The number of personnel under the authority of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will swell from 8,000 to about 16,000 as the troop presence is drawn down, a State Department official told The Huffington Post. "About 10 percent would be core programmatic staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors -- and 50 percent security," he said.Please let's not pretend this is just something countries do. Do the British have a fortified embassy the size of the Vatican in downtown Kuala Lumpur? No, because they actually left
No, actually, I don't remember.Shift that window on the legislative side and empower him to enact the policies you think he has failed to deliver on.He had that going into office, remember?
“For Barack Obama and his national security team, the simultaneous fall of Sirte and the death of Muammar al-Qaddafi provide an important punctuation mark in their successful initiative to support Libyan rebels and bring an end to an odious dictatorship.posted by ericb at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2011 [9 favorites]
The political benefits that accrue to the president at home will be modest. Domestic issues command the attention of American voters. What's more, the president's Republican opponents don't want to talk foreign-policy very much. And with good reason. The president's record is for the most part too good to take issue with.
The president came into office promising to get the United States out of a disliked war in Iraq and has kept the promise. He came in promising to shift the focus to Afghanistan and finishing the business of decapitating al Qaeda. He did both. Bin Laden is dead. And we are committed to coming home from Afghanistan, too. While the administration's response to the first stirrings of rebellion in the Middle East -- in Iran -- was muddled and late, the overall approach has been constructive and the Libya chapter will stand out as a gamble that worked. Restoring relations with our European allies, engineering the ‘pivot’ in priorities to Asia cited by Secretary of State Clinton, and the recognition of the growing importance of dealing with emerging powers are all additional positive developments that are a credit to the president and his team.
But more important than any political benefits that accrue to the president as a result of this successful outcome to the Libya effort is that it brings into focus an important shift in U.S. national security strategy, a doctrine that stands alongside Clinton's ‘pivot’ as one of the signature contributions of Obama and his security policymakers. Indeed, although I am reluctant to throw around the term ‘doctrine’ because it has become devalued through overuse, I believe it puts into focus what can and should be identified as the Obama Doctrine.
… The Obama Doctrine, while also grounded in the idea that we must exhaust every other means of advancing our national interest, is responding to the lessons of a different unpopular war, in this case, Iraq. It is a reaction against the use of ‘overwhelming force’ to achieve rather narrow (not to mention dubious) goals. It is an antidote to ‘shock and awe,’ ‘three trillion dollar wars’ and unilateral conventional invasions if they can possibly be avoided.
Whereas the Bush administration engaged in an open checkbook approach to a global ‘war on terror’ (a perversion of the Powell doctrine that was especially uncomfortable for Powell himself to watch unfold), Obama's approach -- in fighting terror, getting Bin Laden, assisting with the ouster of Qaddafi, and elsewhere -- has been not only to cast aside the term ‘war on terror’ but also the strategies and tactics of massive ground war.”*
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything, in the context of the discussion.This is less than the 60% needed to break a filibuster, and the Republicans have effectively turned "breaking the filibuster" into a normal step needed in getting a bill passed into law.Weapon of mass procedural destruction
...I figure, Iran's next, the mullahs are ripe for a fall. Egypt's probably next after that. Jordan, Syria will see the writing on the wall and start behaving like grownups; saudi arabia will renew their support for the US, as will Kuwait, allowing time for whoever is in charge to sort out the Israel-Palestine thing - Bush Jr and Co. might very well be handing Kerry the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 or so. Both will be grateful to the US for solving their problems. And thus, we end up with a defanged, reasonably democratic middle east which retains Islam in a more peaceful, more secular form and reduces the ability of terrorists to acquire succor and support.Times have changed. Hard to think of anyone who would support the concept that the invasion was a good idea now.
Plus, of course, there's the minor detail of the giant overpaid mercenary army that's replacing the regular US army as the occupation forces in Iraq and apparently going to double in size.This is potentially a misleading way of phrasing the facts (I'm not accusing you of being intentionally misleading).
Article 24 [International organizations]posted by Jahaza at 3:08 PM on October 21, 2011 [2 favorites]
(1) The Federation may by a law transfer sovereign powers to international organizations.
(1a) Insofar as the Länder are competent to exercise state powers and to perform state functions, they may, with the consent of the Federal Government, transfer sovereign powers to transfrontier institutions in neighboring regions.
(2) With a view to maintaining peace, the Federation may enter into a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it shall consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a lasting peace in Europe and among the nations of the world.
(3) For the settlement of disputes between states, the Federation shall accede to agreements providing for general, comprehensive, and compulsory international arbitration.
Play all the word games you like, but in 2007 the public voted to give the Democrat Party control of the legislative and executive branches, and the Democrats failed to exercise the power they were given.
Fort Hood officials said the civilian police officers will be replaced with military police soldiers, or MPs, in a sign that the wartime posture of the Army's busiest deployment hub is slowing down. Officials said Fort Hood increased hiring of civilian officers in 2003 as military police soldiers were increasingly deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, a trend that is reversing.No one is denying that the U.S. has troops in Africa, but you won't be able to provide any evidence that the number is anything like what we have in Iraq even now.
"As more MP soldiers are available at Fort Hood, we return to the use of MPs for law enforcement," Christopher Zimmer, deputy director for the Directorate of Emergency Services at Fort Hood, said in a statement. "Though the number of (civilian police officers) working on Fort Hood is reducing, there are more than enough MPs available to perform law enforcement duties, so Fort Hood will continue to be a safe place to live and work."
« Older Ranked: Films about the Ongoing Financial Crisis... | 48 hours. 120 developers. One ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pastabagel at 10:24 AM on October 21, 2011 [6 favorites]