Power And Dollar

Obama’s Public Administration Philosophy

No polling result is available to serve as a reaction gauge to Obama’s Afghanistan deployment speech.  Obama was an anti war candidate.  Now he is making a deployment decision.  Is he contradicting himself?  What is he after?  What does it mean to us?

He is after his re-election, as every politician is.  Having said that, what also went on in his mind must have been the 2010 mid-term election, although he knew (and everyone else knew) that Democrats will lose seats in that election since all president lose seats in the first term’s mid-term elections. 

War is expensive.  Unemployment is still high.  He acknowledges with Eisenhower’s quote very well that “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”  After all, war is still a budget item. 

He is not appeasing his own base.  That is for sure.  Is he reaching middle ground?  Considering a much greater proportion of rural area voters have military ties, having a higher expense on military could be Obama’s way to secure a wider base.  But at the expense of sending more people to battle field?

Obama’s speech stresses on one point to justify his approach to this war: the primary nation of nation-building exercise is his own nation.  Will the rural electorate see this as a venue to reward Obama’s core constituency, the urbanites?  Of course, this will be dictated by what Obama will do with the resources or energy freed up by this management approach.

This Eisenhoweran philosophy is simply a reflection of budget constraint.  This is consistent with Nancy Pelosi approach to this portfolio item: war tax.  If you want it, then pay for it.  If you do not want to pay for it, then you probably don’t think it is worth it.  Will the war tax actually fly?  Hard to say.  However, if this Eisenhoweran approach to military conflict will be applied consistently over time and therefore will establish a new foreign policy doctrine, then this war tax idea will eventually take roots.  That will establish another kind of precedence: purpose dedicated tax.  Not that purpose dedicated tax is completely new since social security is funded by a dedicated tax as well.  However, this war tax will definitely take this idea to the next level. 

This is what affects us the most.  America is facing a fiscal crisis and will continue to face a fiscal crisis for decades to come even after paying down the costs incurred by the Bush’s Iraq war, Bush’s Afghanistan war and now Obama’s Afghanistan war, because of the expecting expenses for baby boomers.  Due to this budget constraint, conflicts different interests group will compete harder for this federal budget.  Purpose dedicated tax will then be the weapon for different groups to secure their own funding, especially for new issues, such as green issues. 

If Obama will be employing Eisenhower approach and Pelosi will be playing her cards, they will create a new policy management philosophy that will last long beyond their political accomplishments.

Advertisements

December 3, 2009 Posted by | activism, advocacy, Afghanistan, america politics, Current Events, Election 2010, opinion, politics, US politics, wordpress-political-blogs | Leave a comment

Why Can’t America Happy Talk With Pakistan And Save 2010 Election?

Did anyone foresee that US-India relationship has an impact in 2010 election?  Or that it may cost $20B annually?  US Secretary of State Clinton is visiting Pakistan for three days to have a frank and open discussion and is in no time to have a “happy talk”.  Pakistan is the most important ally to US in the anti-terrorism war.  Therefore, US should be happy to have such an important ally and Pakistan should happy to see it is an important ally to the most powerful country on earth.  What made this strong Pakistan-US relationship to the point where there is no time for happy talk?  What sours the relationship?  Is US able to fix it?  Is US going to find a new friend?

The sore point is about the future of Afghanistan.  US want to remove terrorist heaven in the area and be done with it.  The core interest of Pakistan is its relations with India.  The US’ version of the Afghanistan future is not advancing Pakistan’s interests with India. 

Pakistan, relative to India, has no strategic depth.  Of all its fronts, Afghanistan is the only front where Pakistan can develop, cultivate and incorporate as Pakistan’s back.  That was why Pakistan would have supported US’ interests in Afghanistan during the Soviet Union’s Afghanistan invasion and created resistance forces where Pashtuns, Pakistanis cousins, had the controlling stakes.  If US’ version of Afghanistan is to dilute the influence of Pashtuns, open Afghanistan to more international players (say India) or US itself develops a stronger ties with India and marginalizes Pakistan as a result, then this ally relationship may not be simply a bargaining chip for Pakistan, but actually may become contrary to the self interest of Pakistan. 

US have developed an undisputable interest with India in the eyes of Pakistan.  Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons (not just capability, unlike Israel).  However, US scold Pakistan and promise to assist India to develop civilian nuclear abilities (Hyde Act).  Of course, US see India as a counter weight to China.  However, in doing so, US are compromising its anti-terrorism objective by alienating Pakistan. 

If India serving as a counter weight to China is more important than losing Pakistan, then can US find a replacement ally in the area to fight terrorism?  Ironically, the only player adjacent to Afghanistan available in the area is China.  All other countries are either unavailable (Is Iran available?  At what price?) or they have their own problems to deal with, say Turkmenistan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan.  Do these countries listen more to Russia or China since they love their Shanghai Organization so much?  Do US want to invite China to extend its influence to Afghanistan?  Or have US ever invited China to play in Afghanistan?  Can US impose this arrangement to Pakistan, i.e. can US tell Pakistan to fight a war and strengthen Pakistan’s nemesis at the same time?  Worse, what if this arrangement actually is eroding the supporting base of the Pakistan governing elite?

More likely than not, Clinton’s trip means this relationship management has gone beyond the authorities of Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.  If this frank and open discussion is meant to be a give and take negotiation, then we can wait and see if a resolution will come.  If this frank and open discussion is meant for Pakistan to rant and move on to live with this arrangement, then this military campaign in Afghanistan will drag on as other NATO allies plan to return home.  If Clinton’s trip is meant to facilitate Obama’s final decision on Afghanistan’s troop level, then considering its fiscal policy consequences and electoral consequences in 2010 and possibly 2012, Clinton is actually carrying one heavy responsibility.

October 30, 2009 Posted by | Afghanistan, Current Events, election, Election 2010, Hillary Clinton, India, politics, wordpress-political-blogs | 1 Comment