Three developments outside the borders of the United States in the past week that have received less publicity than the economic crisis and other national problems are listed below:
- Iran launched its first satellite into orbit, demonstrating that its missile technology, with all its inescapable military implications, is inching forward.
- Pakistan freed A.Q. Khan, the creator of the Pakistani nuclear bomb and the seller of nuclear secrets to unsavory characters around the world.
- The government of Kyrgyzstan, likely acting in concert with its Russian benefactors, ordered the closure of a crucial American air base in its country, robbing the U.S. of a key facility in the struggle to contain the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan.
These developments abroad seem to be quite unwelcome. The launch of the satellite by Iran can be attributed to coincidence. The other two occurrences may be a result of something more intentional and possibly sinister.
The freedom of A.Q. Khan could be considered troubling. The concurrent launch of the satellite by Iran, which proves the advance of the military technology of Iran, and the release of a seller of nuclear secrets could cause unrest from Americans. There is no evidence that Khan has any intention of even contacting anyone in Iran; however the process of his release is questionable. The Pakistani government has decided not to appeal the decision of his release, which was classified by the article as “perplexing.” Also, it is not the case that Iran is likely to take offensive action against the United States so there is little need for any immediate worry.
The circumstances surrounding the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan is definitely poses the most severe problem. It is far more likely that this was an act against America than the other two; it is unlikely coincidence that as soon as President Obama wished to send more troops there, the based was closed. It is also unlikely a coincidence that the $2 billion that Russia handed the Krygyz government is unrelated.
The release of Khan and the closure of the American air base in Kyrgyzstan could be a reflection on the Obama administration. It could be perceived that Obama is less likely to take immediate military action than the Bush administration, which is why Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan waited to take action. Vice President Biden has declared that the new administration will take the time to talk, and to consult (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/07/8375/). Whether these occurrences are coincidence or a reflection on the Obama administration is up to interpretation and remains to be seen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123421528140065101.html
3 comments:
President Barack Obama has run his entire campaign with the idea that change is coming to America and all that America has an effect on. He has encouraged the nation with glimpses of "hope" and improvement, promising to lead us to a brighter time. Obama is looking to create an environment in which he can "talk it out" and find a solution to the international problems through peace. When one considers this, it becomes difficult to acknowledge the fact that people with seemingly evil motives can be reasoned with. The problem is this: we have already tried to go about things the other way, and failed in the act.
Though I do not consider myself as unhappy with the Bush presidency as most, it is undeniable that he has made some mistakes in dealing with situations like the release of A.Q. Khan. We have already tried the "brute force" method, engaging in a war that has left us with few answers and saddening death toll. Like most, I was very supportive of Bush and his efforts on terror after the tragedy of 9/11. Nobody knew what was to happen to the country. But now, years later, we are forced to acknowledge that some things just have not worked.
In times where the strategy of the United States concerning these development needs to be questioned, we have landed upon a leader who has promised to rethink and is doing just that. Faith in Obama will undoubtedly be tested when issues such as the above arise. A Democrat in office can certainly be seen as the incorrect person to do what is necessary to protect the country...but a Republican was already proven wrong in his ways.
Iran's satellite could be the least troublesome of the three issues. Technology will advance and we simply cannot restrict that. A watchful eye and peaceful talks are what I expect from the Obama administration, and also what I would like to see.
In the case of A.Q. Khan, we know that he will not be detained in Guantanamo Bay, but this does not mean he will not and should not be monitored. The sale of nuclear weapons, it goes without saying, is a dangerous thing, especially to America. Talks with Pakistan are absolutely necessary, and an agreement of sorts should be made to "keep an eye" on Khan. Both sides will be expected to give a little in a compromise to do what is necessary to prevent any further negative action from Khan.
Short of invading, there is not much that can be done about the closing of the base in Kyrgyzsktan. A peaceful (popular word in this comment) exit may make a statement to the world. Along with the closing of Guantanamo Bay, this exit would show the ways of the new administration, hopefully mending some fences along the way.
Having said all of this, it is sad but true that this is all too idealistic. I do not wish to abandon Obama's efforts to make peace and act morally, but complete trust is something that can hardly be given out when the security of 300 million people is in limbo. We, as a nation, need to support Obama in his new, peaceful ways. But we should also expect a plan from him should things go the worst. Obama's actions thus far have been extremely admirable and a breath of fresh air, but every caution needs to be taken to protect the country. At the end of the day, the men, women, and children of America are in the hands of the President. Bush's plan to protect did not work out, so Obama has earned the right to step in. However, should things get out of control, I hope he has the ability to take the necessary action to maintain some equilibrium.
In closing, I support and trust Obama in his ways but truly hope that he has a Plan B ready if the situation calls for it.
“Short of invading, there is not much that can be done about the closing of the base in Kyrgyzsktan. A peaceful (popular word in this comment) exit may make a statement to the world. Along with the closing of Guantanamo Bay, this exit would show the ways of the new administration, hopefully mending some fences along the way.”
Options with a likely success rate are definitely very limited. The Kyrgyz government’s stance seems unchangeable, thus, exit seems necessary. While this will “make a statement,” what that statement is seems unclear.
The most favorable option is that people will sympathize with the United States and wish to offer aid and support. Perhaps people will consider the exit by the U.S. noble and an act worthy of praise. It may work to assuage some of the anger and mistrust felt by some toward the Bush administration and in turn the country. It is definitely possible for exit to be viewed differently.
Exit could be viewed as weakness on the part of the United States. It could prompt further negative action to be taken against the military and in turn the U.S. President Obama cannot afford to be viewed as an easy target by other nations.
Whether it will “mend fences” or not definitely remains to be seen. But, however it is viewed, exit is inevitable. Because invading is not a feasible option and the Kyrgyz government does not appear to have any intention of reopening Manas, an alternative must be found:
Obama obviously has to respond to the closing of the base in Kyrgyzstan. The closure may have been a contributing factor to a delay of his announcement of his policy for Afghanistan. As stated in the initial post, Obama wishes to move more troops into Afghanistan. He now needs to find another method, and has found it with Russia.
“Moscow has sent out increasingly broad offers to open its territory for transport. Last week Russia's foreign minister even dangled the possibility of transporting weaponry to Afghanistan.”
This development from Moscow further contributes to the idea that the $2 billion in aid to Kyrgyzstan was very much related to the closure of the base. If this is taken to be true, Russia created a problem and then offered a solution at cost to the United States. The closure of Manas is effectively a decision made by Russia by offering the impoverished region (Kyrgyzstan) money. Now the United States effort to increase military in Afghanistan will have to go through Russia. In addition to being political, the decision is also based on economics.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-russia-afghan16-2009feb16,0,3680411.story
At this point we have agreed that the closing of the base Kyrgyzstan is the most important of the issues listed in the initial post. Questions followed this closing in abundancy: what will Obama do?...how will his actions be perceived? We cannot answer the second question with certainty, but it appears Obama has given us some of the answer to the first question. President Obama has begun addressing the international issues with his act of sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. Take a second to consider that. About 36,000 troops are there now, this would be just about a 50% increase.
In a somewhat surprising turn of events, Obama is treating the war on terror more closely to Bush than some of us may have imagined. I had heard rumbles that the decision on Afghanistan would be delayed and that the eventual figure of troops sent in would be 10,000 or less. A whopping 17,000 is quite a statement by Obama. He is proving to the world that he and his administration need not be considered weak. When he sees fit, he will engage in military action.
Additionally, in the articles I have read, there has been no mention of Russia. It looks as though Obama has completely bypassed the Russians and their ploy and hopes to flood Afghanistan with troops directly, instead of using Russia as a base.
This is perhaps a dangerous move by Obama, as he will undoubtedly be perceived by some as abandoning the peaceful talk approach in favor of a strikingly Bush-like strategy. According to the New York Times, Obama said the deployment is “necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”
All things considered, this is a strong answer by Obama to the both the situation presented by Russia and a good way to proclaim that America will stand strong. As an American citizen, I want my president to take necessary the measures to protect my nation. Earlier I spoke of Obama's plan to talk peacefully and also his need to have a plan B. This deployment will still allow Obama to do the talking for which he is known, while also maintaining an attitude that America will not be pushed around. In addressing the concerns that Obama will lead a weak America, the President can lead a strong and sensible nation. Should his talking fall through, he can rely on a military presence to protect those in need. In short, President Barack Obama can still lead the country in the moral and just way that he described throughout his campaign and even the closing of Guantanamo Bay, but he has shown that he can take necessary military action. This was more about showing the world he can deal with international issues in two ways, should the situation call for it. That is a good quality to have as President of the United States.
Post a Comment