Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Today starts our second subscription drive of the year.  I don't mind saying that it's critically important.  After two years of explosive growth, our subscription program slowed in our third year and has leveled off.  This must change if we are to maintain our service at our current level, and expand.  What we can do in the future will depend heavily on subscriptions and contributions.

As a subscriber or donator you become a member of our Angel's Corner, which features one of the best forums on the web, where you get a chance to write on anything you wish and see it published.  The Forum, sent by e-mail twice a week, has become our most popular feature and gets the greatest response.  We have readers with remarkable levels of expertise.

And, as a subscriber or donator, you help keep Urgent Agenda going.  We are gratified by the number of readers who tell us that this is the first place they go every day. 

So, we need subscriptions and donations.  If you like what you see, please go to the right-hand column on this page, right opposite these words.  You can do everything through PayPal.  If you don't like PayPal, alert us and we'll give you a traditional mailing address.

Only you can guarantee the future of Urgent Agenda.  Please do so.

MAY 18,  2011

SPEAKING OF POLLS AND THE PRESIDENCY – AT 11:28 P.M. ET:  No matter how many times he says he's not running, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is repeatedly mentioned by the Great Mentioner, and is the choice of many Republicans looking for a dynamic candidate.

But Christie is running into some headwinds at home.  He's a great governor, and great governors – those who make the tough decisions – will make enemies.  He has a hard-charging personality that may not wear well over time.  From the New York Post:

TRENTON, N.J. -- For the first time in over a year, the ranks of New Jersey residents who disapprove of Gov. Chris Christie have surpassed those who approve of his performance, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

Public opinion on the Republican governor remains closely divided. According to a new poll from Monmouth University/NJ Press Media, 47 percent of New Jersey residents approve of Christie while 49 percent disapprove -- a gap well within the poll's margin of error.

But the trendlines show the governor holding steady with supporters while undecided residents are moving into the anti-Christie camp. Since Monmouth's last poll, conducted in February, disapproving respondents swelled by nine percentage points. Those with no opinion dropped by seven points.

COMMENT:  This will not dent the enthusiasm for Christie among national Republicans, but it is a warning sign.  Most Americans don't know Christie, and his very un-presidential style – some would say it's boxing ring lite – may turn off those unfamiliar with the superb manner in which he's tackled New Jersey's problems.

May 18, 2011       Permalink 

GUTSY OR NOT GUTSY, THAT IS THE QUESTION – AT 9:07 P.M. ET:  The hype machine that went into action after the bin Laden raid described President Obama's decision to approve the raid as a "gutsy call," this apparently to portray the commander-in-chief as a bit tougher than your average community organizer.  But many Americans beg to differ, as Fox reports in a new poll: 

American voters are evenly divided over how tough a decision it was for President Barack Obama to order a Navy Seal raid on Usama bin Laden’s Pakistan compound this month.

In fact, while 48 percent of voters think signing off on the raid was a “gutsy move” by Obama, some 49 percent think it was a “no-brainer” decision any president would have made under the circumstances.

By two-to-one Democrats are more likely to think the decision to go after bin Laden was a gutsy move (65-33 percent). For Republicans it’s the reverse -- they are more than twice as likely to call it a no-brainer (69-28 percent).

Independent voters are more likely to say it wasn’t such a big deal than to see it as a gutsy call (52-43 percent).
These are just some of the findings from a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

However, the president's overall rating has improved, showing how tough it will be to bring him down in next year's election.

Overall, President Obama’s job performance ratings have improved since the killing of bin Laden. Currently 55 percent of voters approve and 41 percent disapprove. Before the raid, 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved (25-27 April 2011).

The president’s job rating jumped not only among Democrats and independents, but also among GOP voters. Some 19 percent of Republicans approve of the president’s performance in the new poll, up from 11 percent (April 25-27). Obama received a similar bump among his party faithful, as 88 percent of Democrats approve, up from 80 percent previously.

Among independents voters the president’s approval climbed 5 percentage points to 43 percent. Still, nearly half of independents -- 49 percent -- disapprove.

COMMENT:  The fact is, presidents have at their disposal the power to make decisions and take actions that can improve their poll ratings, sometimes enough to win an election.  This president, trained in Chicago politics, knows that elections are about winning, not about theoretical positions. 

His ratings are likely to settle down after the bin Laden glow runs its course.  But don't be surprised if the Obama political operation has other tricks to pull.  Contrast please with a Republican Party trying to find a candidate who can arouse some enthusiasm instead of mild approval.  There are 308 million people in America.  There's got to be someone.  If he's underage, we can use makeup and lighting.

May 18, 2011       Permalink

GREAT WORK – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  We love to celebrate American achievement here.  And one of the great corporate achievements in recent memory is the resurrection of Apple Computer.  The company was dying only 15 years ago, before it brought back its co-founder, Steve Jobs, and let him dream. 

Now Apple is considered one of the leading American brand names.  And nothing symbolizes that better than the Apple Store, which will be ten years old tomorrow.

(CNN) -- It started with one store at Tysons Corner Center in Virginia, just outside of Washington.
Ten years and more than 300 stores later, it's become a retailing venture unique in the world of consumer electronics.

The Apple retail store, the stylized and shiny public face of the Cupertino, California-based gadget giant, turns 10 on Thursday.

It's a marketing strategy that few other companies could pull off, analysts say -- one powered as much by Apple's heralded (some would say overhyped) focus on style and presentation as by its products themselves.
But as the 2000s were just dawning, it was far from a sure thing.

"Around the time Apple started to roll out, Gateway's products were going the other way," said Adam Hanft, CEO of marketing and branding firm Hanft Projects, referring to the PC makers (they of the cowhide-designed boxes) who eventually gave up on their own retail-store model in 2004.

"If you go back and look at what all the pundits said, they all thought Apple was crazy to get into the retailing business."

Until then, the consumer technology model was fairly well set. Hardware manufacturers made computers and other gadgets, which were sold alongside their competitors at electronics and big-box retail stores. Picking up the cost of overhead, and gambling that shoppers would patronize a store with only one company's products, was considered risky.

By the end of the 2010 fiscal year, Apple had opened 317 retail stores, 233 in the United States and 84 in Europe, Asia and other countries, according to Ticonderoga Securities, which studies the company.

Apple stores across the world host long lines of acolytes -- er, shoppers -- with the retail launch of every high-profile new gadget, such as an iPhone or iPad. The stores earned roughly $3.2 billion, about 13% of Apple's total sales, in 2010, Ticonderoga said.

COMMENT:  I visit our local Apple Store often.  It is always jammed.  There's a SONY store in the same mall, and it gets little traffic.  Apple just has the dynamic of style and innovation written all over it.  It also has the sense to hire tech wizards who stand at something called the Genius Bar, and give free technical help to all Apple owners.

Have a dream, take a risk.  It's the story of free enterprise.  It doesn't always work out.  In this case, it worked out spectacularly.  Congratulations to Steve Jobs and Apple for establishing an American institution.

May 18, 2011       Permalink 

OH REALLY?  Germany is, presumably, one of our most loyal allies.  But there are some in Germany who clearly don't see it that way.  This story, from Spiegel International, is disturbing:

Angela Merkel's government has come under pressure following the deaths of German Islamists in Waziristan through American drone strikes. Berlin has responded by restricting the type of information that German intelligence agencies may pass on to their US counterparts...

...The deadly air strike on Oct. 4, 2010 marked a turning point in the cooperation between German and American intelligence agencies. Bünyamin E. was the first German citizen to be killed in an American drone attack. His fate has both legal and political consequences and has placed the German government under pressure. While American President Barack Obama, who ordered the massive use of air power in the first place, is being celebrated in Washington following the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, different standards are being applied in Germany.

The discussion centers on the question of what types of information German intelligence officials should be allowed to pass on to their American partners, and whether this information could lead to the deaths of German citizens.

Apparently, Germany sees German Islamists in Pakistan as pretty much the same as other German citizens. 

"There are many indications that the German government is contributing to these attacks," suspects Green Party politician Hans-Christian Ströbele, who is a member of parliament. "This would make it partially responsible for such killings." And Wolfgang Grenz, the deputy general secretary of Amnesty International Germany, is demanding that the German government "comment on the possible role of the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV, Germany's domestic intelligence agency) in preparing the intelligence used for American drone attacks in Pakistan."

As an initial consequence, then-Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), had his staff prepare a report examining the legality and constitutionality of the practice of passing on information. The minister said privately that he was surprised that there was not more public discussion of the sensitive issue.

COMMENT:  This is complete craziness.  It reflects the self-righteous streak in German politics, which exists to help the country live down its past.  The left in Germany is particularly hypocritical, and has a soft spot for enemies of the United States.

Angela Merkel has been a good friend to this country.  But there are others in Germany who want to chart a more independent course.  Part of that course has been to continue a substantial trade with Iran and to value economic interests in the Mideast above democracy.

Germany may well be slipping into old patterns.   It will end up losing.

May 18, 2011       Permalink 

SIGN OF A CRISIS – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  A few days ago we wrote of the Republican dilemma – the fact that the party has such strengths, is poised to do well next year, but lacks a presidential candidate who can take on the campaigning skills of Barack Obama.

The GOP establishment is increasingly aware of the problem, and is looking for a man on a white horse, or a Harley, or anything with wheels.  From The Politico:

Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race.

It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost.

Boy, is that ever correct.  Daniels has been a fine governor.  He might make a fine president.  But he's never been accused of being Mr. Excitement.  I was part of a small group in New York that heard him speak last year.  Believe me, if Mitch Daniels gave a speech in a cemetery, the residents would become more dead. 

But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s.

Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?”

“It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.”

They have every right to be, and there is no known therapy for the problem, except an unavailable one with the name Reagan.

Daniels will bring administrative and economic skills to the race, but how he plays outside Indiana is a serious question mark.  He has some personal marital baggage and no known foreign policy. 

Republicans have a high mountain to climb in the 2012 presidential race.  Obama, with all his presidential failures, is a superb campaigner.  The process on the GOP side has got to be thrown wide open, with careful consideration given to young, spirited leaders, part of the next generation.  We need that generation now.  We cannot wait.

May 18, 2011       Permalink

INTRODUCIN' – AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  We thought we'd report this so you know where to send your congratulations and gifts.  From CNN:

(CNN) -- An Egyptian who was once a Special Forces officer has been chosen "caretaker" leader of al Qaeda in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, according to a source with detailed knowledge of the group's inner workings.

Al Qaeda's interim leader is Saif al-Adel, who has long played a prominent role in the group, according to Noman Benotman. Benotman has known the al Qaeda leadership for more than two decades. He was once a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a militant organization that used to be aligned with al Qaeda, but in recent years renounced al Qaeda's ideology.

Benotman told CNN that based on his personal communications with militants and discussions on jihadist forums, al-Adel, also known as Muhamad Ibrahim Makkawi, had been chosen interim chief of al Qaeda because the global jihadist community had grown restive in recent days about the lack of a formal announcement of a successor to bin Laden.

I can understand that.  You always want someone to look up to, and someone who knows how to fly planes into buildings.

According to Benotman, this was not a decision of the formal shura council of al Qaeda, because it is currently impossible to gather them in one place, but was rather the decision of six to eight leaders of al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. Al-Adel was already one of the top leaders of the group.

COMMENT:  One of the great myths that some have lived by is that Al Qaeda was about bin Laden.  Al Qaeda is about an ideology, and Americans still haven't absorbed the implications of that ideology.  In part this is due to the nature of mainstream media reporting, which emphasizes what people are against, rather than what they're for.  Recall that, after 9-ll, some American hand-wringers wandered around asking, "Why do they hate us?"  It's one of those questions the left loves to ask, for it puts the focus on our alleged sins.  What we should have been asking is, "What do these people stand for?  What kind of world do they want?" 

If we apply those questions to the current "revolutions" in the Arab world, the answers that come back can be pretty frightening. 

Al Qaeda survives bin Laden because its ideology drives it.

May 18,  2011     Permalink

MAY 17,  2011

GETTING IT RIGHT – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Every now and then our State Department gets it exactly right, and we're glad to praise Hillary Clinton for getting this exactly right.  What, precisely, did she do to win such praise?  She openly, and I hope with malice aforethought, snubbed an international group that arrogantly calls itself "the elders," and is headed by elder-clown Jimmy Carter.   From Foreign Policy:

Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them.

Carter and Ahtisaari, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates, had been eager to give their readout of their meetings in North Korea April 26 and 27 to U.S. officials and press their case for a resumption of food aid to the Hermit Kingdom. The two are members of the Elders, a group of senior figures who have been informally engaging with regimes that official governments won't deal with, in the hopes of finding pathways to peace. They traveled to North Korea last month with former Irish President Mary Robinson and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland. Other members of the Elders include Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

But no one at the State Department would meet with them, so the trip to Washington was cancelled.

"The trip was arranged at short notice and due to busy schedules and given everything else going on we were not able to arrange meetings at the right level," a spokesman for the Elders told The Cable. The State Department offered no comment on the situation.

And...

It's no secret at all that the Elders' trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:

The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous...or both...and exemplifies why Carter had no...zero...USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:

"Do you want to meet with Carter?" Clinton is looking at papers, and just says "No." Then she pauses, looks up and adds, "HELL no!!!"

COMMENT:    Cheers for Hillary.  Maybe the elders can get their own unreality show on MSNBC. 

May 17, 2011       Permalink

RYAN UPDATE – AT 5:47 P.M. ET:  Updating our 9:01 A.M. post on Paul Ryan, he has now formally decided against running for the Senate in Wisconsin next year.  From Fox:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will forgo a Wisconsin Senate bid in 2012 to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl, Fox News has confirmed.

In a statement released Tuesday, Ryan says the "most important factor in making this decision was determining where I could make the biggest difference."

Ryan adds that serving as chair of the Budget Committee is best for him and "allows me to have greater impact in averting this debt-fueled crisis if I were to run for the United States Senate."

Had Ryan run, this would have been a referendum on his budget and Medicare package, which is still likely to front and center in the presidential contest with Obama visiting a swing state like Wisconsin around the clock.

Read Ryan's full statement below:

"I am grateful for the tremendous outpouring of encouragement that I have received from my friends and supporters since Senator Kohl announced he would not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate. For my family and me, the most important factor in making this decision was determining where I could make the biggest difference. Our nation is quickly approaching a debt crisis that will do serious damage to Wisconsinites and all Americans if it is not properly addressed. I believe continuing to serve as Chairman of the House Budget Committee allows me to have a greater impact in averting this debt-fueled economic crisis than if I were to run for the United States Senate.

"House Republicans have taken bold steps forward in tackling our fiscal and economic challenges - we have led, where others have not. I want to keep building on this progress and therefore, I will seek to continue serving my employers of Wisconsin's First District as their Representative in the House."

COMMENT:  I disagree with the decision, but I'm not him.

May 17, 2011       Permalink

HOW THINGS WORK – AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  Every now and then we're reminded of how things work in the real political world.  Today's reminder comes from the Daily Caller:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

COMMENT:  Where today's liberals play and dine.  What a role reversal we've had in the last four decades of American politics.  At one time the well-heeled were GOP all the way, and it wasn't always pretty.  Today the average Joe often finds that the Republican Party reflects his values, but that the Dems are well represented among the upper crust.

Nancy Pelosi represents a money-talks district, and money talks loudly in politics, especially around election time, when campaigns need it.  She uses her clout the way every other politician uses it.  No hope and change there.  So, out of 435 House districts, hers gets 20% of the Obamacare waivers.  That's fair, isn't it?

May 17, 2011     Permalink

ATTENTION ON THE WIVES – AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  There's a great deal of attention around the internet today on political wives.  They are an important factor in politics, the more so when their relationship with their husbands are complicated and possibily controversial.

This is underlined by the disclosure by former Governor Arnold Schwarznegger of California that he fathered a child a decade agao with a member of his household staff, and that this was a major factor in the decision of his wife, Maria Shriver, to leave him.  Arnold has now profusely apologized. 

"After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago," Schwarzenegger told the Times in a statement that also was sent to The Associated Press early Tuesday. "I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.

"I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time," the statement concluded. "While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not."

Arnold is a former governor, and probably out of politics forever.  But two potential presidential candidates also have "complicated" personal lives that can affect their candidacies, as The Politico notes:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who is weighing a run, and his wife, Cheri, divorced in the early 1990s after she left him and their four children, ages 8 to 14. She married another man before divorcing again and remarrying Daniels a few years later.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who announced his candidacy last week, is married to his third wife, Callista, whom he started dating while still married to his second wife.

Cheri Daniels and Callista Gingrich are said to be reluctant to step into the pressure cooker of a presidential campaign — which could force them to discuss the past publicly.

Even at this early stage of the campaign, shaping the narrative of home life is part of the political calculation, said Nicolle Wallace, who served as a senior adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign and was an aide to President George W. Bush.

COMMENT:  It may be unfair, even trivial, to consider such matters when we're discussing affairs of state, but, bottom line, they matter.  As we keep on stressing here, it isn't enough to be qualified to be president.  You've got to get to be president, and a messy home life can shave off enough points to send you back to the old family home. 

You probably recall the debate, strange at times, over whether the Monica Lewinsky affair was important in considering the administration of Bill Clinton.  Yes, it was important.  We don't have royalty in America, and the president is chief of state, the personal symbol of the government.  The White House is the people's house, not the president's house, and we have a right to expect a certain level of deportment in the chief executive.  This is not decadent Europe. 

We can, perhaps with dread, look forward to many personal revelations as the months pass.  President Roosevelt's affair with Lucy Mercer came out decades after FDR's death.  Today we get the news earlier.  I don't know which is better.

May 17, 2011       Permalink

(Editor's note:  The following post was re-edited following valuable suggestions from readers Bruce Goldman and Don Newell.)

EYES ON RYAN – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Political eyes are on Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a rapidly rising GOP star.  There's now a Senate seat opening in his state for the 2012 election.  Other Republicans, including former Governor Tommy Thompson, are expressing interest, but they're deferring to the very hot  (politically) Mr. Ryan.  But Ryan, disappointingly, may not jump.  From The Politico:

Though they’d greet a Paul Ryan Senate candidacy with open arms, GOP leaders aren’t holding their breath.

Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, undoubtedly holds the first right of refusal in the newly open Wisconsin Senate race. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn have already spoken to him about the prospect. His rising stardom would almost guarantee him to be a prolific national fundraiser. And even Democrats who loathe his ideology acknowledge he’d be a substantive, formidable opponent.

While he’s divided the country with a transformative budget blueprint, there’s virtual unanimity in political circles that his entry into the race for the seat being vacated by Sen. Herb Kohl would define the contest and thrust Wisconsin into the spotlight as a nationally watched bellwether.

We noted this a few days ago.  A Ryan candidacy might match him against former liberal Senator Russ Feingold, who was defeated for reelection last November.  It would be a classic match, pitting two highly respected figures with distinct ideologies.

However, Ryan may not move at all.

But operatives from Wisconsin to Washington say they would be surprised if he took the plunge.

“I think a quick decision means he’s less likely to run. He’s only five months into his dream job as Budget Committee chairman. Why throw that away? No need to drag this on; it’s a distraction from his important work,” said Wisconsin Republican consultant Chip Englander.

“The buzz is he is leaning against the Senate race,” said Wisconsin GOP operative Bill McCoshen.

“It is very unlikely he runs,” said a Washington Republican operative. “Good thing for us, he is going to decide very quickly.”

It's pointed out that Ryan is involved in a bitter battle to defend his concept for reshaping Medicare, and is unlikely to walk away from it for a Senate race.  My own feeling is that Ryan is making a misjudgment.  His Medicare reform package, with its emphasis on private health insurers, is highly flawed and politically toxic.  Americans have not responded well to it.  He might want to deemphasize that part of his proposed budget package, which is courageous and well timed.

At the same time, no House committee chairmanship compares to the stature of a seat in the U.S. Senate.  The Senate is seen as a place from which you can go directly to the presidency.  Although many presidents have served in the House, virtually all have done something after their House service to make them notable enough to be viewed as a future president.  Ryan should understand that his current budget proposals will carry greater weight, and attract more attention, if they came from a senator.   That may be unfair, of course.  As longtime reader Don Newell writes in a letter to us today, a proposal should be judged by its own worth.  However, in our media-driven universe, senators just get more attention.

I'm afraid that if Ryan passes on the Senate race, in favor of month-to-month wonkery in the House, he'll eventually be seen as a small-time numbers cruncher rather than a statesman.  Time to grow.

May 17, 2011      Permalink

ALLIANCE THREATENED – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  One of the many things that Barack Obama has mishandled has been our critical alliance with Britain.  Now the chickens, or the bulldogs, are coming home to roost, as London's Telegraph reports:

David Cameron’s push for an early British withdrawal from Afghanistan has caused alarm in the US, raising fears for the Special Relationship.

Senior American military figures have warned Britain that a hasty exit from Afghanistan could strain relations between the two countries.

The Daily Telegraph last week revealed that David Cameron has ordered British commanders to draw up plans to start pulling hundreds of British troops out of Afghanistan within weeks.

The Prime Minister is expected to discuss a co-ordinated Afghan withdrawal in London next week.

The prospect of an imminent British withdrawal is understood to have alarmed American generals, who are trying to resist political pressure for a major reduction in US troop numbers.

Well-placed sources said that US generals have delivered a blunt warning to their British counterparts about the impact of an early UK withdrawal.

COMMENT:  The British withdrawal is disappointing.  We expected better of Cameron, who has shown real gutsiness in the Mideast, far more so than Obama has shown.

However, we must ask this question:  Why should the Brits stick their necks out when Obama himself is promising large American withdrawals?  The Osama bin Laden raid was a one-shot, and its glow is already fading.  What is left is an uncertain, unenthusiastic American policy toward Afghanistan, informed at least in part by Obama's need to show his left-wing base what he has done to "end the war," no matter how poorly it ends.

And Obama's attitude toward Britain has been at best aloof, starting with his gratuitious return to the British of a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office. 

Our enemies study these alliances.  They must be delighted.

May 17, 2011     Permalink