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

With all of the talk and controversy about the war in Afghanistan in the past months, it has been easy for many to forget that despite the reduction in violence brought about partly by the 2007 troop surge, Iraq remains troubled. Violence is on the rise again, and last month's deadly bombings showed the continued threat that insurgent groups pose to the Iraq's government and people.

Moreover, unresolved political questions continue to inhibit Iraq's transition toward stability and government accountability. The passage of a long-awaited election law Sunday elicited relief from many in the region and the U.S., only to be swept away when Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi vetoed the law Wednesday.

The veto appears to be an attempt to gain more parliamentary seats for Iraq's minorities and Iraqis living abroad, and will likely delay the parliamentary elections scheduled for January 18. This setback, coupled with lingering security fears, could potentially delay the withdrawal of the bulk of American troops from Iraq, scheduled to begin in 2010.

The Special Representative in Iraq for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Ad Melkert, will discuss his insights about the present situation and future of Iraq from 4:00 pm- 5:30 pm today at the New America Foundation.

The event will stream live here at The Washington Note.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This is an audio clip of an extensive discussion with Brian Lehrer on WNYC National Public Radio today about Barack Obama's options in Afghanistan.

I am pleased and applaud President Obama for requiring his advisers to come to him with plans including serious "exit strategies."

Lehrer properly noted that I am a skeptic of a surge of forces into Afghanistan now and lined up some callers who were proponents of committing greater resources toward the problem.

I thought that this was an excellent exchange -- and covered the terrain well. Brian Lehrer knows how to expertly peel back the onion skin of these complex national security issues.

-- Steve Clemons

I interviewed former UK Ambassador to the United States Sir Christopher Meyer on his new book Getting Our Way: Five Hundred Years Of International Diplomacy. I have begun the book -- and it's a terrific review of five centuries of the world's big moments and how competitive statecraft in very difficult circumstances turned out. Here is a review from The Guardian.

Meyer has important insights into Afghanistan, stating that the "penny is dropping in London that the democracy project in Afghanistan is a fool's errand." He is increasingly of the view that the entire Afghanistan exercise is a disastrous mess without any "clarity" of objective. He offers a logic-led critique of matters rather than just asserting the Afghanistan War is doomed.

Meyer wrote one of the major insider accounts of the lead up to the Iraq War, reporting from private memos and other personal observations about the Tony Blair-George Bush relationship. I recommend DC Confidential: The Controversial Memoirs of Britain's Ambassador to the U.S. at the Time of 9/11 and the Run-Up to the Iraq War.

Fascinating diplomat -- and great interview. Hope you find it useful.

Leaving Italy this morning -- and heading back to Washington.

On other fronts, for those who want advance word, I will be chairing a meeting at the New America Foundation in Washington, right after I land at Dulles, titled "Iraq: The New Forgotten War" with a distinguished former Dutch political leader, Ad Melkert, who was former executive director of the World Bank and who now serves as Special Representative for the UN Secretary General in Iraq.

Melkert attracted a lot of headlines as he headed a key committee that wrestled with then President Paul Wolfowitz over various ethics questions -- ultimately resulting in Wolfowitz's departure from the Bank.

The meeting will stream live here at The Washington Note and also at the website of the New America Foundation starting at about 4:15 pm EST (so anyone around the world can watch). Those in DC are welcome to attend -- and more information on logistics is here.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a priceless exchange between journalist "Matt" and State Department spokesman Ian Kelly. Who is Matt?

Terrific job on his part -- not so terrific on George Mitchell's team's part. . .

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 17
Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:29:30 -0600
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/nov/132024.htm

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 17, 2009

QUESTION: On the peace process, Israel has approved today the construction of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem. How do you view this approval at this specific time?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think, Michel, you've heard us say many times that we believe that neither party should engage in any kind of actions that could unilaterally preempt or appear to preempt negotiations. And I think that we find the Jerusalem Planning Committee's decision to move forward on the approval of the - approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem as dismaying.

This is at a time when we're working to re-launch negotiations, and we believe that these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. So we object to this, and we object to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.

And - just to repeat what we've said all along, our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that the - that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, did this come up in Ambassador Mitchell's meetings in London yesterday? Apparently, we were told that he met an advisor to Netanyahu, asked them to not permit these new buildings, and then that request was flatly turned down.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Andy, I just don't want to get into the substance of these negotiations. They're sensitive. I think you've seen the Israeli - some Israeli press reports that did report that this was raised in the meetings. This is - I mean, these kinds of unilateral actions are exactly the kind of actions that we think that both sides should refrain from at a time when we're trying to start the negotiations again. But I don't want to get into the substance of the discussions yesterday in London.

QUESTION: Would you steer us away from not believing the Israeli press reports?

MR. KELLY: I just don't want to get into the substance. I'm not going to steer you one way or the other on it.

QUESTION: Where's Senator Mitchell today?

QUESTION: How long is the U.S. going to continue to tolerate Israel's violation of international law? I mean, soon it's not even going to be possible - there's not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.

MR. KELLY: Well, again, this is a - we understand the Israeli point of view about Jerusalem. But we think that all sides right now, at this time when we're expending such intense efforts to try and get the two sides to sit down, that we should refrain from these actions, like this decision to move forward on an approval process for more housing units in East Jerusalem.

QUESTION: But should U.S. inaction, or in response to Israel's actions, then be interpreted as some sort of about-face in policy - the President turning his back on the promises he's made to the Palestinians?

MR. KELLY: You're - okay, you're using language that I wouldn't use. I mean, again, our focus is to get these negotiations started. We're calling on both parties to refrain from actions, from - and from rhetoric that would impede this process. It's a challenging time, and we just need to focus on what's important here, and that's --

QUESTION: Well, what actions (inaudible) the Palestinians taken recently that would impede progress?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, we would discourage all unilateral actions, and I think --

QUESTION: Fair enough. But the Palestinians --

MR. KELLY: We talked yesterday --

QUESTION: -- don't appear to be taking any unilateral actions. It seems to be (inaudible).

MR. KELLY: Well, we did talk yesterday about the - and I want to make sure I get my language right here - about the - discouraging any kind of unilateral appeal for United Nations Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That would fall in that category of unilateral actions.

QUESTION: Okay. So the Palestinian call for this, which was rejected by both the EU and yourself yesterday, you're putting that on the same level as them building - as the Israelis building --

MR. KELLY: No, I'm not saying that. You just said that, Matt. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that --

QUESTION: Well, you're saying you're calling on both sides to stop doing these things.

MR. KELLY: We are.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the rhetoric from the --

MR. KELLY: I'm not saying they're equivalent.

QUESTION: -- Palestinians is not actually constructed in a --

MR. KELLY: I'm not saying they're equivalent. I'm just saying that we - they - we have to treat these things as sensitive issues.

QUESTION: You said a little bit earlier that we understand the Israeli point of view on Jerusalem. Can you explain what you mean by that?

MR. KELLY: Well, you have to ask - I'm not going to stand up here and characterize the Israeli point of view on --

QUESTION: No. I'm just asking you, if you understand the Israeli point of view on Jerusalem, why are you saying that this is not a good thing?

MR. KELLY: I'm not saying we support the Israeli point of view. We understand it.

QUESTION: Right. And then, last one on this, you characterized this decision by the planning commission as dismaying.

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: You can't come up with anything stronger than "dismaying"? I mean, this flies in the face of everything you've been talking about for months and months and months.

MR. KELLY: It's dismaying.

QUESTION: Yeah, you can't offer a condemnation of it or anything like that? (Laughter.) I mean, who is in charge of the language here.

MR. KELLY: I have said what I have said, Mr. Lee.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Would you say, though, that your own envoy has - does he have any leverage at this point, given the fact that the Israelis not only refuse, but blatantly have ignored his wishes on this?

MR. KELLY: Well, let's take a step back and let's also recognize that both sides agree on the goal, and that goal is a comprehensive peace. That goal is two states living side by side in peace and security and cooperation. So that is why we continue to be committed to this. That is why Special Envoy Mitchell meets with both sides at every opportunity, and why we are continuing to expend such efforts on this. So let's remember that, that we do share a common goal.

QUESTION: Well, where's Senator Mitchell today?

MR. KELLY: I believe Senator Mitchell is on his way back today.

QUESTION: Could you give us just a brief synopsis of the progress that Senator Mitchell has made in his months on the job?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we have - we've gotten --

QUESTION: Yeah, maybe if the --

MR. KELLY: -- both sides to agree on this goal. We have gotten both sides --

QUESTION: Ian, they agreed on the goal years ago. I mean, that's not --

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that we - this government --

QUESTION: You mean you got the Israel Government to say, yes, we're willing to accept a Palestinian state? You got Netanyahu to say that, and that's his big accomplishment?

MR. KELLY: That is an accomplishment.

QUESTION: But previous Israeli administration - previous Israeli governments had agreed to that already.

MR. KELLY: Okay, all right.

QUESTION: So in other words, the bottom line is that, in the list of accomplishments that Mitchell has come up with or established since he started, is zero.

MR. KELLY: I wouldn't say zero.

QUESTION: Well, then what would you say it is?

MR. KELLY: Well, I would say that we've gotten both sides to commit to this goal. They have - we have - we've had a intensive round or rounds of negotiations, the President brought the two leaders together in New York. Look --

QUESTION: But wait, hold on. You haven't had any intense --

MR. KELLY: Obviously --

QUESTION: There haven't been any negotiations.

MR. KELLY: Obviously, we're not even in the red zone yet, okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: I mean, we're not - but it's - we are less than a year into this Administration, and I think we've accomplished more over the last year than the previous administration did in eight years.

QUESTION: Well, I - really, because the previous administration actually had them sitting down talking to each other. You guys can't even get that far.

MR. KELLY: All right.

QUESTION: I'll drop it.

MR. KELLY: Give us a chance. Thank you, Matt.
Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: It seems Senator Mitchell is focusing in his meetings on the Israeli side. Is he - does he have any plans to talk with the Palestinians, or there is no need now for that?

MR. KELLY: Well, he, as I say, he had meetings yesterday with the Israelis. He's coming back to the U.S. now. He always stands ready to talk to both sides. There are no plans at this moment to meet with the Palestinian side.

Wow. Impressive questions. Depressing responses.

-- Steve Clemons

Not a regular topic on the blog, but I really do love wildlife -- and being out in "it".

Although 600,000 others have seen this spell-binding video of National Geographic Paul Nicklen's encounter with a leopard seal, I had not seen it. I have watched it a half dozen times now.

The seal reminds me of a time when Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner (TWN regulars know him) used to catch birds and bring them to me -- once a duck, once a couple of pigeons, and once a dove. All survived, at least the first few flaps away from the dog.

So to lighten things up a bit as I get some other work done in Rome this evening, enjoy this clip.

-- Steve Clemons

In an apparent effort to dumb down the concept of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for its readership, The Economist developed what it calls the "Big Mac Index."

I don't know how much a Big Mac costs in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but I do know that you can't buy one at a McDonald's there.

As you can see from this picture I took in the Turkish part of Lefkosa (Nicosia), Cyprus, McDonald's is called "Bigmac" there. Not to be outdone, Turkish Cypriots can buy a Whopper at their local "Burger City."

According to the folks in Cyprus, the fast-food chains must take on pseudonyms because Greek Cypriots in the south own the exclusive rights to open franchises on the island.

-- Ben Katcher

This is a guest note by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. Flynt directs the New America Foundation/Iran Project and is a former Senior Director of Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council. Hillary is chairman of Stratega, a political risk consultancy. They are co-publishers of the new blog, The Race for Iran.

Yet again, U.S. officials, Western media, and various "experts" are telling us that Russia is finally coming on board for really tough sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities. See, the latest media report on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev "joining forces" with President Obama on the need for tougher sanctions against Iran here.

Frankly, we've lost count of how many times U.S. officials, across the Clinton, George W. Bush, and, now, Obama Administrations, have claimed that, this time, Russia is really on board for severe sanctions against Iran. With the inauguration of Barack Obama at the beginning of this year, some observers speculated that America's "smart lawyer" President would find a soulmate in his newly installed and relatively liberal (by Russian standards) counterpart.

Many more commentators continue to trot out tired arguments about how Russia's interests overlap with America's with respect to not wanting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, so, if the United States adopted a "smarter" Russia policy than that pursued by President George W. Bush, Moscow would eventually come around to the American position on sanctioning the Islamic Republic. For this camp, Obama's self-proclaimed interest in hitting the "reset button" with Moscow will surely facilitate closer Russian-American cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue.

It is remarkable how such shallow analysis - fundamentally at odds with observed reality in multiple ways - continues to have considerable traction in public discussions of Iran policy in the West. First of all, the Obama Administration's efforts to hit the "reset button" with Moscow have not been all that adroit, particularly with Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton popping up regularly to offer various anti-Russian statements, in contrast to President Obama's somewhat more disciplined approach to the English language (which may be why Obama has found it necessary to have five of his own meetings with Medvedev over the past ten months).

More importantly, as Dmitri Simes and Paul Saunders pointed out recently, "neither Barack Obama's charm nor appeals to common interests will persuade Russia's unsentimental leaders". In particular, Russia's posture toward the Islamic Republic is shaped by calculations about important economic, political, and strategic interests; these calculations are not going to shift dramatically simply because Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allowed Medvedev to take custody of the Kremlin keys.

What interests shape Russia's Iran policy? Most immediately, Moscow clearly attaches a high priority to keeping the Iranian nuclear issue in the United Nations Security Council--where, as a permanent member, Russia has considerable influence--because it is the only forum where Russia can at least potentially constrain U.S. unilateral action. Largely for this reason, Moscow has supported three sanctions resolutions against Iran over its nuclear activities since 2006. (These resolutions are available at The Race For Iran.)

However, on every one of these resolutions, Russia pushed back hard against British, French, and U.S. drafts to ensure that only narrowly focused measures (e.g., asset freezes and travel restrictions) targeting individuals and entities directly linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs were authorized. By doing this, Moscow made sure that multilateral sanctions authorized by the Security Council would not impede Russia's pursuit of important longer-term economic, political, and strategic interests vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic.

Among these longer-term interests are selling nuclear and other high technology items and military systems to Iran, cooperating with Tehran to contain the spread of Sunni extremism in Russia's sphere of influence, and working with the Islamic Republic to weaken America's strategic position in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Moscow may well end up supporting another Security Council resolution expanding the existing sanctions regime against Iran - giving just enough to keep the United States from taking the issue out of the Council and forging a "coalition of the willing" or of the "like-minded". Beyond its interest in keeping the Iranian nuclear file in the Security Council, Moscow is not happy with Tehran's ambivalent reaction to a proposal that Russia helped to develop and advance, to refuel the Tehran Research Reactor using a significant portion of Iran's current stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Conversations with Russian officials suggest that Moscow may also be looking for ways to show displeasure with alleged Iranian slowness in making payments for various weapons purchases and (perhaps) on the Bushehr nuclear reactor project.

Furthermore, while Russia does not want to see a military confrontation between the United States (or Israel) and Iran, Moscow also does not want to see an overly rapid rapprochement between the United States (or Europe) and Iran. Among other considerations, Russian policymakers and the leadership of Gazprom are keen to prevent head-to-head competition between Russian and Iranian gas, especially in Europe.

These considerations notwithstanding, it remains highly unlikely that Russia will support proposals from the United States and its European partners to go beyond exclusively proliferation-focused sanctions and target key sectors of Iran's economy. To do so would put important Russian interests - including access to the Iranian market for high technology and military goods, strategic cooperation with Tehran, and the prospect that Gazprom and other Russian energy companies could develop upstream positions inside Iran.

The bottom line: whether with regard to prospects for Russian cooperation, prospects for Chinese cooperation, or the likely impact of additional sanctions on the Islamic Republic itself, the Obama Administration remains attached to a delusional sanctions policy.

-- Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) have jointly written a compelling case to end the travel ban for all Americans desiring to go to Cuba.

In fact, their piece, titled "Lift the Ban -- Let Americans Visit Cuba" really calls for ending travel restrictions on Americans going anywhere since Cuba is the only place in the world where America's democratic government restricts the travel freedom of its citizens.

It is a remarkable but true fact that the US government cannot stop regular Americans from traveling to North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, or any other complicated place in the world -- except the one spot where the Cold War still freezes time -- Cuba.

The Lugar-Berman piece reflects a sensible bipartisan realism about the fact that five decades of an embargo have dramatically hurt US interests and have only perpetuated a dysfunctional status quo in US-Cuba relations.

President Obama constantly calls for serious bipartisanship in national security matters -- and he can pluck this Lugar-Berman prize off the tree easily if he has the will (and time on his overcrowded calendar). The House bill to end the travel ban to Cuba has been led by Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) on the Dem side and Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who often says that it's supposed to be Communist governments, not Democratic ones, that impose restrictions on their citizen's choices to travel. The House Bill now has 180 cosponsors comprised of both Republicans and Democrats.

The companion Senate bill has 34 Senate cosponsors. Informal whip counts put the House bill at 205 votes -- within striking distance of the 218 needed, and between 61-64 in the Senate.

But thus far Barack Obama's team continues to condition any further openings to Cuba with a requirement that Cuba begin to demonstrate key political reforms on top of the fact that Obama's presidency has done the ironic thing of opening up travel for a "class" of Americans (those with Cuban relatives) while excluding all other Americans from that legal privilege -- I would actually say, "legal right". This exclusion of some but not all is something Obama should not want too long on his legacy sheet.

Lugar and Berman open:

U.S. law lets American citizens travel to any country on earth, friend or foe -- with one exception: Cuba. It's time for us to scrap this anachronistic ban, imposed during one of the chilliest periods of the Cold War.

Legislation to abolish restrictions on travel to Cuba has been introduced in both chambers of Congress. And on Thursday the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing examining the rationale for the travel ban.

This ban has prevented contact between Cubans and ordinary Americans, who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear. Such contact would help break Havana's chokehold on information about the outside world. And it would contribute to improving the image of the United States, particularly in Latin America, where the U.S. embargo on Cuba remains a centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances.

While opponents argue that repealing the travel ban would indicate approval of the Cuban human rights record, many human rights organizations -- among them Freedom House and Human Rights Watch -- have called for abolishing travel restrictions.

They go on to make the same point, namely " "isolation from outside visitors only strengthens the Castro regime," that former AEI neoconservative staffer and current Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw "Radek" Sikorski made in his own 2005 essay on Cuba in National Review. Bush Institute for Public Policy Director and former G.W. Bush administration Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman has also argued that the travel ban and embargo undermine American interests.

It is through people to people exchange that both Cubans and Americans will become exposed to each other's worlds and political realities. They argue that more financial flow inside Cuba will strengthen the underground economy, a source of independence and potential liberalism inside Cuba.

Berman and Lugar state flat out with regard to the notion that restricting US travel to Cuba generates any leverage at all after five decades of failure on this track: "Conditionality is not leverage in this case."

The White House National Security Council staff reading this really should articulate a believable counter-point to Senator Lugar's and Chairman Berman's compelling argument if it is going to continue to 'cling to conditionality' before making further moves. What is the empirical basis for believing that putting Cuban responses before American interests will have any impact or makes sense?

Others who Barack Obama respects -- including former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State and Treasury George P. Shultz -- have said that both the travel ban and the embargo make no sense as foreign policy. Shultz has called the travel ban "lunacy".

There are not many occasions when there is such a large squad of Democrats and Republicans in the same space.

Howard Berman is on board. Richard Lugar is on board. Many others are as well. Call John Kerry -- and I bet he's on board too.

It's the only course that ultimately makes sense. As David Rothkopf said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting just before this past year's Summit of the Americas, US-Cuba relations are the "Edsel of US foreign policy."

It's time for Barack Obama to wake up on this and realize that he and his team are the outliers in a hefty and healthy bipartisan move in the Latin America portfolio.

-- Steve Clemons

I just published an article at The Daily Beast on White House Counsel Gregory Craig's resignation.

For the record, I am an admirer of Greg Craig's. I think that Craig is one of the few people on the progressive side of things who has a deep grasp of the complexities of America's GITMO problems hatched by the last administration. In my view, he is the White House lawyer tasked with closing GITMO, not the PR machine and political operator who was supposed to seduce Congress in permitting detainees to be moved into the justice and prison system of the United States. The President and White House Chief of Staff were AWOL when it came to laying the political groundwork for what Craig was tasked with doing.

Beyond the GITMO drama, I think that something else quite disconcerting has happened in the White House that was not happening during the Obama campaign.

The manner in which Greg Craig was undermined by leaks by senior White House colleagues seemed to have the President's tacit approval -- and this was something according to David Plouffe's new book, The Audacity to Win, would never have happened during the campaign.

In a "Team of Rivals White House", what happens when character assassination and leaks from within are given tacit support from those who hold the keys to the White House?

Here is the first part of "The Assassination of Greg Craig":

Gregory Craig, White House counsel to President Obama and national security advisor to Obama during the presidential campaign, resigned his post this past Friday. But when rumors broke Thursday of his imminent departure, Craig had not written his farewell note and may not have planned to leave - yet.

Since the summer, word had been leaking that Greg Craig's days were numbered and that Obama campaign legal counsel Bob Bauer would be moving in to take Craig's spot. But the situation seemed similar to the leaks about National Security Adviser Jim Jones' supposedly tenuous hold on his job--which were either untrue, or turned around by Jones' performance. The leaks about Craig also seemed unfounded--especially in light of direct statements from the White House that the statements were untrue and that he was not departing.

Some observers are now calling this incident the Obama team's first assassination by leak.

Such intrigue and innuendo stand in sharp contrast to the internal vow of key stakeholders in Barack Obama's campaign, as reported in David Plouffe's insider account Audacity to Win--whom he says vowed not to allow "@#%holes" and leaks and the blame game to disrupt any aspect of their campaign. When problems arose or mistakes were made, the president and his team were forthright and dealt with each other directly and confessed their sins, when they committed them, to the public.

The rest can be read here.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Marc Ambinder has more well researched context on the back story of Gregory Craig's situation in the White House, which doesn't change the dynamic of 'assassination by leak' but does explain why Greg Craig was out of favor beyond the GITMO explanation -- which made no sense on its own. -- Steve Clemons

(Digital Globe-ISIS photo of Qom facility and tunnel entrances; courtesy ISIS)

The Institute for Science and International Security has just posted the just released IAEA reports on both Iran and Syria.

The Iran report titled "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran" can be IAEA_Report_Iran_16November2009pdf_1.pdf">read here as a pdf.

Pages 2-4 deal specifically with Qom and are interesting. Some clips worth highlighting are:

On the inspection of the site:

10. The DIV included a detailed visual examination of all areas of the plant, the taking of photographs of cascade piping and other process equipment, the taking of environmental samples and a detailed assessment of the design, configuration and capacity of the various plant components and systems. Iran provided access to all areas of the facility. The Agency confirmed that the plant corresponded with the design information provided by Iran and that the facility was at an advanced stage of construction, although no centrifuges had been introduced into the facility. Centrifuge mounting pads, header and sub-header pipes, water piping, electrical cables and cabinets had been put in place but were not yet connected; the passivation tanks, chemical traps, cold traps and cool boxes were also in place but had not been connected. In addition, a utilities building containing electricity transformers and water chillers had also been erected.

On Iran's stated rationale for the Qom facility:

"As a result of the augmentation of the threats of military attacks against Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran decided to establish contingency centers for various organizations and activities ...

"The Natanz Enrichment Plant was among the targets threatened with military attacks. Therefore, the Atomic Energy Organization requested the Passive Defence Organization to allocate one of those aforementioned centers for the purpose of [a] contingency enrichment plant, so that the enrichment activities shall not be suspended in the case of any military attack. In this respect, the Fordow site, being one of those constructed and prepared centers, [was] allocated to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) in the second half of 2007. The construction of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant then started. The construction is still ongoing. Thus the plant is not yet ready for operation and it is planned to be operational in 2011."

Iran states it has no other such facilities and IAEA states that Qom was a violation of agreement:

16. Iran stated that it did not have any other nuclear facilities that were currently under construction or in operation that had not yet been declared to the Agency. Iran also stated that any such future facilities would "be reported to the Agency according to Iran's obligations to the Agency". In a letter dated 6 November 2009, the Agency asked Iran to confirm that it had not taken a decision to construct, or to authorize construction of, any other nuclear facility which had not been declared to the Agency.

17. For reasons set out in previous reports to the Board of Governors, Iran remains bound by the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to which it had agreed in 2003,7 which requires that the Agency be provided with preliminary design information about a new nuclear facility as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction of the facility is taken. The revised Code 3.1 also requires that Iran provide the Agency with further design information as the design is developed early in the project definition, preliminary design, construction and commissioning phases.8 Even if, as stated by Iran, the decision to construct the new facility at the Fordow site was taken in the second half of 2007, Iran's failure to notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 was inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement.

Two important points made in the summary of the report focusing on lack of cooperation from Iran on other fronts are important to read:

35. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council.

36. Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern, which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. It is now well over a year since the Agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues. Unless Iran implements the Additional Protocol and, through substantive dialogue, clarifies the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of the Agency, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

And the dance with Iran continues. . .

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note from Richard Vague's Delancey Place which ran on 16 November 2009.

In today's excerpt - for young George Washington, a father dying young, the resulting interruption of his education, and the dashing example of an older half-brother helped forge a burning ambition and determination:

"At his birth in 1732, George Washington's prospects were poor. He was a product of his father's second marriage. The sons from the first marriage, George's half-brothers, had been provided a formal education, including study abroad. They also received a bountiful inheritance when their father, Augustine Washington, died in 1743. But Augustine's demise appeared to stop George's ascent before it began. There was no money for continuing George's formal education, much less for sending him to England to complete his schooling, and his inheritance was meager. George received ten slaves and Ferry Farm, a worn-out tract across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg, Virginia. With that bequest he might become an important figure in King George County, though no one in the broader world would know him. But from an early age, George Washington wanted more. He wanted to stand apart from others. He wanted to be seen as a man of substance.

"George said almost nothing about his father, mentioning him in only three passing references in thousands of pages of correspondence. Augustine had accumulated a small fortune as a tobacco planter, land speculator, and proprietor of an iron forge, and he was a prominent figure in northern Virginia, where he held several local offices. Ambitious young males usually aspire to surpass the accomplishments of their fathers, and that appears to have been true of George. Yet it was not Augustine who was George's role model. It was Lawrence Washington, an older brother from their father's first marriage.

"Fourteen years older than George, Lawrence had studied in England. After returning home, he enlisted as an officer in a colonial army raised to fight alongside British regulars in a war with Spain, the oddly named War of Jenkins' Ear that erupted in 1739. Lawrence was sent to the Caribbean, then to South America, where he experienced combat. The war was a bloodbath for the American troops, and Lawrence was fortunate to survive and return home. Worldly, educated, well-to-do, dashing in his resplendent uniform, and deferred to as a hero by the most influential men and captivating women in Virginia, Lawrence cut an impressive figure.

"His stature increased when he was appointed adjutant general of Virginia, a post that made him the foremost soldier in the province. Soon, he was elected to the House of Burgesses, Virginia's assembly, a feat never realized by Augustine. The crowning touch came in 1743. Lawrence married into the Fairfax family, which claimed title to six million acres in Virginia and, needless to say, was the most prominent clan in the Northern Neck, the area around the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers. Lawrence and his bride took up residence on a lush green rolling estate overlooking the Potomac River. Having inherited the property from his father, Lawrence named his country farmhouse in honor of a British officer under whom he had recently served. He called it Mount Vernon."

John Ferling, The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon, Bloomsbury Press, Copyright 2009 by John Ferling, pp. 9-10, 13.

-- Richard Vague

For those who haven't seen it yet, CNN's Nic Robertson and Paul Cruickshank had an excellent piece air this weekend, detailing efforts by former Libyan terrorist leaders working with the Libyan government to convince jailed militants to renounce violence and al Qaeda for good.

The two-part video segment, the fruit of two years of research and reporting, follows the ongoing work by Saif al Islam al Gadhafi, the son of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, as well as Noman Benotman, a former senior commander in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), to change the way jihad is practiced and turn Muslims away from terrorism. These efforts resulted in jailed LIFG leaders releasing new guidelines for waging jihad this past September; the weighty religious commentary, called "Corrective Studies," eschews terrorism and expressly forbids the killing of civilians.

Benotman is fascinating, a man who fought the communist Najibullah government in Afghanistan and came to know Osama bin Laden, before confronting the al Qaeda leader over terrorist bombings in 2000 and publicly criticizing al Qaeda in 2007. He also braved security restrictions in order to speak at the New America Foundation Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative's conference last month on the civilian dimensions of counterterrorism.

And as Cruickshank and Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative Co-Director Peter Bergen pointed out in The New Republic last year, the efforts of Muslim leaders like Benotman and religious scholars such as the Saudi Sheikh Salman al-Ouda are crucial in convincing terrorists to abandon their struggle as well as stanching the flow of recruits to al Qaeda. These men and others like them have enormous credibility, from their time as militants or from the influence of their religious scholarship. As such, they can frame anti-terrorist arguments in a way that uniquely resonates throughout the Muslim world, whether in a Libyan jail cell or a London mosque.

When discussing those who had turned against al Qaeda, Bergen and Cruickshank write that:

Most of these clerics and former militants, of course, have not suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen in love with the United States...but their anti-Al Qaeda positions are making Americans safer. If this is a war of ideas, it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter. The U.S. government neither has the credibility nor the Islamic knowledge to effectively debate Al Qaeda leaders, but the clerics and militants who turned against them do.

We must remember that the most important weapon in the fight against terrorism might in fact be a Quran, rather than a predator drone.

-- Andrew Lebovich

I can't see this flag from my hotel window, but I could see it from the balcony of the Merit Hotel in Nicosia, Cyprus, where I attended a briefing today with Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu.

The Turkish Cypriot national flag is embedded in the "five finger mountains" of Northern Cyprus. You can't quite make it out in the picture, but to the left of the flag is a smaller (but still enormous) Turkish national flag. The Turkish Cypriot flag is as long as four soccer fields and is supposedly the largest flag in the world.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that Greek Cypriot president Dimitris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat will reach a reunification agreement seems to be getting slimmer by the day.

The conventional wisdom here holds that if a deal is not struck by the end of the year, Talat is unlikely to win elections scheduled for May. The importance of striking a deal during Talat's term was underscored by former Turkish Cypriot hard-line President Rauf Denkta's statement this week that "If Talat and Christofias agree on a document, then we will know Talat has surrendered."

At today's press conference, Prime Minister Eroglu said ominously that "[Greek President Dimitris] Christofias is just another leader that follows strict policies...nothing changes."

Over the past day and a half, I have met with several high-ranking Turkish Cypriot officials and none of them have expressed any optimism that a deal will come soon.

I'll have more on this when I get back, but for those who can't wait I highly recommended this International Crisis Group report, "Cyprus: Reunification or Partition."

-- Ben Katcher

Recently, Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went at it during a session when 187 Members of the United Nations were about to vote against the United States and two allies on the issue of the US embargo against Cuba.

Rodriguez said "President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade", but also said "the blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance," "an act of genocide", and that the embargo was "ethically unacceptable".

I would have encouraged Cuba's foreign minister to say instead that the embargo was an anachronism of the Cold War, has not achieved the goals the US had for it, harmed both Cuban and US interests, and that the countries should realize its the 21st century and find a way to move forward.

But given the pitch of things that day at the UN, Ambassador Susan Rice threw some tough words back at Foreign Minister Rodriguez calling his remarks "straight out of the Cold War era" and "hostile."

She went on to underscore the more substantively important point that President Obama and the US were prepared to engage Cuba on a number of issues of mutual interest and concern. That at least is good news and really the only statement that mattered.

But theatrics and rhetoric aside, what is astonishingly absent from America's autopilot driven position on the Embargo is that with the end of the Cold War, Cuba is not exporting arms and revolutionaries -- Cuba is exporting doctors.

There are more than 51,000 Cuban doctors and health care professionals working around the world today, primarily in developing nations. Many of these are working collaboratively with US and European NGOs actually in third countries -- particularly in Africa in dealing with AIDS/HIV, river blindness, malaria, and a number of health maladies.

America and Cuba both maintain too much a habit of Cold War era rhetoric, but the facts on the ground are that Cuba is not a threat to the United States or its allies in any fundamental ways that justify the kind of barriers we have erected between Americans and Cubans -- at the government to government as well as at the people to people levels.

The other thing that US diplomats could do to constructively redirect a history of escalating, toxic public exchanges is to commend Bruno Rodriguez for his chapter in Cuba's "soft power" history.

In the Obama administration's roster of foreign policy practitioners today, people like Anne-Marie Slaughter, James Steinberg, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Richard Holbrooke and others have done roll up their sleeves work in developing nations -- but I think all of them would admire the year of humanitarian service Bruno Rodriguez did on the Pakistan/Kashmir border.

To make a long and very fascinating story short, Fidel Castro organized a team of 1,500 doctors into the "Henry Reeves Brigade" and offered them to the US to provide support for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Predictably, the US declined the gesture. Shortly after, a major earthquake hit the heavily Islamic fundamentalist region along the border of Pakistan and Kashmir.

Castro sent the brigade to Pakistan to help earthquake survivors and those suffering long-term shock and other problems related to the earthquake in the months after.

The current Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez -- who was then a deputy foreign minister -- was dispatched along with the Reeves Brigade to oversee the medical operations in the mountainous, difficultly accessed earthquake zone.

Americans and Europeans also sent medical teams -- one major base camp each that stayed about a month each. The Cubans sent seven major base camps and thirty field hospitals, remaining for a year.

Reportedly, the Cubans, American and European medical personnel coordinated well in the field and worked together without incident. In one case, a Cuban doctor had to dress in a full hijab as a female doctor in order to deliver the baby of a local woman -- who would have been subjected to harsh punishment if known that a male doctor did this. But the Cubans did send many female doctors and health professionals as well.

At the time this all occurred, Pakistan and Cuba did not have diplomatic relations -- and today they do. And their are Cuban doctors doing work in Pakistan today -- and Pakistani students studying at the Latin American School of Medicine.

The Henry Reeves Brigade has, since Pakistan, been deployed to help in the great Sichuan Earthquake in China and also to do disaster relief in Latin America. The Brigade now has more than 3,000 health care professionals who are experts in disaster-related medical support.

This is a case of soft power with hard results, a story that anyone can commend despite all of the other warts and problems in a relationship. Americans and Cubans worked together to help others -- and nation to nation opportunities for Cuba and Pakistan grew out of that engagement.

It would be useful to see some of this kind of material make it into our diplomatic posturing as we work to get past the past.

The Cold War should be over, and once we begin to find narratives that can fill up the pages of the present and the future, that were not written as the result of inertia and being on auto-pilot, we can move to the next, more constructive phase in US-Cuba relations.

-- Steve Clemons

Some diplomacy data points I have picked up during my trip to Havana in the last couple of days:

~ There are 65% more non-immigrant visas processed by the US State Department for Cubans wanting to travel into the United States this year than last year.

~ The average non-immigrant visa profile is someone in their 70s going over to see relatives in the US

~ The backlog for non-immigrant visas in the US Interests Section (Embassy-lite) used to be more than 2 years, the longest in the world. The new head of the US Interests Section, Jonathan Farrar, worked with the Cubans who help staff a significant portion of his operation, and they added a "second shift" to process more visas each day. But now the demand is so large that even with the second shift, the backlog for visa interviews is two years and three months

~ The US Interests Section in Cuba is restricted in the bilateral agreements between Cuba and the US to 51 US government employees. In addition to these, the Havana-based representative of the US Department of State employs about 300 Cuban citizens to help in its consular work -- and these staff are managed and hired by Cuban government authorities.

~ If the travel ban on Americans traveling to Cuba is lifted, there will have to be a structural adjustment in the number of American diplomats permitted into Cuba. Some have suggested moving the number to 60 staff would work -- but given the broad opportunities for social, cultural, political and economic engagement, this writer thinks that an upward adjusted staff target should be about 75 US personnel.

~ Spouses of American diplomats assigned to Cuba can work at the Interests Section and not count against the personnel head count. The same is true of the Cuban Interests Section staff and spouses in Washington, DC.

~ Senior officials at the US Interests Section in Havana report to TWN that there is a marked, highly noticeable change in the attitude and "posture" of the Cuban government towards US State Department and other US officials assigned to the embassy-lite operation in Havana. They state that the Cuban authorities are constructively engaging with US government personnel -- and this just didn't happen before, according to them.

~ American officials were told by the Cuban government, however, that they could not attend an environmental summit in which several leading members of the Environmental Defense Fund from Washington attended. In contrast, there was a major agricultural products/economic fair this week which US government officials stationed at the Interests Section were permitted to attend. According the State Department, this is a welcome change in the climate which is less and less constrained.

~ US officials have also been permitted recently to begin visiting various Cuban-Americans held in Cuban prisons and to visit them as part of the consular duties of the Interests Section. This used to be off the list of what was permitted, but the Cuban government has become supportive of US contact with ten or so prisoners who have dual nationality.

~ The US government has had constructive meetings with Cuban government officials on migration (the first meeting hosted by the New School in New York City) and on direct mail service. Cuban government officials have informed TWN that there are a number of other key areas of "common interest" -- such as narcotics interdiction, alien smuggling, air traffic control, weather analysis and reporting, environmental policy that could be on the agenda as well -- but the Cubans report that the US has not yet responded.

~ On the subject of bilateral discussions on narcotics and drug smuggling, US government officials tell TWN that the US is actually quite interested and is still waiting for the Cuban government's proposal. (i.e., the ball is in Havana's court -- but I'm not sure Havana sees it that way)

For those who have the sense that things are not moving in the atmospherics of US-Cuba relations, that impression is wrong. Things have not stalled, at least from my perspective.

After discussions with both senior Cuban government officials and US officials, there is quite a bit of new opportunity, relaxed posturing, proposals, micro progress on a number of fronts that is not designed to be in the public eye or the media -- that is consistent with two parties who have long not trusted one another trying to construct a different kind of relationship that needs confidence-building steps and healthier interaction than has historically been the case.

There is much that could still take US-Cuba relations back off the rails again, as one diplomat said, but right now there is much that appears promising.

-- Steve Clemons

Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw "Radek" Sikorski, husband of Washington Post editorial writer (and Polish cuisine expert) Anne Applebaum, is a compelling, brilliant, eclectic political intellectual who I admire a great deal.

In part, I admire Sikorski because while tenacious and committed to his own analysis and views, he maintains an open mind; he listens; and while tenacious, he debates his intellectual opponents without going into the gutter. And he is occasionally unpredictable in all the right ways.

One way that he surprised me when he was running the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute -- then the institutional beating heart of America's neoconservative movement -- he wrote a piece for National Review that called for an end to the US embargo of Cuba. It was called "Travels in Fidel-Land."

An expert in the illiberalism and despotism of the former Soviet empire, Sikorski had long argued that people to people contact, exchange, free commerce and the like open up a society and make it much more difficult for a dictatorship to remain in power.

Sikorski gets it. The intent of his article then was to focus on altering the internal dynamics of the Cuban state, but to do so not by overt meddling but from the power of the American marketplace and from the constructive collision of American liberal ideas with the hopes and aspirations of Cuban citizens.

From my progressive realist perch, I think that the US has tied itself into self-defeating knots with five decades of a failed embargo and a regime change obsession with Cuba that has gone nowhere.

I don't think that the embargo has produced results that have served the US national interest and have decreased American leverage in Cuba and Latin America. I think that removing restrictions on the freedom of Americans to travel and dropping the embargo eventually will have profound consequences on the political realities in Cuba and the United States. Both ways.

I don't share the objective that many neoconservatives, even Radek Sikorski, have of fundamentally altering the internal arrangements of other countries -- but I recognize that with an end to the embargo against Cuba -- what Cubans call "the blockade" -- that possibility exists and may even be probable. But that's not the wave of change that is the American government's right or role to surf -- it is the Cuban people's.

Here is a key clip from Sikorski's "Travels in Fidel Land":

The standoff between the U.S. and Cuba seems ultimately not just political, but also psychological. Cubans seem to think that they get noticed by big brother only when they stick him in the eye. Americans seem determined to put the little one in his place. How else do you explain the silliness of barring your citizens from visiting a country you are not actually at war with, or of imposing fines for importing Cuban cigars? We didn't cease to enjoy caviar even at the height of the Gulag.

The law should not be an ass, and the U.S. can afford to be pragmatic in its policy toward a country that no longer poses a threat. As Mark Falcoff points out in his brilliant Cuba: The Morning After, to keep the embargo while granting Cubans privileges in immigrating to the U.S. is politically self-contradictory: It gives the regime an excuse for failure while simultaneously helping it get rid of its internal opposition. . .

But if neither Old Europe's appeasement nor the U.S. embargo is likely to succeed in changing the regime, perhaps we need a coordinated transatlantic approach that would build on methods that have worked in the past. Human contact across the Iron Curtain was crucial in maintaining the conviction on the other side that democracy and free markets are superior to Communism: Fulbright scholarships that were granted to dissidents and nomenklatura alike helped to create alternative elites and weaned Communists off their zeal.

Sikorski has kept his own government of Poland on this track he articulated five years ago by instructing his Ministry's Ambassador to vote along with 184 other nations against the US Embargo of Cuba in the United Nations a week and a half ago.

-- Steve Clemons

What can the United States offer its allies? Throughout the Cold War, the answer was simple: the United States guaranteed its allies security from the Soviet Union. But this question - which seems so basic - is difficult to answer today.

It is undoubtedly true that the United States remains the predominant military power on Earth - and that countries as diverse as Canada, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Japan (along with many others) depend on American military power to provide security for international commerce as well as for baseline, worst-case scenario security guarantees. There is also little doubt that the United States obtains strategic benefits in exchange for these services in the form of energy supplies, cooperation against common threats, and more.

The problem is that this power - while immense - is not very fungible. That is, the United States cannot easily threaten to withhold a portion of its security guarantee or its protection of international waterways if (say) Turkey chooses not to support the United States' policy toward (say) Iran. Compounding the problem is that the worst-case scenarios in which American military power would be necessary are more difficult to imagine today.

This is an increasingly important problem as the United States tries to reorient its strategic objectives and relationships to address today's challenges.

Let me explain by way of the Turkish example.

During the Cold War, the United States and Turkey formed a "strategic partnership" based on both countries' fear of Soviet intervention in the Middle East. The Truman Doctrine offered a specific guarantee that both Turkey and Greece would be protected from Soviet aggression - a fear that was quite real in Turkey at the time. In exchange, the United States received access to military bases, support in the Korean War and a strategically advantageous position in the Middle East. Despite serious disagreements - particularly over Cyprus - the relationship worked to each sides' mutual advantage until the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago.

Today, the United States wants Turkish support on a wide variety of important issues, including stabilizing Iraq, supporting the mission in Afghanistan, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, moving energy to Europe, serving as a Muslim ally, and providing stability in its neighborhood.

In exchange, the United States offers security guarantees, military assistance, and the benefits that accrue from an alliance with the world' most powerful military. All of these things are very important to Turkey (and to many other countries). The problem is that the United States is not in a position to credibly threaten to withhold these benefits without undermining the international order in which it has invested so much. For example, both Washington and Ankara know that Turkey's stance on Iran's nuclear program will not jeopardize the American security blanket.

Of course, there are red lines that Turkey (or any other country) could cross that would change U.S. policy. But the point is that Turkey has a great deal of running room before those red lines are crossed. Turkey, both because it is a NATO ally and a strategically critical country, knows that it can pursue an independent foreign policy while still enjoying the benefits of American power.

From Tokyo to Paris - and many places in between - it is not so much the lack of American power that is the problem (it still has plenty), but rather the fact that its bargaining position is paradoxically undermined by its extraordinary role.

-- Ben Katcher

Jon Weinberg is a research intern at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

In a meeting with his Justice and Development (AK) party Sunday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, expressed that he prefers meeting Omar Hassan al-Bashir, President of the Sudan, to meeting Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, despite the fact that the International Criminal Court has charged the former with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Erdogan rationalized this preference by explaining that "I cannot discuss this with Netanyahu but I can easily discuss such issues with Omar al-Bashir. I can say to his face: What you are doing is wrong." This is hardly surprising considering Erdogan's public opposition to Operation Cast Lead, Israel's incursion into Gaza last December and January. During the World Economic Forum's Davos Conference in January, for instance, Erdogan walked out of a televised debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres after shouting "you're killing people."

On the other hand, the prime minister's declaration that "It is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide" was rather tactless. It makes him sound naïve and feeds fears that the Islamic character of his AK party threatens the secular character of the Turkish republic.

Most importantly, it is unclear why Erdogan had to compare Israel to the Sudan in the first place. Cast Lead and the Darfur conflict differ greatly in size, scope, duration, and implementation. Erdogan could have simultaneously expressed his desire to maintain close ties with both Israel and the Sudan, as well as his concern for both countries' treatment of ethnic minorities without becoming a blatant apologist for one country and scathing critic of the other.

Earlier yesterday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "urged Turkey to maintain good relations with Israel, in order to mediate Damascus-Jerusalem peace negotiations." Regardless of what Israel has or has not done in Gaza, Erdogan risks Turkey's reputation as an honest broker and peacemaker if he continues to treat Middle East diplomacy as a zero-sum game between Israel and Muslim countries.

All told, in addition to other daring moves like excluding Israel from a NATO exercise in central Turkey last month, Erdogan's statements yesterday are emblematic of mounting tensions between Israel and Turkey - and perhaps indicative of a bigger shift in Turkish foreign policy.

-- Jon Weinberg

The comments on my blog have grown increasingly vile -- and are not in any way constructive, civil, fair-minded, or policy-oriented. I am turning them off. The primary violators of my policy know who they are. There are rampant ad hominem attacks on TWN now, comments about the personal lives and relations of other commenters.

This is unacceptable.

I'm off to Havana Cuba for a research trip for a few days and have no interest or time in playing hall monitor for folks who need to grow up.

I will consider turning the comments on if I receive apologies from those who have violated any sense of decency on this blog. I don't care about defensive rationales.

Comments closed. I hope I can turn them on in the future -- but that will not happen until I see a marked change in the behavior of nearly all of the lead posters.

I have emphasized over and over again that I am too busy to blog, do my New America Foundation work, and be a nanny for those who are not mature enough to be able to manage a civil discussion here.

Eventually, I will review the last few weeks of comments and remove every one of them that went over the line with extremely crass and demeaning language.

If you folks grow up, we can turn this on -- but it takes shared commitment and responsibility. I won't tolerate those who can't be civil -- on all sides of these debates.

Farewell to those who are offended.

-- Steve Clemons

Just ran into Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas and some of her groupies on the way to Miami where Stephens is meeting up with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and then flying off to Honduras.

I'm flying to Havana.

I know I'm going to have a car ready in Cuba -- but my friends here are surprised that thus far the US Embassy Honduras is saying it doesn't have any car support for her trip -- and she's actually trying to mend this presidential mess.

This may be a normal logistics problem, but one must wonder whether Senator Jim DeMint who arguably was then agitating against US foreign policy in favor of those who led a presidential ouster and expulsion out of the country got a car from the US Embassy.

If not, perhaps Roberto Micheletti provided one.

Elections are scheduled in Honduras for November 29th.

-- Steve Clemons

Richard Wolffe wrote in his Obama campaign memoir that the President sees most of his challenges in basketball metaphors and that he's turned on by nail-biting contests when he, Barack Obama, can switch things up in the contest and come in to make the key decisions and plays that achieve a win.

But lately, it seems to be Joe Biden who has to be given the MVP award on the Obama team this week.

Today Iraq's government passed a politically controversial new election law allowing parliamentary elections to take place in January and also keeping a drawdown of US combat forces on schedule.

And behind the scenes, Vice President Joe Biden had a lot to do with ushering the US diplomatic and military team as well as Iraq's political leaders over the finish line.

Joe Biden issued this statement a short while ago today on the news of the election law's passage

I congratulate Iraqi political leaders on today's passage of amendments to the Iraq elections law. Today's vote by the members of the Council of Representatives will allow for parliamentary elections in January 2010, as mandated under the Iraqi constitution. I commend the Council of Representatives for coming to agreement on the various difficult issues of considerable importance to Iraqis.

I also extend my appreciation to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq for its important role in providing technical advice. These elections will be a critical step forward in advancing national unity and forming an inclusive government. Our commitment and friendship to Iraq remain strong.

But the back story is that Joe Biden put forth a lot of hours last week coordinating the key players involved in the election law political mess.

Sources report that Biden spoke twice in the last seven days to Masoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been particularly paralyzed over the new election law because of ethic partisanship on how voting in Kurdistan should be structured.

In addition, US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill and Multi National Forces in Iraq Commander Ray Odierno have been in regular communication with the Vice President during this last week according to senior administration sources and US personnel in Iraq. The Vice President also helped the Hill-Odierno team work through final issues in an "end game video conference" on Friday, the 6th of November.

And White House staffers report that Joe Biden played quarterback for them during the recent turmoil over the on-then-off-then-on-again Iraq election law while White House personnel were in hourly contact with the embassy team and the United Nations.

Not a lot has been going right lately for the Obama national security and foreign policy teams.

George Mitchell's efforts seem to be collapsing in fast motion. Karzai's re-election has done little to restore confidence in America's Afghanistan project. Iran is not taking the US seriously. Hillary Clinton just returned from a painfully frustrating trip to South Asia and the Middle East that seemed to open more wounds and problems than solve them.

But Joe Biden -- who early in the Obama administration was supposed to be a lot of things for the President but not an alternative foreign policy czar -- is turning out to be a very useful problem-solving tool for the President on the international stage.

Shortly before Biden became the President's running mate, Biden had been featured in Working Mother magazine as one of the most family friendly legislators in Congress. The Vice President's team shared this with me then as an indication that the eventual Vice President carried with him a skill set on domestic policy as impressive as what most already saw in foreign policy.

The VP also staked out the title "Advisor in Chief" to the President -- on all issues -- and was asked by the President to chair the Middle Class Task Force which had a meeting just last week reported by this writer. The Biden team also got specific tasks from the White House in dealing with global nuclear materials reduction and non-proliferation, working on some aspects of Russia policy -- particularly regarding the still simmering Georgia conflict and the future direction of NATO.

And Biden was asked to help out in moving Iraq forward.

And he has delivered in substantive ways that deserve attention. He has helped smooth relations and the interaction between Odierno and Ambassador Christopher Hill -- and kept everyone working systematically and seriously toward a positive conclusion of the Iraq election law drama.

We need results like this.

Once America begins showing that it can work with a complex set of actors at home and abroad and can actually achieve the results it sets out for itself, the world will begin seeing the stock of American power rise again.

Excellent work Vice President Biden.

-- Steve Clemons

Former AT&T Broadband CEO Leo Hindery outlines in this seven minute Fox Business clip the severity of America's jobs crisis and throws some ideas on to the table on what the country could do -- particularly when it comes to US government procurement and US domestic investment incentives.

Particularly true in Hindery's comment: "We have resuscitated but not reformed Wall Street."

Leo Hindery also states that he believes that America won't see any substantial job recovery until the latter part of 2011 under current policy conditions.

Hindery suggests that the US economy needs to figure out how to generate 22 million jobs -- an order of magnitude greater than the targets the Obama administration has acknowledged.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't seen songwriter and culture diva Allee Willis in about 15 years, though we remain Facebook friends. But I used to chat a lot with her at the fun pop scene soirees that tv and film producer and writer Darren Star would throw in West Hollywood -- usually while Darren's hyperactive puppy, Judy, was going wild in his house...and Allee and I were calming her.

For those who don't know Allee, she has written a ton of the most popular songs jingling around in our heads -- including "September" and "Boogie Wonderland" sung by Earth, Wind & Fire. Allee Willis also wrote "What Have I Done to Deserve This?" by the Pet Shop Boys. Here's a fun roster of some of her zingers.

Allee has now opened her "Allee Willis Museum of Kitsch" and put out the call for folks to send in comments, notes, and photos of kitsch they run across.

Well, I'll make the contribution of above and title this "pre-kitsch", something that should be behind us -- Sarah Palin as short term fad that 20 years from now, few will remember.

-- Steve Clemons

It's just one hurdle overcome. 39 Democratic defections -- too many in my book. But the bill passed. Now the Senate, and then reconciliation and more.

Most of the issues I am worried about -- particularly in the foreign policy and national security realms -- are on hold until Obama's health care gambit is behind us.

Center for American Progress President John Podesta has been actively engaged in this debate and put out this statement:

"Today, the House of Representatives took an historic step forward toward delivering quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The bill passed by the House today will end insurance company abuses like denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, extend affordable coverage to the millions of Americans who do not have it today, and relieve the anxiety of those living one illness away from bankruptcy. This paid-for bill will also make important investments in prevention to keep families healthy, cut waste, fraud and abuse from the system, and rein in costs to put our economy on a path towards a sound fiscal future."

"Today, history called, and the House of Representatives answered by voting to give hard-working Americans a better shot at the healthy families and financial security they deserve. Now, it's the Senate's turn to do the same."

-- Steve Clemons

Pictures often say a lot -- but this one even more.

China's growing confidence is clear in this shot of General Xu Caihou, who serves as the second-highest ranking officer in China's military.

General Xu visited the US Pacific Command at Ft. Smith in Hawaii after meetings with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (pictured above) and President Obama.

The photo ran in the PLA Daily on the 29th of October.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation.

During the Barak Government, Levy worked in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office as special adviser and head of Jerusalem Affairs, following which Mr. Levy worked as senior policy adviser to then Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin. In this capacity he was responsible for coordinating policy on various issues including peace negotiations, civil and human rights, and the Palestinian minority in Israel. Mr. Levy was a member of the official Israeli delegation to the Taba negotiations with the Palestinians in January 2001, and previously served on the Israeli negotiating team to the "Oslo B" Agreement from May to September 1995, under Prime Minister Rabin. He also served as the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort that suggests a detailed model for a peace agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From 2003 to 2004, he worked as an analyst for the International Crisis Group Middle East Program.

ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY AND AMATEURISM

This was not a good week for the Obama administration's Middle East peace efforts. Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem last Saturday, Secretary Clinton seemed to be praising the distinctively partial limitations that Israel was willing to implement on settlement non-expansion. During the following days in Morocco and Cairo, she walked those remarks back, but the damage had been done.

By Thursday, the American-sponsored Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was sufficiently exasperated to announce that he will not be standing for re-election, and all week the media and political commentary on the U.S. approach was scathing about America's efforts--even by Middle East standards.

Speaking to the Washington Post, I described the U.S. approach of the past days as amateurish--a perhaps harsh, but unfortunately apt, label. On the positive side, I think the administration folks are themselves aware that this is not going swimmingly. The overall administration scorecard on Middle East peace is slipping into the red.

But first, let's be fair about that record.

The Obama administration merits significant credit for having acknowledged from the get-go that advancing a solution on Israel-Palestine, or at least reaching a post-occupation equilibrium, is a key American national interest--a realization that was belatedly groped at by the Bush administration and was set forth from day one by its successor. That displays a keen understanding of the centrality of how the Israeli-Palestinian issue impacts America's standing and ability to advance its goals, including the push back against extremism in the region and beyond. National Security adviser General Jones repeated the assertion last week at the J Street conference. Credit, too, for the administration for acting on this. A senior envoy, Senator Mitchell, was appointed on day two, and deployed shuttling back and forth to the region. The President delivered a ground-breaking speech in Cairo, the Arab world was deeply engaged (unlike the past), and a marker was set down on settlements. It was on this latter issue of settlements, however, where things began to unravel.

The Obama team's call for a comprehensive settlement freeze was consistent with past U.S. policy (notably Bush's Roadmap of 2003), although it was perhaps treated with more seriousness coming from the new 'hope and change' President. The Israel Prime Minister's answer came in June, and it was a rejectionist one: no full freeze, and no limitations whatsoever on settlements in East Jerusalem. That is when the malaise set in.

The administration had three possible options in responding:

1) Stick to its guns and calibrate a set of escalating consequences in response to possible ongoing Israeli recalcitrance.

2) Make a smart pivot by declaring, for instance, that if Israel could not for its own reasons freeze settlements, then this would make all the more urgent the need to quickly define and agree a border for an Israel-Palestine two-state solution. And the U.S. could reasonably have adopted a formula regarding that border (such as based on the 1967 lines, minor mutual modifications to accommodate settlements close to the Green Line in a one-to-one land swap). The U.S. could have explained to its Israeli friends that absent a defined border, the settlement freeze would have to be comprehensive, but in the discussion on borders, there could be more flexibility given the one-to-one land swaps.

3) Dig themselves into a hole. Insisting on a freeze, heightening expectations, without a plan for achieving that end, and by then acceding to talks with the Israeli government over koshering aspects of settlements expansion.

It is certainly legitimate for the administration to have not chosen option one, and to have decided that this was the wrong issue and/or wrong timing to escalate with the Netanyahu government. My own preference would have been for option two, and indeed, the administration could reasonably be perceived to have laid the ground deftly for such a pivot. Unfortunately, they went for option three, and it all came crashing down around their feet this week.

The Secretary's last minute stop in Cairo to round off the trip said it all. The Mubarak regime tried to help salvage some American pride, lining up behind the Secretary's efforts. Except that it is precisely the Mubarak government whose credibility is so severely questioned in the region, it is the largest Arab recipient of American financial assistance, and is obsessed with leadership succession--in short, getting a smile out of the Egyptian leader doesn't even register on the congratulatory charts.

There is nonetheless potentially good news in all of this. Those who are writing off the administration's peace efforts, friend and foe alike, are being premature in the extreme. This is a benefit of starting on day one--you can acknowledge the need for a course correction in month ten. In fact, it is not the new approach of the Obama administration that has failed, but rather, this is a moment of clarity regarding the bankruptcy of the old approach that has guided policy for over a decade and that the Obama team had inherited and embraced.

As Rob Malley and others have argued, what is needed now is a review (as has been conducted in other foreign policy areas) and a testing and likely abandonment of many of the prevailing policy assumptions. These might include the notion that one can incrementally build confidence between the sides when the prevailing reality is one of occupation, that bilateral negotiations between representatives of an occupied people and the occupying party can deliver de-occupation, that Palestinian political division should be encouraged (not overcome), or that proven self governance capacity under occupation is a precondition for freedom and independence.

If the goal still is Israel's security, recognition, and a guaranteed future as a democracy and a Jewish national home, alongside a secure, viable, and post-occupation Palestine and advancing America's national interest, and this should be the goal, then a new path is needed for reaching that destination. It will certainly require more international and U.S. lifting.

The Obama team is perfectly capable of charting a course from a bad week to a game-changing success, but more of the same won't get them there.

-- Daniel Levy

This is a guest note by Kevin Nealer. Nealer has been a Fulbright professor of trade law & policy in China and is Guest Lecturer at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business.

Obama's Big Asia Trip: State of Play and Expectations

As President Obama's Asia trip begins, it may be useful to look at how the table is set for the most complex relationship an American President must manage:

o Obama successfully avoided the opening foreign policy crisis with China that has become typical for most new American administrations (recall the April 2001 reconnaissance plane incident in Bush 43's first term). Indeed, the shared challenge of global economic risk was managed in a way that has deepened habits of cooperation in both capitals. China and the U.S. enacted stimulus measures with the result that both are closer to recovery than many other economies.

o A year ago, the blogosphere in China reflected popular acrimony about the economic meltdown, putting the blame squarely on the American system. At least at elite and senior policy levels, those instincts have largely given way to a sentiment that globalization itself transmits risk. While American practices may be the proximate cause of this crisis, memories of Asia's '97 crisis are fresh enough to convince senior leaders that markets never correct: they overcorrect. No one is immune. (One Chinese official recently asked: "So are your academics still studying 'decoupling' theories?")

o The most neuralgic trade issues - RMB valuation and US import sensitivities - have been managed in very different ways. The Obama Administration did not cite China as a currency manipulator, electing to use the financial crisis to prompt a deeper - and quieter - conversation about the danger of imbalances, and our shared savings/disavings dilemma. While critics railed against the Section 421 tire decision, that case and subsequent WTO actions reveal a verity of all trade disputes. As has been true for decades with the U.S., EU and Japan, trade disputes are an artifact of high levels of trade (i.e. shared success), and these points of contention are managed through negotiations and litigation. The results need not infect the larger relationship.

o Tension over Taiwan -- the most serious bilateral security challenge -- is at a sixty year low. While a free trade agreement between Beijing and Taipei faces political challenges, cross-strait ties -including direct flights - have never been deeper. Indeed, the near-term challenge for the U.S. may be to reshape policies to take advantage of this thaw. China's military has, for its part, shown a failure of imagination in responding to the risk reduction, continuing to maintain missiles and hardware poised for an attack. If China dislikes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, it needs to give evidence that it understands that the changed circumstances should be to everyone's advantage.

o The military-to-military dialogue may be far less productive than the interests of both countries require, but it has made more progress in the past year than in the previous decade. Secretary Gates and Chief of Naval Operations Roughead have taken the initiative to increase cooperation on incidents at sea and responses to natural disasters and piracy.

What work must the trip do? There should be no necessary divergence of fundamental interests over the world's most dangerous places: North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan.

China has gone from "renting the room" for Six Party Talks to playing an important role in decreasing risk on the Korean Peninsula. Now is the time for a renewed effort on that score.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a genuine threat to a China that faces a domestic Muslim separatist challenge. If the American-led initiative to secure Iran's enriched uranium fails, China's economic and energy interests in Iran are likely to be at risk. If successfully managing the America relationship is, in fact, a key goal of China's leadership, activism is required to avoid a worst-case outcome in Iran.

So, too, China shares an obligation to support stability in Pakistan, where it enjoys decades of confidence based on its special relationship with Islamabad.

The Chinese leadership has never been embarrassed into human rights improvements. It seems clear that President Obama's decision to delay a meeting with the Dali Lama reflects a preference for progress rather than photo ops.

Encouraging China's leaders to address the demands of the world's fastest growing middle class - and the restive poor -- for authentic legal, environmental, and social justice is best done face-to-face and with the renewed moral authority that America is slowly regaining.

-- Kevin Nealer

What follows below is an interesting article that I am going to post in full as it does not at this point appear to be available on the internet anywhere. Out of respect for Nahum Barnea and Yedioth Ahronoth, I will clip the piece and provide a link to Ynet News when this article appears on the web.

But in my estimation, this is an extremely informed analysis of the dynamics between Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama and simply must be read and considered before Netanyahu lands in Washington. My guess is that the author has spoken directly to many of the very top tier Israeli principals. -- Steve Clemons

Half a Meeting

Yedioth Ahronoth -- 6 November 2009

The Prime Minister's Bureau labored and discovered that there was one visit of a prime minister to the US--by Sharon in May 2005--in which there was no meeting between him and the president (Sharon had met with Bush in April, and the two saw no need to meet again). This precedent was meant to explain that it would no disaster if, in the course of Netanyahu's trip to Washington next week, there would be no meeting between him and Obama. For days the White House has refused to set a date for a meeting. It was embarrassing and humiliating. Netanyahu was angry. Not mildly angry. He was incensed.

I'm guessing that in the end there will be a meeting. It will take place because not having it will depict Netanyahu as the victim and Obama as the enemy of Israel. That would damage Obama in the Jewish community, damage that he can less and less afford.

Should it take place, the meeting will not meet the role it was assigned. It will be forced, coerced. It will not give Netanyahu an opportunity to clean the slate, to turn over a new leaf, to create trust, to build intimacy. Relations are cloudy, admit sources on both sides. There is mutuality in this crisis, there is symmetry: Obama is convinced that Netanyahu stuck a knife in his back; Netanyahu is convinced that Obama is the one who stuck the knife.

Above this troubling story, which has still not turned into headlines, hovers a cloud of failure. The Obama administration failed abysmally in the strategic step it took, which was meant to turn the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians into the engine that would bring the entire region under America's wing, from the Mediterranean Sea to the edges of Afghanistan. His failure is liable to ultimately be our disaster. Ironically, the only ray of light at the moment is the activity relating to Iran.

Netanyahu is sure that he knows who is to blame: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He heard inside information, from the White House, verified information. Emanuel drips venom. My sources may be less good, but the picture they paint is different. Netanyahu's problem, they say, is not Emanuel. It is Obama.

Netanyahu is convinced that since the first day of his term, Emanuel has been plotting to isolate Israel from America, to shrink it in the eyes of its voters and to destroy it politically. This step failed. Support for Israel in American public opinion has only increased. It's not Israel that is isolated in America, but rather the Palestinians. Personal admiration for him also increased. It increased in wake of his speech at the UN General Assembly. There are no other leaders in the world today that speak to Americans in their own language. They've known him in America for 30 years now.

Netanyahu read polls (one of them was apparently carried out by Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton's and Barak's adviser). The polls showed him the degree to which his standing is strong in American public opinion. America is not Europe. In Europe, Netanyahu could be described as a peace rejectionist. Not in America. The president is very important, but so is Congress. With all due respect to the president and his aides, when the public has an opinion, public opinion decides.

From Netanyahu's point of view, relations started off on the left foot. The emphatic demand of Obama administration to freeze construction in the settlements completely, a demand meant to hurt him, led to a confrontation. He was accused of being stubborn. He was also accused of the opposite, that he was easy to coerce. The assumption was that he would take a blow and collapse. This didn't happen in Israel and it didn't happen in America.

It didn't happen because he chose a combined response. In his Bar Ilan speech, he promised to support the idea of two states. He promised to be forthcoming toward the Americans, but made it clear that he would not go all the way. He went farther than what the majority of Israelis want to go and the majority of Jews in America. He acted with integrity and transparency: every Israeli step was reported to the Americans in real time, including the secret trip to Putin.

In the meantime, the Americans have learned a few things. The Arab rulers, who were supposed to provide the quid pro quo in unfreezing relations with Israel, gave nothing. Abu Mazen changed his spots. Because of domestic political considerations, he refused to begin negotiations. The Arab rulers betrayed him. He is now threatening to resign.

An argument waged in the White House. According to the information that reached Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton and Mitchell and others explained to the president that he had to rely on Netanyahu. Not out of love: out of recognizing reality. A parallelogram of forces was created: they on one side, Emanuel on the other. Netanyahu believes that Obama is pragmatic. After consideration, he will go with public opinion.

I'm not certain that Netanyahu realizes to what degree Obama is different in character than his two predecessors. It's hard to bend him, and even harder to win his heart. In Netanyahu's first term, he got into a frontal clash with president Bush the father. He learned then that despite the support, despite the accessibility, despite the common language, in such clashes, he cannot win.

The question of who is right in the crisis that has been created is of secondary importance. Israel is dependent up to its neck on the American administration's good will. It is dependent on it if it wishes to reach a solution to the conflict (Netanyahu believes that he is capable of reaching an agreement. He knows that he is the only one of his ministers who believes that he, of all people, will reach an agreement).

And it is dependent on the administration in the Iranian matter. Our old acquaintance Dennis Ross plays a major role in the administration's handling of the Iranians. The good news for Israel is that there has been progress toward imposing concrete sanctions. The bad news is that Obama was angered again, with the criticism of the Americans that Ehud Barak made. Netanyahu was quick to fix it. So was Barak. Nevertheless, the damage was done.

-- Nahum Barnea

After a long, messy battle between Senator Jim DeMint and the Obama administration, Senator DeMint removed his holds on two key administration appointees whose nominations have been languishing pending the outcome over a battle involving the Honduras ouster of President Manuel Zelaya.

In his statement on the Senate floor, DeMint lavished praise on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon -- whose nomination as the next US Ambassador to Brazil DeMint also had on hold -- for yielding to his views that whether or not the Honduras legislature votes Zelaya back into office that the Obama administration will recognize the outcome of the coming November 29th elections as legitimate and fair.

There is growing dispute about a Honduran government deal with Zelaya that the ousted leader now says the de facto government is not abiding by. Some suggest that Jim DeMint had some influence on pulling apart the Honduran deal with his own negotiations with the Obama administration over what was needed for the US to recognized the November election results.

The great news is that Arturo Valenzuela, Professor of Government and Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, has now been confirmed as Thomas Shannon's successor as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs.

Valenzuela served at the White House as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council in the second term of the Clinton administration.

Only problem is that one of the other key players in this Shakespearian political drama, Tom Shannon (who Jim DeMint now thinks is great!) got stuck on the floor last night when recently appointed Senator George LeMiuex began to flex his Senatorial muscles by not allowing Shannon's nomination to be voted on with a big passle of other nominees who were unanimously approved by the Senate at 5:30 pm yesterday evening.

Allegedly, the pro-embargo, anti-Castro crowd hijacked the Freshman Senator -- who will show great promise as a US Senator when he doesn't yield so publicly to the overtly crude and frivolous whims of fanatics who will lose the battle on Tom Shannon, but who want to waste the government's time.

-- Steve Clemons

My liberal friends who watch Latin America often cringe when I say this, but I really don't like Hugo Chavez.

I recognize that he was democratically elected -- but I think he's a reckless leader in Latin America who has too much of a frequency to animate trouble beyond his borders.

In my play book Venezuela today is somewhat like the Iran of Latin America -- and Cuba is Syria. I support immediate, serious engagement and a redirection of US-Cuba relations and US-Syria relations because that course would automatically rob both Iran and Venezuela of running room in their regions.

The latest from Hugo Chavez is. . .the three minute shower.

From a UPI report:

In the most direct response to the shortages yet, Chavez himself went on air to warn industries they would have their utilities cut off if they did not check wastage. For citizens fumbling in the dark due to power cuts, Chavez advised the use of a torch.

"If you get up at three in the morning to use the toilet, use a torch instead of turning the light on; that's enough light, you don't need more. Just leave the torch by the bed, it's that simple," Chavez said during an emergency Cabinet meeting, broadcast live.

He advised Venezuelans to get into the habit of showering for no more than three minutes.

Industry sources said that power generation plants nationalized by Chavez in 2007 needed not only new infusions of capital but also better management and due diligence to ensure their performance was competitive and made the best use of resources. Venezuelan opposition says very few investments have been made in the power sector since Chavez took office in 1999 after a landslide election victory the previous year.

I know that the US needs to deal with Chavez -- though i think we need to do a better job containing him.

I seriously doubt that Hugo Chavez takes three minute showers himself -- and I know that the world leaders who meet Chavez will need a lot longer under the spigot than that to feel clean again.

Just reminds me of that rather big pig in Animal Farm.

-- Steve Clemons

Kind of sad when you see a Freshman US Senator get appointed and immediately hijacked by lobbying groups who have deeply parochial interests that run against the nation's and even Senator George LeMieux's own state of Florida.

Last night, the US Senate finally moved to confirm Obama-nominated Georgetown Professor Arturo Valenzuela as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs and the incumbent in that job, Thomas Shannon, as US Ambassador to Brazil. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate itself was able to finally overcome the holds placed by Senator Jim DeMint who has been waging a one man battle to get someone to pay respect to Honduras coup officials.

But as the machinery for the vote was unfolding, the recently appointed frosh Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) -- appointed to fill Senator Mel Martinez's vacated seat -- placed a hold on Shannon's nomination, allegedly at the behest of the US-Cuba Democracy PAC that is ticked for Shannon's handling of the Cuba OAS resolution earlier this year.

I hope that Barack Obama's team -- including National Security Council Western Hemisphere Director Dan Restrepo -- and those higher up the chain like NSC Deputy Tom Donilon -- get a sense of who the reasonable players in the US-Cuba policy debate are who are working hard for Obamaesque strategies with Cuba -- vs. those who are still trying to keep the freezers blowing on the last refuge of the Cold War.

-- Steve Clemons

Each month when I get the official unemployment figures from the US government, I quickly search in my inbox for a note from former cable network CEO and senior economic adviser in the John Edwards and Barack Obama campaigns Leo Hindery who sends me the "effective unemployment" figures that many economic commentators from Joseph Stiglitz to Mort Zuckerman to Bob Herbert are begninning to use.

Official unemployment surged to 10.2% according to an announcement today.

Here is the Hindery Report on Effective Unemployment:

Using its Current Population Survey (CPS) of Non-Farm Jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just announced this morning, November 6, 2009, that, "Total non-farm payroll employment declined by 190,000 in October and the unemployment rate crept to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, up from 9.8 percent in September."

However, as we have been noting, the public BLS figures, while widely distributed, notably exclude changes in employment among the nation's 10,968,000 farm and self-employed workers, who are more than 7% of the Civilian Labor Force, and they do not take into account the 14,905,000 workers who are part-time-of-necessity (9,284,000), marginally attached (2, 373,000), or "discouraged" and have left the labor force (3,248,000).

The Summary of U.S. Effective Unemployment - more accurately (1) includes farm and self-employed workers and (2) accounts for effectively unemployed workers not in the official BLS announcement. This Summary also identifies various measures of weeks unemployed, job openings, and job shortfalls.

Accordingly, as adjusted, at the end of October 2009 or for the month:

1. Total combined employment - nonfarm, farm and self-employed - declined by 484,000 jobs in the month instead of the BLS-announced non-farm only figure of 190,000;

2. The total number of effectively unemployed and underemployed workers is 30,605,000 not the BLS-announced number of 15,700,000; and

3. The effective unemployment rate is 19.18% not the BLS-announced rate of 10.20%.

Since the official start of the recession in December 2007, the number of effectively unemployed and underemployed workers has increased by 13,723,000, instead of by the aggregate 8,159,000 jobs loss figure that the BLS officially reports. In contrast, we needed to create 2,376,000 new jobs in these 22 months just to keep up with the natural growth in the labor force of 108,000 workers per month.

For workers in the official Civilian Labor Force, the average number of weeks unemployed is now 26.9. And the number of workers unemployed 27 weeks and longer stands at 8,842,000 (i.e., 5,594,000 officially counted plus the 3,248,000 discouraged workers).

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by former Senator Ernest F. "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) who served for 39 years in the United States Senate. He is the author of Making Government Work, which Steve Clemons recommends for anyone wanting to understand more about legislative structure and process. Many of his other essays can be found at Citizens for a Competitive America.

OUT!

We learned after ten years and 58,000 dead in Vietnam that you can't force feed democracy.

And now corrupt foreigners can't force feed a corrupt democracy in Afghanistan. After eight years and 833 dead in Afghanistan, the United States mission boils down to that described in a New York Times editorial of November 3rd, entitled "President Karzai's Second Term:"

(a) Mr. Karzai must prove that after "seven years of mismanagement and corruption ... he is deserving of [his people's] trust."

(b) Mr. Karzai "must appoint a new group of ministers and provincial governors who are committed to rebuilding their country, not enriching themselves."

(c) "The Interior Ministry, which oversees the corruption-plagued Afghan National Police, must be reformed."

(d) "The agriculture, energy and private development agencies all [get] better leadership."

(e) The Afghan people need "to see their government working to protect them and improve their lives...."

(f) Mr. Karzai must "reach out to members of the opposition, choosing competent technocrats for senior jobs."

(g) Mr. Karzai must "break ties with his most unsavory cronies."

(h) Mr. Karzai must demand that Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostrum "stand trial for his crimes."

(i) Mr. Karzai finally cuts "his ties with his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, whom American officials say is a big player in the opium trade."

(j) "Washington must also cut its ties with the younger Mr. Karzai ... [who] received regular payments from the CIA for the past eight years."

(k) As Mr. Karzai kills the Taliban, he must "work with the Americans to come up with a strategy to try to woo mid-level Taliban leaders in from the cold."

(l) Mr. Karzai and the U. S. "need to quickly develop a plan to accelerate training of the Afghan security forces."

We can't ask GIs to lose their arms and legs, even life itself, for this mission.

OUT!

-- Fritz Hollings, former United States Senator from South Carolina

Today, the government announced a surge in the national unemployment figure of 10.2% -- which seriously underestimates the 'effective unemployment' rate of those who have stopped looking for work or who are undermployed.

Leo Hindery issues these numbers regularly, and I will post them when I receive them.

But yesterday, Joe Biden mentioned during his talk at the Center for American Progress that 3rd quarter GDP growth was 3.5%.

With a surge in official unemployment -- we now see the handwriting on the wall of a jobless recovery.

When Obama was pushing Congress to pass the stimulus package, he said it was about jobs, jobs, jobs!

But the reality is that there is a profound level of job destruction in the country -- and the greatest number of jobs Obama and his economic team seem to have saved seem to be at Goldman Sachs and fellow traveling financial sector firms.

-- Steve Clemons

For some time, I have been writing that the US has lost sight of its al Qaeda-rationalized strategic objectives in Afghanistan and stumbled into a civil war. Recently resigned US official Matthew Hoh also frames the challenge in Afghanistan as that of a 35 year old civil war in which the forces are far bigger than anything the US can influence.

Now, my friend and IISS consulting senior fellow Nader Mousavizadeh also characterizes the mess in Afghanistan as a civil war in which one side is inimical to American interests. He wants to condition the support for the Karzai government on a clean-up campaign.

My objection to this approach is that it remains a far cry from why we went to Afghanistan and doesn't on its merits and given other possible containment strategies justify the sacrifice of lives and scarce financial resources.

The Afghanistan quagmire is also an ongoing global embarrassment of American impotence in failing to redirect and rewire one of the poorest nations of the world. The cost can't be measured just in terms of troops and dollars but also fueling Iran's ambitions and those of other would-be foes and the costs of doubt in US abilities among allies.

Mousavizadeh writes:

Two conclusions are inescapable from the fiasco of Afghanistan's presidential elections and the McChrystal assessment: There is no electoral solution to Afghan government's crisis of legitimacy, and there is no military solution to the challenge of the Taliban. And when observing the current Afghan conflict not from the perspective of America's post-9/11 intervention, but from Afghanistan's own quarter-century of warfare, a third conclusion becomes still more apparent: What we confront is not, in fact, an insurgency but rather a civil war -- one whose resolution can only be found in a new decentralized Afghan politics based on the enduring, if ugly, realities of power there, and not through another decade of Western military intervention.

If there is one lesson to be drawn from the withdrawal of Hamid Karzai's main rival from the second round of the elections -- and his own subsequent appointment as president for another term -- it is that the ability of outsiders to influence the existing politics of Afghanistan is now near zero, even when the object of our entreaties is a politician whose very existence has long depended entirely on Western support and funding. Like a patient rising from a hospital bed after a near-death experience only to rob his doctor blind on the way out the door, Karzai has conclusively demonstrated that his utility to Western interests -- as well as to the Afghan people whom he's grossly robbed of a chance for representative government -- is over.

This leaves the West with a stark dilemma. We can proceed to invest a government we ourselves have called fraudulent with an authority that few Afghans are willing to grant it, hoping it will eventually eschew the corrupt behavior that has sustained its power to date. Or we can make the unquestionably more difficult decision and insist, as a condition of our continued support, that a new political compact be put in place.

Nader Mousavizadeh's proposal for a new political compact is actually quite intriguing and along the lines of something I support -- which is to get a Bonn Conference II in place drawing together various power players across the board in Afghanistan. He suggests that Lakhdar Brahimi and Richard Holbrooke engineer this. I would add that the personalities driving this also include Pashtun leaders technically but not too enthusiastically inside the Taliban tent and include participants from Iran and other key regional stakeholders.

But that kind of political compact may be undermined rather than moved along by a surge of more US hard power into Afghanistan.

Civil wars that matter can be approached with a combination of approaches -- and a new diplomatically purshed governing compact in Afghanistan is an interesting approach, but the tough truth is that this is not what General McChrystal is calling for.

-- Steve Clemons

Jon Weinberg is a research intern at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Last week, Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to the UN, and Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke at RAND's "Afghanistan: Basic Questions--Strategy Choices" conference.

Both emphasized that key strategic choices must be considered before a decision on troops is made.

These points are well taken, but were hardly novel given that everyone and his or her uncle seems to have ideas for a "new" Afghanistan strategy these days.

On the other hand, it's not every day that one hears a good idea for building/rebuilding the Afghan economy. Khalilzad and Levin both expressed their support for the "Sons of Afghanistan" program, which is part of the $680 billion defense bill that President Obama signed on Wednesday. The program is modeled on the "Sons of Iraq" program, which lures former and would-be mercenary insurgents - who arguably comprise the majority of all insurgents - over to fight against their former patrons.

The new defense bill allocates $1.3 billion to "reintegration" programs aimed at individuals "who have renounced violence against the government of Afghanistan."

The success of the program is not guaranteed. Skeptics are quick to point out that Afghanistan is not Iraq and that the former's economic woes far outweigh the latter's. Perhaps that's why the "Sons of Afghanistan" program has been on the table for a while without receiving more serious consideration.

Despite the many challenges of implementation, the logic behind attracting the other side's mercenaries to one's own side is actually quite sound. Moreover, the US government is far more capable of making regular payments than are fickle Afghan warlords and tribal leaders.

Based on this recent statement by Mullah Brader Akhund, the Taliban's leadership seems either legitimately threatened by or completely dismissive of the program's potential impact.

The Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan are not mercenaries and employed gunmen like the armed men of the invaders and their surrogates. This war will come to an end when all invaders leave our country and an Islamic government based on the aspirations of our people is formed in the country.

But in a country with $12-billion GDP, a well-managed $1.3 billion program could make a significant difference.

-- Jon Weinberg

With President Obama off to Tokyo next week to kickoff his first trip to Asia as president, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is hosting a public forum today to discuss the administration's policy options and challenges in the region.

The event - which will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note from 12:15pm - 2:00pm - features Carnegie Endowment experts Douglas Paal, Michael Pettis, Taiya Smith, and Michael Swaine.

The complexities facing President Obama in Asia are underestimated. Japan has been a taken for granted ally -- and is now under new political management as the Democratic Party of Japan walloped the LDP in August elections. The new Prime Minister has mentioned but not outlined specifics about a call for a new "East Asian Community" that seems for the moment as if it would include China but exclude the United States. There are lots of suspicions on the Obama team about Hatoyama's intent. There are issues related to US military basing arrangements that are stressful and Japan's evolving role on global security and economic matters looks confusing to some.

China too and its increasingly intimate relationship with America's core policy course on global economic matters, climate change policy, and statecraft with problem nations like North Korea and Iran are also key.

Human rights issues in Burma hang over Obama's agenda. And addressing the identity needs and relative independence of Southeast Asian nations who both worry about and simultaneously embrace China's rise also needs presidential attention -- which is an increasingly scarce commodity given other domestic and international problems on the plate.

Obama needs to convince Asia that it matters in the roster of his and America's priorities -- even though the US is distracted in so many other directions. This session should be an interesting primer on those who want to study how Obama might walk that tightrope.

It is interesting to note that most still see the next century as an "Asian Century" but America is stumbling over itself to be involved just about everywhere else than there.

Hopefully President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will change that impression.

-- Steve Clemons

WASHINGTON, DC -- 10:00 am -- Vice President Joe Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania and has lived for decades in Wilmington, Delaware -- both working middle class communities that have been under siege from both domestic and international economic forces.

This morning at the Center for American Progress, Biden is going to host a discussion on the factors undermining America's middle class with a number of scholars and public intellectuals. I'm here now at the meeting which is co-sponsored with the Economic Policy Institute.

I have no idea whether anything substantial will be disclosed today -- but I wanted to hear Biden first hand discuss what he thinks needs to happen with the economy.

Joe Biden has been playing the role of "skunk at the picnic" in the tough internal strategy discussions on America's Afghanistan course -- and I applaud that. He deserves real credit for not jumping on policy bandwagons in the White House.

I'm hoping Joe Biden will increasingly be willing to play the role of "skunk at the picnic" in taking on the Lawrence Summers-dominated economic framework that the Obama administration has thus far strongly embraced.

Here is the link to the live webcast:

Others participating in the discussion will be Melody Barnes, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and a former senior staff member at the Center for American Progress; Lawrence Mishel, President, Economic Policy Institute; Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress; Jim Kessler, Vice President for Policy, Third Way; Isabel Sawhill, Senior Fellow on Economic Studies, Brookings Institution; Ralph Whitehead, Professor of Journalism, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Interesting group.

10:20 am

I'll be posting updates as this moves along. SEIU's chief Andy Stern just walked in. OMB Watch's Dana Chasin is here too.

10:35 am

Vice President Biden has just arrived. We don't see him yet -- but I hear his voice. There are about 90 people in the room. Just saw now Leo Hindery in the front row. Hindery served as Senior Economic Policy Advisor to John Edwards during his most recent presidential campaign and then was on economic advisory team to candidate Barack Obama.

10:42 am

Chief Economic Advisor to the President Jared Bernstein just walked in the room -- and connected with a lot of folks. He's smart and personable -- like Austan Goolsbee -- which is rare for White House economists.

Center for American Progress EVP Sarah Wartell now introducing the Vice President. Good intro -- focusing on themes of working families and middle class.

10:45 am

Joe Biden just recognized Change to Win Chair Anna Burger and SEIU President Andy Stern for being two of the primary drivers of the administration's Middle Class Task Force.

Biden acknowledges that it was not because of this recession that it all of a sudden dawned on President Obama and himself that supporting the middle class was important now. They have been watching for years -- and concerned about -- the crushing health care costs, educational costs, and other pressures challenging the American middle class. The recession did not cause these recent problems -- but it did seriously aggravate them.

Biden correctly notes that in many American middle class communities where a couple dozen years ago a single paycheck was enough to sustain a family in a nice home -- but now one pay check won't do it. This is a systemic problem -- and Biden suggests that the administration -- in all of its relevant departments and agencies -- must do more to directly impact the deteriorating condition of the American middle class.

The issues of concern to Biden are that correcting these problems is not just about the size or number of paychecks in a family -- its a broader challenge about quality of life involving pensions, education, health care, care for elderly parents. He's talking about the components of the American social contract with its citizens and is suggesting that we need to change the terms, and improve the terms, of that social contract with American working families.

Biden mentioned taking the Middle East Task Force objectives on the road for the first eight months of the administration -- talking about a St. Louis meeting that focused on college education. They went to Denver to talk about "green job opportunities." These trips were followed by meetings in Toledo, Ohio talking about revitalizing "new" rather than "old" manufacturing -- plate glass to solar panels. This was followed by meetings in Silver Springs, Maryland. . .

Biden now introducing the panelists listed above.

Makes the good point that many labor union paychecks can't achieve the middle class life in the way that most Americans have come to consider that life.

11:00 am

In his intro of Melody Barnes, Biden said that while she was a valued Center for American Progress alum in the Obama administration, "She is not coming back to CAP." Biden said "if she goes, I go" and paid tribute to her focus on working to bolster policy support for the American middle class. (too bad Lawrence Summers is not here taking notes)

Biden makes clear that American working families have not been fairly benefiting from the growth and gains that they have been helping to generate for the overall economy. He's not talking about "income redistribution" according to Biden. He said, "we're talking about giving working families a chance at getting on the middle class track" in real terms.

Biden thinks that the adminstration thinks it is making progress -- and is thinking "beyond the recession." He said the US economy grew 3.5% in last quarter -- but that is not anything we can become content about.

Obama said "we need unions", "investments in college affordability to promote mobility", and other nodes of support to fix the ecosystem of support for the American middle class that is really broken.

Biden is saying that the fundamental challenge facing families today is that parents just don't believe today that their children are going to be as well off as they are. The Vice President is arguing that there is a crisis of confidence in the future -- and that many Americans are losing their homes, losing their middle class foundation that supports the hopes and dreams of their families. Biden is right.

Biden continues that jobs are not just about paychecks -- jobs are about dignity. Biden acknowledges that there are an awful lot of Americans being stripped of their dignity and not being given an even shot that gets them in middle class circumstances if they work hard.

Now he is moving to the panel.

11:12 am

Ralph Whitehead now speaking. Each speaker will outline a few points in five minutes are so. Puts on the table that at one point in American history we used to have a goal of a "universal middle class". Began to fall apart in the 1980s.

Lawrence Mishel now up. Says it is important that as we emerge from "the great recession" it is important to help families get an onramp back into middle class circumstances and opportunities. Mishel suggests that the reason the economic waters are so choppy is the long-term, incessant erosion of well-paying jobs. He suggests that this erosion of the American job base is due to policy choices made by government. Thinks growth in an economy can't be driven by debt and asset bubbles -- but rather by productivity increases in a real economy and a real job base. (Joe Biden's body language is signaling that Mishel is going on a bit long. . .ironic actually)

11:24 am

Heather Boushey up. She is addressing the profound changes in the role of women in the working economy. Today only one in five families have a male parent earning a family paycheck with a stay at home mom. Most families in the country are not designed in this 1950s era model -- and our laws and family support structures haven't caught up with the realities of the modern working family. Heather notes that the average working familiy puts in 568 hours more work today than in the past -- 14 weeks more today than thirty years ago -- and this creates huge time squeezes and burdens at home.

Jim Kessler now speaking -- says that median household income is $49,000 but that this represents 19-year old head of households as well as 79-year old head of households. Says we don't have policy for these ranges. Says that there is a difference between economic strategies "to get by" and strategies "to get ahead." These people don't see how government makes their lives appreciably better -- and don't see the government as helping in a pathway to success. Says the problem in America today is that too many Americans no longer believe that they can live up to their own economic and lifestyle aspirations for themselves.

11:35 am

Melody Barnes now at bat -- talking about her journeys around the country asking audiences whether they believed in the "American dream." Hands always went up -- but the fact is that there are a lot of policies in conflict with living the American dream and becoming part of the US middle class.

Says health care is one of the fundamental pillars of American families' middle class goals. Stretching harder and harder to get in to the house in the community with good schools. Says that one job loss or one health incident and a family can fall over the cliff. Talking about Obama's and Biden's discussion about a cradle through career educational structure. Barnes suggests that this kind of educational arc can become a major pillar of support for the middle class.

Barnes says that Immigrants and new immigrants to the country have challenges on health care and education fronts -- says that new US citizens -- have a very tough time getting an on-ramp to the American middle class.

Now apparently going to a conversational format.

Biden says that he is going to be the "devil's advocate" for a moment and pose in his queries as a person who is not in sync with the progressive goals outlined on the panel.

Biden said that an acquaintance of his believes that people have unrealistic aspirations -- that are beyond what they should be -- and that the gap between reality and aspirations is the real problem (but Biden is not saying that this is his own view). . .

Kessler responds that most people don't have lofty aspirations -- that they want a good home, want to be able to educate their children, want good health care, want to be able to take care of their elderly parents, and more of the like. So these basic aspirations have required more work to achieve -- but they remain realistic and fair aspirations.

~~~~

I am going to cease live-blogging the rest of the program. It is an interesting discussion but most of the key points that are being raised by the interesting panel have already been raised before or are fairly easily predicted given the world view of this panel that jobs matter and that the American middle class matters.

What is really interesting about this meeting which does a good job explicating what the political objectives for the nation -- and for the American middle class -- ought to be, it is not in touch with the ideological divide that exists inside the administration today between those focused on macro factors and financial sector health as the primary parameters to work on vs. those who think that there must be a micro-orientation that is sensitive to supporting increasing high-paying jobs and trying to stimulate an innovation economy and related jobs that undergird a healthy middle class.

Biden is posturing as a skeptic in order to challenge the implied assumptions of those on the panel. He just did that querying whether technology -- more than other forces -- was undermining the American job base. '

But the bigger issue really focuses on the Obama administration's own policy choices -- that were targeted on using legislated monies to bail out financial firms -- but not really re-writing the American domestic social contract or doing more to invest in a new infrastructure backbone in the nation on the scale needed to both generate lots of new jobs and create recurring returns for the US economy over future generations.

I really like Biden. I think he's asking the right questions and speaks to the real issues that the American middle class is struggling with.

What is tough to take though is that this whole event would be dramatically different if Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner or Christina Romer were on the panel. These three have really been the primary architects of an economic policy that did not have as its north star the middle class, job generation, lifestyle enhancing objectives outlined by the Vice President and the speakers here today at the Center for American Progress.

The policy problem today is in part that the best economic policy practitioners in the Obama administration -- across the full spectrum and not just the faction represented here today -- are not pulling in the same direction.

Bravo to Biden, Jared Bernstein, and the rest for an interesting program -- but other powerful branches of the White House really should be here taking notes and participating in a constructive way in this discussion.

-- Steve Clemons

Tonight there is a classical music evening at the White House with Alisa Weilerstein (picture to left) and others -- and some of my close friends are there. I'm just wondering why I haven't yet made the cut for either the gay community events or culture nights like tonight! (One of these days I'll wiggle in.)

For those interested, the White House has a Facebook discussion set u