There has been a narrative pushed by Repub strategists all last year,
that Obama was going to be turned out after one term and to
underline that narrative, they go out of their way to try and compare him to one termer Jimmy Carter, but not to one termer George Bush senior. Is this because the Repubs are afraid to utter the name of Bush? Afraid that it might just remind everyone of those grand old days of Mr Mission Accomplished? Of the White House that consistently sought to imbue itself with the powers of royalty? As in, if the President does it it can't be against the law? As in a white house that fired federal prosecutors who wouldn't open investigations on political adversaries as is done in Putin's Russia? No, all the paranoid conspiracy theories
duly repeated daily by the show biz clowns masquerading as "patriots" were contrived to get the voters to forget about the debacle of the Bush years.

Excellent article. But to my mind Mr. Mead makes the mistake of assuming knowledge of Obama's personal intentions and philosophy. Obama's actions do not seem to match the values you ascribe to him. Furthermore, I don't feel that he's had enough time in the job to develop a politically mature strategy in the way you suggest he has.

While I accept your suggestion that Obama began his Presidency looking to make fewer international interventions and downscale American presence in Iraq, its pure speculation when you say he believes in a strict non-interventionist philosophy. Remember, he also made as a cornerstone of his campaign stronger military intervention in Afghanistan. He clearly is not entirely committed to a passive, non-interventionist America.

My gut feeling is that Obama is, first and foremost, an opportunist. He tells people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. He is a man with deep personal charisma and has strong beliefs in his ability to persuade the sceptical. It is a method that has proven very successful for him in the past, and with little prior experience of foreign politics he no doubt assumed this approach would work for him as President.

Don't get me wrong: I think Obama is a decent man, and a little opportunism in politics is no bad thing. But I don't think he has a strong, value-based philosophy as you suggest in your article. He seems to react to events, and does so in a way that will spend as little personal political capital as he can get away with. If you consider his policy decisions, he seems to always take the path of least resistance. His slowness to develop a military policy on Afghanistan could be because he was considering all the options carefully as you suggest. But its just as likely he was looking desperately for an easy solution to a tough problem. His final compromised would suggest the latter.

That does not mean that Obama is a bad President. Far from it. In many ways he's an excellent man for the job - he has undeniable charisma that has charmed the world's press corps. After George W Bush this is no small achievement. He has also shown that America is able to elect someone from an ethnic minority as President (an achievement my own country has failed to do), and this is a great achievement in itself that shows practically to the sceptical how Democracy can bring equality and fairness. To be fair, this was not Obama's achievement but something the American people themselves should take credit for. Finally, Obama is a difficult man to hate. His own personal charisma makes it difficult for the Iranian regime, for example, to generate the usual anti-American nonsense that has sustained them in the past. In other words, President Obama has achieved a great deal that many people don't credit him for. Much of this is achieve simply by playing to his own personal charismatic strengths rather than in any policy decisions.

Encouragingly, he does appear to be growing into the job. He is rising to the challenge on a personal level, and has started to show he is capable of making tough decisions as well as snappy sound bites. He is weakened by having a poor administration to back him up. He also does not seem to understand the importance of having international allies (he spends far too much political capital cosying up to the Chinese and other enemies, and not enough time on his allies.)

I also agree that Obama has some tough challenges ahead of him. Let's hope he continues to grow as a President. I for one am rooting for him. But I don't think he's sufficiently seasoned to have developed a strong political philosophy as of yet. Nor should we expect him to have done so after only a year or so in the job.

Nonetheless, your article is fascinating, superbly written and very thought-provoking.

why?

Read Andrew Bacevich.

A very interesting and thoughtful article. I think this only highlights the need for a balanced, common sense approach to American policy. Neither of these schools of thought are workable alone. All suffer from, at their most pure level, an idealism that is unworkable in the real world. Certainly the Bush years, where Jacksonian absolutism held sway, did not solve much yet cost greatly. What is needed, in my opinion, is a core of the Jeffersonian but infused with elements of the others. After all, it's pure common sense that America cannot stop all evil or decree democracy to all the nations of the world. We can't force our ideals on those who resist without becoming that which we have always claimed that we stood against.

Obama is in an extremely difficult situation, as often happens when there is a major change in leadership after 8 years. Part of the challenge is the American people themselves. Conservatives want only a continuation, at least for the most part, of the policies of the Bush years. Liberals want a complete reversal of those policies. Both sides expect everything they ask or they are furious. As with most things, the truth is in the middle somewhere. The Liberals must accept that Obama cannot simply sign a stack of Executive Orders and whisk away all signs of the Bush years. And Conservatives must accept that the Bush doctrine is inherently flawed and a new path must be blazed. But none of this is going to happen quickly. America needs to be the one thing it's always been very bad at, be patient.

Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com/

It is not all about the president -- our system of government is not suited to FP.

The congressional reps are answerable to people in the states, who don't really care about FP. Witness HR 867 and the congressional support of Israel.

It is really quite easy to fix US FP: stop support of Israel and that of middle eastern dictators. Overcome our addiction to oil (the middle eastern "strategic interest"). We are hated because we have a bad FP. The president is only partly at fault. For one, he could have chosen a better SecState -- Hillary Clinton? What a starkly dumb choice. Forget foreigners, she is hated even by Americans.

Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson and Wilson conceived their philosophical-political FP to meet major global concerns of the moment. Most pronounced being the "old" world's continued imperialist interference in the "new" world. The Monroe Doctrine was conceived in reaction to subvert meddlesome European powers. It was, also, in many ways, a veiled attempt by America to control the national destinies of its closest neighbors in order to effect outcomes favorable to US interests, largely economic. In 1904, when European creditors threatened to invade a number of Latin America countries to collect their debts, Teddy Roosevelt invoked the Monroe Doctrine, sending Marines into Santo Domingo, Haiti and Nicaragua ostensibly to keep the Europeans out. Sixty years later, JFK would employ the Monroe Doctrine as leverage to induce the Soviet Union to remove missiles from Cuba. As we have sought to unilaterally extend our geo-political influence we warred with Mexico winning the southwest territories; with Spain we absorbed Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam into what Gore Vidal called the American Empire. Our wars in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq had little to do with the contemporary concerns of these 4 fathers. Giving lip to Wilson's democracy-as-panacea may have worked the PR machine in the past but it has largely failed in the present. Adhering to Jackson's gung-ho jingoist terrorism is no longer tenable in today's realpolitiks. Obama has it partially right but is going about it all wrong. Let's hope he grows up this year and starts to live up to his laureate status by forging a different American FP.

Mr. Mead’s claim that “Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state” comes either from an ignorance of or a willful misinterpretation of history. Jefferson’s library contains a copy of the Koran, recently used with some irony to swear into office Muslim congressman, the reason for its existence was not to find the beauty of Islam it was used to quote Sun Tzu “know your enemy”. The historical fact is it was Jefferson who went to war against the Barbary pirates rather than continue their appeasement by paying ransoms to the pirates. This act is referenced forever in song in the Marine Corps song with the line “To the shores of Tripoli”. Going to war is hardly the act of someone who wanted to “dismantle the national-security state”.

Obambi would be wise to heed Jefferson “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”

Obama lived for a date with abd. We no tangible work, the schedule will see, türkü sözleri

This article seems awfully undercooked to me. Most of it is just a reiteration of the foreign policy-types scheme of WRM's book. Despite the provocative title, WRM's explanation of the link between Obama and Carter is limited to a single sentence:

"The contradiction between the sober and limited realism of the Jeffersonian worldview and the expansive, transformative Wilsonian agenda is likely to haunt this administration as it haunted Carter's, most fatefully when he rejected calls to let the shah of Iran launch a brutal crackdown to remain in power."

Unless I'm mistaken, the argument is as follows: Obama's foreign policy is a hybrid of two of WRM's ideal types - Jeffersonian and Wilsonian. Carter's foreign policy was a combination of the same ideal types. The Wilsonian element of Carter's foreign policy led Carter to forbid the Shah from cracking down on the revolutionaries and thus created the catastrophy that was Carter's undoing. Therefore, the combination of these two ideal types (or at least the Wilsonian impulse (???)) will (or may possibly) lead Obama to the same fate as Carter.

This argument strikes me as vapid, sensational, and only semi-coherent.

While we can only speculate whether Obama truly believes in the Jeffersonian ideal of minimal involvement abroad, I suspect numerous other factors will compel substantial American retrenchment (beyond Iraq and Afghanistan) in the near future. As pressures to reduce the budget deficit come to the fore once economic stabilization is guaranteed, defense expenditures are likely to be some of the hardest hit. While Republicans would certainly prefer cuts in social spending, their cries for prompt reductions in federal spending will require a response, and the Obama adminstration will likely seek substantial additional cuts in defense. While some of these economies can be found in cutting R&D for obsolete projects and withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the size of the deficit and continued economic decline relative to the emerging Asian powers ($123 trillion?!) will likely compel more far-reaching reductions in the current American military role abroad. Essentially, structural constraints will force Obama's hand toward a more "Jeffersonian" strategy, one that goes far beyond withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan alone, irrespective of ideology.

While I hate to beat a dead horse in drawing parallels to British decline, the conclusion of the Boer War quickly led to the complete withdrawal of its dominant naval presence from the Western Hemisphere and East Asia, theaters unrelated to the conflict that sparked perceptions of crisis and decline. Fortunately, this process was greatly facilitated by a dramatic rapprochement with the US and the formation of an alliance with Japan - a strategy broadly similar to the Nixon Doctrine of devolution to regional allies. This enabled both substantial reductions in defense spending and the concentration of British naval strength to confront the growing German threat in the North Sea. Obama needs to begin cultivating similar regional successors to maintain stability and regional balances of power once fiscal concerns make American retrenchment unavoidable. Nixon's strategy with Iran, while morally dubious, was well-conceived in theory, but failed for its inability to detect the Shah's domestic instability. Global stability during the demise of Pax Americana will depend on the Obama administration's ability to cultivate powerful, stable allies to take on the burdens the US can no longer sustain.

I'm not sure I share the premise that today's Fox News Watchers and especially the new Patriots are Jacksonians. Andrew Jackson is arguably the most unsavory character in our storied history. I don't really accept the author's view of Jefferson or Jeffersonian's either for that matter. He does have Wilson and Hamilton down though!

As is made plain in the first post above (by RKERG), there remains a vocal minority worldwide given to irrational and ill-informed criticism of the latter Bush presidency. Unfortunately for Obama, these same people form an important part of his liberal base, and account for the bulk of the self-satisfied European left he continues to court. Reflexively isolationist and in the main incapable of long-term strategic analysis, they are hostile to bold foreign policy initiatives whose short-term utility cannot be easily quantified -- unless said initiatives target Israel or some other "oppressor" de jour, or are otherwise benign in nature, e.g, open-ended "aid." Thus in the '90s we were treated to the spectacle of leftists in the U.S. and Europe vilifying Clinton for intervening militarily in the Balkans, and of course the Iraq war has them apoplectic to this day. I would argue that Obama's challenges in the foreign policy arena are less a function of Jeffersonian-Wilsonian tension and more the product of an emboldened left prone to labeling any and all U.S. intervention abroad as "imperialism" or "naked aggression." Labeling today's strident leftists as Jeffersonian seems to me simplistic. I would argue that were dealing with an entirely unique and relatively new political tradition -- one that is likewise in conflict with the four listed above.

Jefferson didn't avoid war and knew the value of not "dithering" - he went to war with the Barbary pirates after years of the US paying tribute. While Pasha of Tripoli in fact started the war by attacking the US consulate on Jefferson's inauguration day, March 4, 1801, Jefferson responding by sending the US Navy to fight them. August 1 of 1801 (5 months after his inauguration) the US won it's first naval battle against the Pasha of Tripoli.

Five months may as well be a day in our current age.

On Jun 10, 1805, the Pasha signed a treaty ending hostilities.

So Jefferson started his presidency, immediately went to war and within four years defeated the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, defeat was squandered with a poor treaty and the Second Barbary War was fought in 1815 to effectively end their piracy and tribute payments.

I'd like Obama to demonstrate the same decisiveness - both in speed and action.

Jefferson also violated what people like to think of as Jeffersonion with the Louisana Purchase. Maybe he, like Obama, is someone who felt comfortable allowing people to project what they like upon him?

This article is classic. Reminds me of that definition of a liberal: someone who sees something from so many angles he ends up disagreeing with himself.

It also illustrates Man's desire to find meaning in randomness. It's why the left is conspiracy crazy over 9/11: it can't be that Islam hates the West on principle, it has to be Bush's fault.

Same here: Obama's got to be channeling some "inner" President or another.

He simply can't be this stupid and tone deaf.

Then again, perhaps like Michelle, he's never been proud of his country and is actively seeking to hurt it.

He's never met a tyrant he disagrees with, has not stood with Wilson's desire to spread democracy and human rights; is certainly not in favor of Jefferson's small government; doesn't like Hamilton's army; and as an arrogant elitist, has absolutely no time to listen to the voice of Jackson's people.

He claims to honor Lincoln, but keeps his people in economic slavery.

Obama reflects no President before him, not even Carter.

Obama is post-American. No President has ever hated his own country like Obama does.

"George W. Bush's presidency was defined by an effort to bring Jacksonians and Wilsonians into a coalition; the political failure of Bush's ambitious approach..."

Dubya had no idea who Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson or Wilson even WERE!

Whether it is politically correct or not the fact remains since the horrors of 911 happened in America Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Israel, India, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Tunesia, Morocco, Spain, England, The Philippines, Bali, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, Turkey, and Russia.

Despite what our President wants to call these terrorists they are at war with America and they are not common criminals or petty thieves who robbed a convenience store or stole someone's purse. They want to destroy America and if they ever got their hands on a weapon of mass destruction they would not hesitate to use it against us. They murdered three thousand innocent people on 911 but would have been delighted if they could have murdered three hundred thousand or three million.

Our current administration believes it is fine to Mirandize those who are at war with us. Instead of our military and FBI being able to learn what other plots might be in the works or more about the training the terrorist from Nigeria received his lawyer has advised him to remain silent. We seem to be more worried about the rights of foreigners who want to destroy us rather than the innocent Americans they want to kill. After all, we have a President in Washington who refuses to acknowledge that Islamic terror exists and a Homeland Security director who refers to these "incidents" as "man made disasters" rather than terrorism and who believes the system worked fine in preventing almost three hundred people from being killed. It did work fine as long as we can rely on citizens from Denmark being on our planes, jumping over three rows of seats and disarming the terrorists before their bomb explodes!

Jewish and Christian terrorists are not going around the world trying to murder as many people as they can - Islamic terrorists are, and in more than twenty countries since our own 911. The overwhelming majority of these people come from certain countries where these people are trained and indoctrinated with hatred against western civilization and the outrage should not be that we are targeting these countries for extra security scrutiny. The outrage should be that it took us more than eight years to do this. We have a choice in our country between being politically correct and risking the lives of our citizens or doing the right thing and preventing future 911's that may dwarf what happened before in the number of casualties that will occur. The number one responsibility of the President is not the economy, the enviroment, or health care, but is and always will be the security and safety of the American people and its time this adminstration put the people of this country first.

It is disappointing and in fact alarming to behold the hopeless foreign policy confusions of Mr. Obama taken seriously by an expert in the field. Sometimes it seems that it is precisely those with the most education and experience who appear to understand the least - indeed, whose understanding has become gravely impaired. The problems of foreign policy rest in the end upon the nature of human beings in community, something to which history provides ample, consistent and generally dismal instruction. It is simply preposterous to imagine that a nation's interests are going to be advanced by being nice to other nations, to behaving politely, submissively, humbly etc. There is nothing at all in the entire history of humanity to recommend such a naive policy. Yet naifs like Mr. Obama seriously believe that by making nice, by talking nice, by apologizing, regretting, appeasing, compromising, turning the other cheek, offering concessions, wearing the nair shirt, etc. etc. they are advancing the security and interests of the United States. Where in the world do such foolish fantasies come from? Who can point to anything in all of know history that supports such a policy of dramatized weakness and irresolution? Why is it impossible for people like the writer of this confused piece to grasp that enemies of the United States always view the effeminate kow-towing of an Obama as nothing but spinelessness and a rich target of opportunity for fruther demands, manipulation and exploitation? There is something truly appalling about this school of political co-dependency that begins with the question of whether and how much other nations "like" America. Mr. Obama and others would do well to re-read Machiavelli on being feared rather than loved. It is too bad that we are also hated, but Muslims have always hated and sought to conquer, convert or kill infidels. No amount of being nice to religious fanatics bent upon ruling the world in the name of Islam will cause them to change their minds. It is frightening that America and the West has a so-called educated class that is wilfully blind to the real nature of the threats the West faces. There is absolutely nothing new about these threats, which are merely old wine in new skins. The 1,300 year old war has really never stopped.

Mead -

"The U.S. homeland was not only under attack, it was under attack by an international conspiracy of terrorists who engaged in what Jacksonians consider dishonorable warfare: targeting civilians."

So, is it your contention that Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, and Wilsonians accept the 09/11 attacks as honorable warfare?

"Jacksonian attitudes toward war were shaped by generations of conflict with Native American peoples across the United States and before that by centuries of border conflict in England, Scotland, and Ireland."

And the Medes and the Persians, the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Carthagenians, the Holy Roman Empire, Ghenghis Khan, the Medieval princedoms, the Trobriand Islanders, and, in fact, by almost every culture, everywhere.

"Against "honorable" enemies who observe the laws of war, one is obliged to fight fair; those who disregard the rules must be hunted down and killed, regardless of technical niceties."

Well, yes, but this is not the Jacksonian position, this is the law of the United States of America. The Geneva Conventions (the real Geneva Conventions, not the leftist wish-it-were Conventions) allow violators of the rules of warfare to be summarily executed, as the German infiltrators were during the Battle of the Bulge.

Your contempt for the Jacksonian position (Fox News watchers, indeed!) is duly noted. But the Jacksonian position is somewhat similar to the emotional "fight or flight" reaction, and is a real life saver when necessary.

But the reaction to 09/11, while justified, was a transient phenomenon; the terrorists are no great threat to America unless we allow them unrestricted freedom of action.

The real threat to the America is the leftist infiltration of our institutions. Obama has stated that the Constitution needs change, and the leftists have done everything in their power to weaken our economy, our political system, our schools, and our courts in order to effect leftist change.

Your academic construct of Hamiltononian et al. conflict is irrelevant to a discussion of Obama, who knows as little of Constitutional history and values as he does of the Austrian language. Obama's conflict is with his inner Marx, his inner Gramsci, and his need to temporize in foreign policy until his domestic program solidifies in a Marxist society and economy.

And that is why the Jacksonians are becoming emotional.

Obama, described as torn between his Jeffersonianism and his Wilsonianism, is sheer nonsense. "Split personality"? Not really! Our President is simply a narcissist. If we must compare him with other presidents: Hoover, without the humanitarian nature - governed by out-dated ideas. Better still, Lyndon Johnson, a man who chose the course of war, because he was afraid of the rabid-right. Obama will probably go back to Chicago in 2013 as Johnson to Texas in 1969, a broken man.

“Obama’s best chances for true progress for the US is to not only follow carters lead on some key issues?”

By following Carter’s lead on some key issues in order to achieve true progress; I am going to assume that you are referring to Carter’s decision to relinquish support for the Shah of Iran during the late 70’s which initiated a chain of events whose ramifications are still quite evident, despite the thirty year window. Indeed, in order for President Obama to achieve, “True Progress” for the U.S. would be to follow Carter’s lead on key issues; as Jimmy C. did both the United States and the entire global community one hell of a favor by withdrawing support for the Shah all in the name of human rights. Let me be clear as I am not arguing in favor of Shah whose rule could be characterized as extremely brutal and harsh, although it is seemingly difficult to find a word that would correctly describe the excessive behavior and treatment of the Iranian people under the rule of the Ayatollah; my focus pertains to regional geographical/geopolitical stability of the entire region of Iran and also the repercussions that extended across numerous territorial boundaries in the Middle East.

As an individual who is striving to comprehend the meaning behind the term, “True Progress”, I must inquire as to which “key issues” President Obama should adhere towards for guidance where Carter initiated the lead? At a time when there was thirteen percent inflation, twenty two percent interest rates, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Invasion in Afghanistan by the Soviets, and the collapse in Grenada, El Salvador, and Nicaragua; the decisions made during the Carter Administration offer historical accounts which expose the absence of intellect and disconnect with reality as the events which resulted due to Carter’s mindless approach towards topics of a complex nature have contributed to the notion that actions carried out during his term can only be described collectively as the greatest period of strategic stupidity in American history.

Moving forward, I will try to address this next statement without any sarcasm as I fear there is little demand……however engaging the level of ignorance as illustrated in the statement below is extremely painful; to describe this statement as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.

Before I continue I must convey my sentiments regarding Israel and Palestine since everybody continues to argue for either side depending upon their political ideology since they do not retain the right to speak for themselves. I could give a goddamn (no pun intended) less as to what the future holds for either the Israelis or Palestinians. Why you ask? It is an absolute waste of my time to even think or discuss the idea the notion that these two groups will someday come to terms as no matter how sincere and extensive the concessions proposed from either side may be; it has and never will fulfill the requirements of everyone so the fight continues. The reasoning of which I derive and adhere towards this topic has evolved due to my blatant disgust and disdain towards fundamentalist individuals Christian, Zionist and Islamic Muslim who use religion as a platform to justify taking the life of another human being. The submission below seems to access the blame entirely towards the Israeli’s…..and I’m not surprised because the hatred towards the Jews is still quite evident in European and American intellectual circles. How is that possible you ask? Well why in the hell do you think that Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat both got the global awards of which no longer have any credentials (Nobel Peace Prize)? In fact Nobel committee member Kaare Kristiansen quit rather than be party to a prize that included Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, despite all of the progress that had been made since the Holocaust it is quite evident that little has changed since WWII as hatred for the Jews is still acceptable I in Europe. An example you ask? Well I’ll be generous by categorizing the entire group as a bunch of European elitist whose arrogance and excessive sense of self entitlement is which is complimented by a complex of which can only be described as inferior due to the laughable claim that societies within Europe have experienced enlightenment above and beyond any other areas on the globe. Well, look no further than the elitist assholes at the (Gene Rodenberry inspired global utopian organization know as the U.N. under the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions,". You know, the global organization that does not respect or acknowledge any sovereign territory including the laws and culture that exist within the established territorial boundaries. And yes, the U.N. whose desire to increasingly secure power for a few global governmental officials while dictating laws, ideals, morals, etc. as they deem acceptable to nations across the globe is actually engaged proposing legislation that slowly ensures the evolution of a “Star Trek” based federation based global utopian entity whose lack of regard and respect for infringement upon indigenous cultures/ sovereign constitutions exposes a blatant violation of human rights. Forgive my rambling as the following examples should be ample evidence that exposes a bias shielding Islam within the U.N.

For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." And yes it only gets better…….. In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This cahpitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely "tragic") is in fact essential to the entire scheme.

The only term I deem appropriate to this kind of resolution which clearly exposes a blatant bias towards the Muslim community as complete and utter “Bullshit”. Yes the evidence is ample to explain reasoning that reinforces a reality that continues to exist within Europe where it appears hatred towards the Jews is still occurring at the communal level. Make no mistake as I am not a religious individual and have no allegiance or relations with the Jewish community as I would prefer that both the Israeli’s and Palestinians designate a time and place to fight it out and kill each other until no longer any member exist that utilizes religion as justification for murder. However, it is important to expose the hypocrisy associated with the self proclaimed global human rights organization (whose mission in Darfur was an abhorrent exercise in self serving recognition) whose decision to relinquish any responsibility from the faith of Islam in regards to human rights is not only unacceptable; the fact that a choice was made which communicates preference over other religious groups further exposes the U.N. for who they really are; the assholes who value political correctness over human rights. Yep, the U.N. may kiss my ass.

Claiming dependence upon Middle Eastern Oil and an association with Israel as an excuse for the occurrence of 9/11 not only illustrates a pathetic attempt to indirectly associate causation with the actions of the United States, but also exposes a choice to ignore the realities regarding causation which can only be perceived as an attempt to either be extremely lazy or blatantly dishonest.

Jimmy Carter as the president of the United States actually followed through and relinquished support for the Shah of Iran in the name of Human Rights. The ramifications of Carter’s decision include the following:

*By destabilizing the entire region, a chain of events evolved which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, all in the name of human rights.

-Extreme brutality after the arrival of the Ayatollah in Iran whose population remains oppressed over thirty years later while women continue to experience excessive human rights abuses (being stoned to death, acid poured upon the face).
-Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (This event escalated the uprising of over 100 Islamic Militant Groups during 1979 of which the most important group whose leader was incremental towards forming al-Qaeda began to influence jihad on an international scale.
-Over one hundred Islamic Groups Evolve (Islamic Nationalism as a response to arrival of Ayatollah and Soviet Invasion).
-Iran/Iraq War
-Iran Hostage Crisis (subjects were imprisoned for 444 days due to mindless approach enacted by Carter)

Dr. Abdullah Azzam-author of the monthly publication al-jihad, Join the Caravan, and The Defence of Muslim Lands

1979 Prior to establishing movement and fighting Soviets in Afghanistan; Azzam met a young student at the University of Jeddah named Osama bin Laden who would eventually mentor Dr. Azzam and initiate the evolution of al-Qaeda.

Azzam popularized the idea of a universal and international Islamic Jihad as a response to the materialism and secularism associated with both Western Capitalist societies along with the Eastern Communist.

Restoration of a global Caliphate (Restoration of the Islamic Caliphate involved the imposition of excessively strict Islamic Law, Global Islamic domination where only the Quran may be deemed as acceptable reading (Ideology did not promote free thought, human rights, reading of books, music, dance, and education for women and select children was forbidden) was the basis underlying the teachings of Azzam, and his teachings alone are responsible for developing and promoting the Modern Islamist Concept of Jihad

Dr. Azzam had espoused to this brand of Islam many years before the United States became engaged in purchasing oil from Middle Eastern countries and his brand of ideology alone evolved from the Islamic uprisings that took place in Iran (besides 19 rags from Saudi Arabia played a huge role in 9/11 as I have no respect for SA, their leaders, and don’t forget their extremely generous gift to the Tsunami victims of Sumatra where they pledged a whole 10K to victims experiencing that horrific event). 9/11 would have taken place regardless due to an infectious religious ideology whose historical background of oppression is quite evident in the events which unfolded throughout the Ottoman Empire. Should you choose to comment of a topic of such a complex nature of which I am still learning and have much more to research; I am going to ask that you at least make an effort to respond honestly (as opposed to a Michael Moore cut and paste comment).

The decisions made President Carter had drastic consequences and many individuals, especially in academic circles only choose to discuss his role with Habitat for Humanity as the reality of discussing his presidency is quite uncomfortable for individuals on both sides of the political aisle. However, there are some scholars in IR circles who are starting to entertain the chain of events I described with utmost sincerity due to the enormous ramifications that follow the utter failure of Jimmy’s extremely pathetic attempt to engage effectively within the arena of foreign affairs.

I am hopeful that Obama will not conduct his foreign policy as President Carter did, as his entire administration provides an excellent example of the harsh realities that may evolve by only adhering to the ideology of appeasment and submission of hostile governments. For the long term ramifications may remain active for periods of time which lie beyond our abilty to comprehend. Maybe one day we may actually hear our president describe these terrorist for what reality actually dictates their role as "Islamic Muslim Fanatical Fundamentalist Assholes." Yeah, only in a dream.

“Had the US followed through on Carters initiatives to massively reduce the US dependence on M.E. oil and to force the Israelis to abandon all settlements and occupation, 9/11 would still only be associated with the number one calls during emergencies. Instead, as the result of continued support of the Saudis and the far right wing of Israeli politics, we live in a constant state of emergency.

Obama is faced with the tasks of George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt -- creating new and durable structures to make progress with unprecedented problems. His wiley mind, patience, courage, and especially his brutal adventure-seeking have not yet shown themselves to even astute observers as WRM. Every great leader has psychopathic personality traits and WRM puts up CFR's smoke and mirrors approach in hinting at what President Obama might become as he grows into the role of the already-acknowledged prime world leader. Global climate change, global financial and economic interdependence, and global terrorism all work in favor of President Obama's conciliatory public style. Conditions force our awareness of common concerns, as the POTUS reminds us again and again. The world needs a leader and no one has ever had the international support Obama has evoked and built. When he takes the gloves off and orders big chance violent military action his full personality is more likely to emerge and build respect in a world where might is a prerequisite for right. How he solves the dilemna of Muslim poverty and violence will probably be indirect when new waves of technology match the needs of people and ecosystem stability. His call for Palestinian nonviolence in Cairo was clever but not convincing. His intelligence, physical health, and foreign policy leadership are likely to exceed both Washington and Roosevelt. The Copenhagen Five have already replaced the Trilateral Commission. No Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, or Wilson could have done that.

"Obama seeks a quiet world in order to focus his efforts on domestic reform". Translation: Obama sees the rest of the world as an annoying distraction from the massive government takeover of all aspects of society.

"Syria and Iran don't need to become democratic states for the United States to reach long-term, mutually beneficial arrangements with them. And it is North Korea's policies, not the character of its regime, that pose a threat to the Pacific region." If we accept the Nazis as an alternative style of government, we can make deals with them.

It's a charitable assessment of Obama FP, but I don't buy it. Sideshow theory fits better, when time after time the Prince paints himself into a corner like an amateur - or one who doesn't really care. Dead wrong on Honduras; dead wrong on Iran; dead wrong on Russia; quite possibly dead wrong on Afghanistan, etc. History shows great powers are either defeated of worn down. They don't just shrug and say "never mind". I can think of no reason that China will be anything but a competitor by any & all means. Maybe pumping air back into the Russia balloon can be called a Russia card against China, but they're way ahead of us in dealing w/Russia already. We're just creating problems elsewhere. How can we just blow hot air while Iran becomes a theater, if not strategic, power? What's the plan there? Regimes that mass-murder their people and proliferate nukes are going to become rational actors if we engage them correctly.

The freedom agenda was a good one. Too bad we have to wait now for Obama to reconcile his inner Jefferson. By that time, we may have a an unstoppable Iran, a Russia empowered to make trouble, a China that owns half the world and South America? - who knows, we've abdicated.

Obama doesn't need much of a foreign policy doctrine. He has Hillary Clinton to run the show. That being said, he should probably take a more active role in international affairs if he doesn't want a reputation for being an airstash.

So fighting dirty and killing lots of civilians seems to remind me of Sand Creek and the Trail of Tears among a long history of such things which is why we have little voice with China regarding Tibet. We could recommend others do better than us and declare their Indigneous ethnic cultures of all kinds National or International Cultural Tresures and protect and preserve some real and extensive territory for their own ethnic identity rather than being submerged in a melting pot but we have hardly done that ourselves.

It might be worth noting the Carter Brzezenski finding in 1979 to support the terrorists in Afghanistan and the torment that nation has suffered for 30 years plus the blowback from our cynical covert cold war morality that now has those same forces gone rogue against us and wonder where we went wrong in their upbringing?

We might wonder about nationalist business interests in the era of multi-national corporations and wonder whose interests we are sacrificing lives for and spending massive tax dollars on so they can off-shore to escape our taxes.

We might conder about the entire matrix of nationalistic interest in a global world of interdependence on a finite world. We may want to begin thinking about the benefit of the entire system rather than just our little piece of the pie. We ought to think about all nations need to learn to live within the means of our planet and of the environmental and other impacts that are mutually beneficial.

We may even want to reconsider our entire philosophical ideology for the 21st century that places lots less emphasis of the effecitiveness of war to do anything but create more grievances to give rise to the next war. We may even question whether war ever brings peace at all.

Wemay even want to think about how we could be the cause of our own extinction if we can't learn how to live effectively on our tiny jewel of life called Earth.

Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, Jan 7, 2010 06:08 EST
More cause and effect in our ever-expanding "war"
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

If it is taboo to discuss how America's actions in the Middle East cause Terrorism -- and it generally is -- that taboo is far stronger still when it comes to specifically discussing how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels Terrorism directed at the U.S. An article in yesterday's New York Times examined the life of Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian who blew himself up, along with 7 CIA agents, in Afghanistan this week. Why would Balawi -- a highly educated doctor, who was specifically recruited by Jordanian intelligence officials to infiltrate Al Qaeda on behalf of Western governments -- want to blow himself up and murder as many American intelligence agents as possible? The article provides this possible answer:

He described Mr. Balawi as a "very good brother" and a "brilliant doctor," saying that the family knew nothing of Mr. Balawi’s writings under a pseudonym on jihadi Web sites. He said, however, that his brother had been "changed" by last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

An Associated Press discussion of the possible motives of accused Christmas Day airline attacker Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab contained this quite similar passage (h/t Casual Observer):

Students and administrators at the institute said Abdulmutallab was gregarious, had many Yemeni friends and was not overtly extremist. They noted, however, he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza.

When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of Al Qaeda announced earlier this year that they were unifying into "Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula," they prominently featured rhetoric railing against the Israeli attack on Gaza, and "presented their campaign as part of the struggle to liberate Palestine, since Israel and the Crusaders are one." So extreme is anger towards Israel over Gaza among Yemenis that even that country's President -- our supposed ally in the War on Terror -- called for the opening of camps to train fighters against Israel in Gaza. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta signed his "martyr's will" from Al Qaeda on the day in 1996 when Israel attacked Lebanon, and he did so due to "outrage" over that attack. There's just no question that the U.S.'s loyal enabling of (and support for) Israel's various wars with its Muslims neighbors contributes to terrorist attacks directed at Americans.

As always whenever the words "Israel" and/or "Terrorism" are mentioned, there is a severe danger of over-simplification and distortion from all sides, rendering several caveats in order: where U.S. support for Israel is a cause of anti-American Islamic extremism, it is generally not the only or even primary cause, but one of several; there is ample American interference and violence in the Muslim world that is quite independent of Israel, and that was true long before 9/11 and especially after. Al Qaeda leaders who actually care little about the Palestinian cause have a history of exploiting that issue to generate public support. The fact that Terrorists object to Policy X does not prove that Policy X should be discontinued. And most of all: to discuss causes of Terrorism is not to imply justification; one can seek to understand what we do to fuel Terrorism without suggesting that the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians is in any way legitimate or justified.

Despite all that, it's impossible to grow accustomed to the extreme fantasy atmosphere and self-absorbed blindness that pervades American discussions over Terrorism, especially in the wake of a new scare. The Right, seeking as always to exploit Terrorism fears, falsely accuses Obama of not displaying "war" language and a "war" mentality, in response to which he and his aides step forward to affirm -- yet again -- that WE ARE AT WAR!, and to point to all of the times Obama decreed this to be so and all of the war actions he has ordered. So we've spent the last decade screaming to the world that WE ARE AT WAR!, that we're a War Nation, that we're led by a War President. That we are "at war" -- not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but generally against Islamic extremists -- is an absolute bipartisan orthodoxy that must be affirmed by all Serious people. And we are currently waging some form of actual war in no fewer than five predominantly Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia); are threatening Iran with "crippling" sanctions and -- from our more deranged quarters -- war; and continuing our unbroken devotion to Israel's causes.

Yet even in the face of all of that, it is bewilderment and confusion that reign when our media stars and political figures talk about attempts to attack Americans. Why would they possibly want to do this? They must be crazy, or drunk with religious fervor, or consumed by blinding, inhumane hatred. Much of that is probably true for individuals willing to blow themselves up in order to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible. But it's equally irrational to think that you're going to spend a full decade bellowing WE ARE AT WAR! to the world, send bombs and troops and all forms of death to multiple Muslim countries (both directly and through Israel), and not have that directed back at us. That's what happens when a country is "at war" -- it doesn't just get to blow up things and people in other countries, but its own things and people sometimes get blown up as well. That's how "war" works.

It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?

The principal problem is that by pretending that we do nothing to fuel Islamic radicalism, we stay unaware -- blissfully ignorant -- of the staggering costs of our actions. I defy anyone to find a political figure in either major party's leadership who has, in the context of discussing U.S. policy towards Israel, ever even mentioned the fact that undying, endless American support for Israel -- making all of their conflicts our own -- increases the risk of terrorist violence aimed at the U.S. But it so plainly does. The fact that Israel is now explicitly vowing that its "next wars" against its Muslim neighbors will be "much harsher" than even the grotesque atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon means these costs are almost certain to increase even further.

Again, these facts do not, standing alone, prove that we ought to change these policies. The mere fact that Islamic radicals object to what we do does not prove we should stop, as there may be net benefits to those actions or they may be morally justifiable. But at the very least, rational discussions require that these costs and benefits be weighed, and that can only happen if we acknowledge the costs. But when it comes to our own actions in the Muslim world, and especially our undying devotion to supporting everything Israel does, acknowledging the costs (to say nothing of the morality) is exactly what we steadfastly refuse to do.

UPDATE: Today's Haaretz -- in an article headlined: "Report: Al-Qaida CIA bomber was furious over Gaza war" -- also reports: "The Jordanian national that attacked a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, killing 7 CIA agents, was furious over the Israel's Gaza offensive, the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported on Thursday." Phil Weiss asks about the connection between America's Israel policy and Terrorist attacks aimed at the U.S.: "I wonder how long the mainstream media will continue to treat this angle as a sidelight and not a main event"? Actually, treating it as a "sidelight" would be an upgrade from what they do now: ignore it completely and pretend it doesn't exist. As usual, these discussions can appear more freely in Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than they can in American ones.

UPDATE II: The Yemeni government today warned that any direct U.S. military action in that country "could bolster the popularity of Islamic militants" and "would strengthen Al Qaeda." For reasons that should be obvious, that's how it works: not only in Yemen, but generally.

UPDATE III: Time reports that Balawi (the Jordanian doctor) had been a genuine intelligence asset for the U.S., working to help the U.S. find and bomb Al Qaeda sites, but was completely transformed at some point into an Al Qaeda sympathizer and ultimately a suicide bomber who killed 7 CIA agents. Part of the reason for the conversion? Because of "his outrage at the high number of civilian casualties inflicted in the resulting strikes"; he "had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders." Relatedly, Spencer Ackerman notes that Balawi's Internet writings reflect a growing commitment to violence due to American and Israeli attacks on Muslims ("They have not left any excuse for any Muslim with a hint of honor to remain hesitant and accept the shame of staying away from the honor of participating in jihad").

Just contemplate how many Balawis there are in the world: Muslims who begin with sympathy towards the U.S. and hostility towards Al Qaeda who are completely transformed into the opposite as a result of the constant civilian death we and Israel bring (regardless of intent) to that part of the world.

My main object to Mead's article has to do with framing the discussion in terms of previous president's policies. This type of artificial framework can blind an administration to facts and information that may not fall within the framework.

While I enjoy history as a discipline, judging the present day realities against the situations from the past, at best can only help us to not repeat previous mistakes -- it seldom helps us to decide what to do. Regardless if one wants to frame the US being "nipped to pieces" by the Visi Goths or the Minutemen, this really does not tell us anything we do not know.

Thus trying early on to determine if a President is "Jeffersonian" or "Jacksonian" or "Wilsonian" while amusing, is not ultimately useful.

The president is suffering "presidential schizophrenia".

So, maybe it's a psychiatric pathology when a president changes his mind, and decides to redouble America efforts after actually seeing the sausages being made, from inside the factory. Or maybe it's the kind of hot air that wears a reader out, unless he enjoys floating on it.

It's not the simple case, this war, is it?

Iraqistan is not America against the British, or those Axis rats with a clear cut parade of evils. It's complicated, like card counting, with 15 decks, which is the way the publicly traded casinos deal now. What percentage of the comments here see a clear cut case, or agree with one another?

Andrew Jackson, the bank buster, delivered everything he promised. By that measure, he was one of the great. But a Fox watcher?

I can't picture Jackson watching any of it for more than 49 seconds, with their daily defenses of the chain of being. I think maybe Ron Paul, because his Nikes fit, even if he sounds like he is waiting for the Hale-Bopp comet sometimes.

Hamilton not only wrote everything Washington ever said (including his farewell address) but negotiated our first giant bond offering, which financed America's birth. By contrast, GHW Bush negotiated the financing of a few things too, but it was not quite the simple case of selling treasuries to the Flemish to fund the birth of a great nation.

They are more like the kind of complicated episodes of American history I try not to think about (ie, President McKinley's end run around congress in the PI, or say, Theodore Roosevelt's position paper on an Oil pipeline to Japan).

GHW's secret service name is "Timberwolf". His dealings used to make my nose bleed. And they don't really seem to lend themselves to handy dandy comparisons with Alexander Hamilton, not even remotely.

Wilson, like Carter had a PhD. He was all for the better international diplomacy, as complicated as Carter's three way hand shake. If only we could all sit down together, for the photographers, maybe we could agree to end tyranny, poverty and self dealing around the world with canards about democracy.

Wilson and Carter didn't need to raise capital to finance an international police action against Wildcat nations, which is the boat this President is steering, as three shipping containers of left shoes leave Venice to meet their counterparts in a warehouse, somewhere beyond customs.

Again, these presidential profiles seem less useful than their worth, like the dime store psychiatric diagnosis in political conversations. Don't get me wrong, I think thumbnail portraits of these presidents would be excellent on 12oz glasses with every purchase of a Happy Meal, anywhere on earth, but for pigeonholing a sitting president of any stripe? I'm not drinking.

Thanks for the exercise.

I'm supporting wut eva Barack Obama did since it was much more better that
the previous president. May be there are some corruption here and there
but as we all know we are not perfect. He had been controlled by the council
in everything.

perniagaan internet

I'm supporting wut eva Barack Obama did since it was much more better that
the previous president. May be there are some corruption here and there
but as we all know we are not perfect. He had been controlled by the council
in everything.

perniagaan internet

I can think of numerous cases of targeting Indian civiilian women and children now that you mention it.
I also wonder about those Embsssy hostages in Iran that made Carter look bad but were released on the day Reagan took office.
I also look forward to the day solar panels go back up on the White House.
I regret the funding of freedom fighter fundamentalists to lure Russia into Afghanistan that Carter signed off on.
I wonder just how activist a foreign military example we are setting for China and India to pursue and hope they don't take the western colonial imperialist view too much to heart.