down on corruption.

The least corrupt countries tend to be small and homogeneous with long-standing political structures. Closely following New Zealand are Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland. No real surprises here. While the United States doesn't make the top five, we rank a respectable nineteen, right after the United Kingdom. The primary concern cited in the U.S. surveys was, "lack of government oversight in relation to the financial sector." The CPI also stated that the "U.S. legislature is perceived to be the institution most affected by corruption."

Transparency International also warns, in an accompanying press release, that rampant corruption could interfere with the global economic recovery. "At a time when massive stimulus packages, fast-track disbursements of public funds and attempts to secure peace are being implemented around the world, it is essential to identify where corruption blocks good governance and accountability, in order to break its corrosive cycle" said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International.

-- Faith Smith

After publishing a Daily Beast piece titled "The Assassination of Greg Craig," I did this interview above with Cenk Uygar of The Young Turks that some folks may find interesting.

-- Steve Clemons

The Pentagon, which favors a surge in US troops to Afghanistan knows how defense bidding goes. They've seen enough of it from the large defense contractors to know that you bid low and reconcile at a multiple of two or three times higher than the contract later.

That is what the Pentagon seems to be doing by suggesting that each new troop addition that the United States sends to Afghanistan will cost about $500,000. The White House is suggesting the price tag will be double that amount - or $1 million per new soldier per year.

And can I add that these figures do not seem to include the long term health costs that the US commits to with our soldiers -- nor other ongoing benefits.

That means that a surge of 40,000 troops will cost approximately $40 Billion on top of the $65 billion/year the US is currently spending on its military deployments.

$105 billion.

David Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has now said that if the administration wants this war, it will have to pay for it -- and will have to impose a "surtax" on US citizens.

The health care bill that is being considered by the Congress now costs approximately $85 billion/year -- just to set some context.

For more context, Afghanistan's nominal GDP was $11.7 billion last year.

That's right. . .$11.7 billion -- and we are considering spending ten times that on this military engagement.

-- Steve Clemons

In an interview with ABC News, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey stated that sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

He continues, "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

From the ABC report:

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

Here is the video clip of the ABC interview.

-- Steve Clemons

(Photo credit: The White House)

Patrick Doherty directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.

Yesterday, three significant statements were made regarding the United States' policy towards Cuba. President Barack Obama, responding to dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, signaled to Congress and Havana his willingness to break the stalemate on Cuba policy. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) came out forcefully in favor of ending the 50 year old travel ban keeping Americans from traveling to Cuba. And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi protected President Obama's health care flank by saying Cuba will not interfere with the President's legislative agenda.

It was a great day.

President Obama's words were perhaps the most important development and are a substantial development in an evolving policy. In May 2008, speaking before the Cuban American National Foundation, President Obama articulated a three point policy on Cuba: he will allow Cuban Americans to travel more freely to Cuba; he will allow Cuban Americans to send unlimited remittances to the island, and he will not end the embargo. In April 2009, President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and then offered to initiate talks while presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested that before normalization, Cuba will have to release its political prisoners. In August, senior career State Department officials initiated talks with Cuba over migration and mail service. Yesterday, the president broke new ground, and stepped more clearly from the policy of conditionality:

We have already initiated a dialogue on areas of mutual concern - safe, legal and orderly migration, and reestablishing direct mail service. These are small steps, but an important part of a process to move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new and more positive, direction. Achieving a more normal relationship, however, will require action by the Cuban government.

"Will require action by the Cuban government," is the key phrase. For those who want to see an end to a dysfunctional and counter-productive embargo it is the first time in decades that preconditions were not explicitly stated as a requirement for normalization. Of course a more normal relationship will require action by the Cuban government: they will have to allow our diplomats freedom to travel, they will have to work hard to address American concerns around counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, human smuggling, they will have to improve their airline and banking security and transparency. They will have to finally put to bed any outstanding property claims. From where I sit, these are all issues the Cuban government is prepared to negotiate and make changes around. In other words, the President just cleared the diplomatic path to more in-depth negotiations.

Not only is this statement a signal to Havana that Obama is serious about moving forward with talks, packaged brilliantly in a tweak of the Castro government by responding to Yoani Sanchez--it is also a signal to Congress. Sanchez submitted these questions to the president months ago. The White House chose to release them the day of Chairman Berman's landmark hearing on Cuba travel. For those members of the House and Senate looking for a signal that this administration supports the legislation to end the ban on travel, this is as good as it will get before the Senate passes health care reform.

Which brings us to Mr. Berman's well-timed hearing. Summing up his position, the powerful foreign affairs committee chairman said, "Let's face it. By any objective measure, the nearly 50-year-old travel ban simply hasn't worked." It was a pivotal statement at an important hearing. To hold this hearing, Chairman Berman had to break dramatically from the Ranking Member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and get out ahead of many of his democratic colleagues on the committee. It was a bold move and will set in motion an avalanche of politicking on the Committee in advance of the mark-up of the Delahunt-Flake bill that would make the Chairman's position the law of the land. But make no mistake. The fact that the Chairman and the President made these statements on the same day denotes exactly where these two leaders are. That Berman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar co-authored an op-ed earlier in the week is also an indicator of where Senator Kerry, SFRC Chairman will soon come out. This policy is wired for change.

The only question that remains is timing. On that score, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was given the job of managing expectations, lest these important signals confuse presidential intent for urgency. President Obama's larger agenda depends on his passing robust health care reform and he will not willingly spend any more political capital on any other issue until the Senate puts a bill on his desk. Speaker Pelosi, by saying that she too supports ending the travel ban but that it must take its place behind health care and jobs, is preserving the president's capital stock.

But make no mistake. The political leadership of the United States of America just sent Congress and Havana some very clear signals about their intentions on Cuba policy.

-- Patrick Doherty

This is a guest note by Ted Sorensen, whose most recent book is Counseler: A Life at the Edge of History. Sorensen, former special counsel and adviser to President John F. Kennedy, is a widely published author on the presidency and foreign affairs.

JFK Remembered

22 November 2009 -- 46 years ago today, President John F. Kennedy was killed at the age of 46. Were he alive today, he would find much to gratify and disappoint him.

He would be gratified that once again the torch had been passed to a new generation of Americans, that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream had been fulfilled when last year the descendents of the hands that picked cotton picked the next President of the United States, that it took fewer than 50 years for another non-WASP to reach the White House.

But he would be disappointed that the extraordinary progress this country has made in race relations since his path-breaking speech and comprehensive civil rights legislation of June 1963 - resulting in record numbers of African-American mayors, south and north, as well as members of congress and successful professional and business leaders - have still fallen short by failing to achieve true desegregation of schools, neighborhoods and the top ranks of business.

He would be disappointed that the new President was still listening to - even though not yet convinced by - the old Cold War mindset insisting that more American combat forces could solve what are essentially political problems (e.g. regime change) in foreign lands long unwilling to permit Western forces ever again to occupy or dominate their respective countries, a mindset that Kennedy refused to heed regarding Vietnam.

He would be gratified that U.S. leadership in the exploration of outer-space (made possible by his bold pledge to reach the moon) had prevented the military occupation of space by hostile forces and had also enabled a host of benefits in American science, communications, health and commerce in ways we now take for granted.

He would be disappointed that his unprecedented efforts to renew the constitutional separation of church and state - in a country, as he said, in which "no Catholic prelate" would tell an elected official how to decide what was in the best interest of all Americans - had still not dissuaded the current Roman Catholic hierarchy from trying to punish a good Catholic congressman like JFK's nephew Patrick for voting his conscience on the question of free reproductive choice for American women.

He would be gratified that the current administration has recognized his repeated emphasis on "man's survival being a race between population and resources" by restoring American participation in the U.N. World Population Fund.

He would be gratified that the little daughter whom he adored had grown into a brilliant author, mother, and keeper of his flame; but disappointed that the Democratic Party, which he led and cherished, had become virtually as dependent as its opponents upon what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" for campaign contributions, and the lobbying pressures that accompany them.

He would be disappointed, even astounded, that, despite his assassination and the crushing blows that followed - the assassinations of his brother Robert and his friend Dr. King, as well as the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan - this country is still awash in handguns easily available to terrorists, the criminally inclined, and the mentally impaired.

The President who strove to keep the federal budget below 100 billion dollars and the annual deficit below 10 billion dollars would be not merely disappointed but staggered by the debt burden in the trillions that his successors in both parties have passed along to his grandchildren and mine.

He would be disappointed that both political parties in Washington today seem to have forgotten his inaugural reminder that "civility is not a sign of weakness" but gratified that, once again, public service at both the national and local level has become "a proud and lively career" for our best and brightest students.

But he would be disappointed that his pride and joy, the Peace Corps, his noblest effort to show the poorest citizens of the poorest countries the true face of the United States - conveying a spirit of good works and good will, not merely greed and guns - has this year failed to achieve in Congress the financing necessary to assure sufficient volunteers to many of the world's neediest and most deserving nations.

-- Ted Sorensen

The is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, publisher of the Palestine Note.

For the past several years Palestine Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's name on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza has become synonymous with the words credibility, honesty, and transparency.

His hard work on building and reforming Palestinian institutions has paid off: Palestinians see him as a serious leader that can deliver to his people with or without the Israelis.

He has raised the bar of leadership so high that officials in the Fatah movement are feeling extremely uncomfortable and challenged. A senior Fatah leader and member of its central committee told me, last week, while the Brooking Institutions' Saban Forum was taking place in Jerusalem "everyone comes to Ramallah to see Fayyad; they add us and Abu Mazen on their programs just as an excuse."

The Fatah official was almost right: the Saban Forum did send a delegation to Ramallah, but they didn't add him or Abu Mazen on the schedule, they only met with Prime Minister Fayyad.

This is the right approach: if the Palestinian politicians remain in internal political quagmire, the world should pay attention to those who are building in Palestine and help them build.

The international community should deal directly with the new style of leadership that is emerging in Palestine. It is the wish of the Palestinian people. The cult of self-appointed personalities that have done nothing for the Palestinians other than use their cause to create prestige for themselves and their families should be ousted. Everyone on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza will agree.

Why can't they retire from political life, join universities in Palestine, and write books for the next generation to learn from their mistakes? Jibril Rijoub is one example of a Fatah politician that changed his useless political existence into a popular and productive head of sports. He is successfully building sports teams, and stadiums and giving sports a whole new meaning in Palestine.

When Arafat passed away, he took with him his style of leadership, and left the people with Abu Mazen and the personalities surrounding him as the figures of the transition period that followed.

That is why soon after people voted for Hamas. They did it for two reasons: to punish Fatah for its corruption, and out of a deep desire for change and improvement they wanted to see if Hamas could deliver what Fatah couldn't.

Alas, to most Palestinians, Hamas and Fatah are both incompetent at this point. Nothing has been accomplished by either party to advance the cause of the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinians are years behind.

Their PA and Fatah leadership enjoys traveling and shopping on trips abroad.

Meanwhile, Hamas is implementing Talibani backward policies such as Hijab in schools, and demanding women judges to cover in courts. Both Fatah and Hamas supporters are dismayed with their party leadership.

We must take note of an important change that is occurring in Palestine. Anyone on the streets will tell you Salam Fayyad is always visiting us, while Abbas and his people spend more days outside Palestine than inside.

Salam Fayyad represents the new Palestinian style of leadership that will deliver the Palestinian State. He is in touch with his people. He has visited almost every town in the West Bank. He puts on his shorts and runs in marathons for the handicapped, and when tragic personal events strike simple people in Palestine he calls them on the phone to elevate their spirits, promises to visit them personally, and then he actually does visit.

Fayyad's is a promising example of leadership. The world owes it to the Palestinian people -- who have yet to see a bright day in their lives -- to support this kind of leadership and give it a chance to succeed. The people are ready to elect it and give it a mandate to implement its vision, and the world, especially the Arab world, must come through and help it deliver.

-- Fadi Elsalameen

Europe is correct to be skeptical of Turkey's European Union accession prospects - but Brussels should be wary not because Turkey is not "part of Europe," but because its democracy remains fragile and its liberalism incomplete.

The most obvious evidence of Turkey's uneven progress is the ongoing Ergenekon investigation that continues to roil the country. The criminal case has led to the arrests of 194 individuals suspected of being members of Turkey's derin devlet (Deep State) - a murky, extra-legal organization that is suspected of having close ties to the military and the bureaucracy.

At first glance, the investigation might be considered a healthy development akin to Italy's "clean hands" investigation in the 1990s, which somewhat successfully purged the Italian state of corruption.

But a closer examination of the investigation suggests that a higher degree of skepticism is in order.

In a paper for the Central Asia - Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program at Johns Hopkins' School for Advanced International Studies, long-time Istanbul denizen and analyst of Turkey Gareth Jenkins describes in painstaking detail how the investigation is best understood as the result of wild conspiracy theories combined with a partisan effort to weaken the secular establishment, the government's chief rival for political power.

The paper, "Between Fact and Fantasy: Turkey's Ergenekon Investigation," can be read here.

Here is part of Jenkins' alarming conclusion:

Even the most cursory objective examination of the investigation raises deeply disturbing questions, which multiply and intensify the more closely the alleged evidence in the case is examined....

[Judicial concerns include] the manner in which the investigation as a whole has been handled, the disregard for due process, the prosecutors' inability or unwillingness to understand the numerous contradictions in the indictments, the creative interpretation and occasional apparent manipulation of what little evidence is adduced, the arbitrary nature of many of the police raids, the length of time some of the suspects have been detained in prison without being formally charged, the frequency with which materials related to the case or its critics have been leaked into the public domain, and the subsequent suspicion that the investigation has become tainted by political motives.

Jenkins' report raises serious allegations and Europeans would be correct to raise concerns. Indeed, the accession negotiations are meant to encourage Turkey to adopt liberal reforms, while discouraging illiberal governmental actions.

It is surprising, therefore, that the Ergenekon case is nearly absent from the European Commission's most recent progress report on Turkey, published last month (two months after Jenkins' report was published).

Here is what the 94 page (single-spaced) report has to say about the Ergenekon case.

Investigations into the alleged criminal network Ergenekon continued. Charges include attempting to overthrow the government and to instigate armed riots. Ammunition and weapons were discovered in the course of the investigation. A first trial, which started in October 2008, is ongoing. A second indictment, covering 56 suspects including three retired generals and a former commander of the gendarmerie, was submitted to court in March 2009. A third indictment covering 52 suspects was presented to the Court in July. The cases concerning these two indictments are discussed in one single trial, which started in July 2009 and is ongoing. This is the first case in Turkey to probe into a coup attempt and the most extensive investigation ever on an alleged criminal network aiming at destabilising the democratic institutions. Furthermore, for the first time a former Chief of Staff testified voluntarily as a witness. Concerns have been raised about effective judicial guarantees for all the suspects....

Overall, the investigation of the alleged criminal network Ergenekon has led to serious criminal charges, involving military officers. This case is an opportunity for Turkey to strengthen confidence in the proper functioning of its democratic institutions and the rule of law. It is important that proceedings in this context fully respect the due process of law, in particular the rights of the defendants....

During a press briefing in April, the Chief of General Staff made comments on the Ergenekon case and on the indictment, thus putting the judiciary under pressure. Some senior members of the armed forces lent support to military personnel standing trial.

In the context of Turkey's judiciary, there is another reference.

High-profile cases raised concerns about the quality of the investigations. Furthermore, there is a need to improve the working relationship between the police and the gendarmerie on the one hand and the judiciary on the other. Reports by civil society organisations and statements by witnesses, in particular regarding the alleged criminal network Ergenekon, the murder of three Protestants in Malatya and the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink cases, highlighted these concerns in specific cases....There have been reports of violations of procedural rights of the accused in the judicial proceedings regarding the alleged criminal network Ergenekon.

Finally,

Overall, some progress has been made, in particular on limiting the jurisdiction of military courts. However, senior members of the armed forces have made statements on issues going beyond their remit, and full parliamentary oversight of defense expenditure needs to be ensured. The alleged involvement of military personnel in anti-government activities, disclosed by the investigation on Ergenekon, raises serious concerns.

Nearly all of the report's analysis of the Ergenekon investigation focuses on the case's potential to strengthen civilian political power and weaken the power of the military. This has been a European objective for a long time, but it is not the only lens through which the Ergenekon investigations should be analyzed.

On the judicial concerns that Jenkins raises in his paper, the European Union Commission report notes merely that "concerns have been raised about effective judicial guarantees for all the suspects." It does not elaborate at all.

Whether or not Jenkins' analysis is entirely correct, it certainly suggests that the investigations merit further attention.

Europe should start paying attention, but it is important that it pay attention in the right way. Populist political campaigners should not use the investigation as evidence that Turkey is not "part of Europe" and never can be. Instead, Brussels should conduct as thorough an investigation as possible, make its results known, indicate that the investigation must be conducted in accordance with liberal norms, and insist that reforms must be implemented before Turkey can join its Union.

-- Ben Katcher