It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama’s “New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.

First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: “The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan…In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it…President Carter’s purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention…to tie…down the USSR.” Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?

Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc..

The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.

The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says “That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.

This post originally appeared on Relentless Liberal on March 29, 2009.

Yesterday, New York held its special congressional election to fill the former House seat of now-Senator Kristen Gillibrand. After an intense final week of campaigning, the results are too close to call. Quite a victory already for Council-endorsed Sco…

Progress.  Finally.  On nuclear weapons reductions.

Today, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev announced an agreement to negotiate a new legally-binding treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires in December.

The agreement also gives momentum to the “reset” between the two countries after years of dismal relations.

The two presidents will meet in Moscow in July, and may hope to have an agreement to initial at that time.  

There is a problem of timing.  The existing START agreement expires on December 5, 2009.  Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R) has already indicated that a treaty must be sent up to the Senate by August to have a ratification vote completed by December.

The two leaders went further, however, than agreeing to negotiate a successor to START.  They jointly committed “to achieving a nuclear free world.”

In full from the presidents’ statements:

“We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations.  We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July”.

In a separate background briefing by “two senior administration officials,” the Administration suggested that even a treaty that produces modest reductions in the first round (widely suggested at 1,500 deployed strategic nuclear weapons compared to 1,700 – 2,200 in the 2002 Treaty of Moscow), establishes a framework “for doing even bolder things later.”

Council for a Livable World president Gary Hart praised the two leaders:

“It is very welcome that Presidents Obama and Medvedev have pledged to pursue new and verifiable reductions in strategic nuclear weapons by the end of the year. It also is important that they looked beyond this year and committed to the long-term goal of a nuclear weapons free world.”

Senator Hart added: “Equally significant is that the United States and Russia have both committed to improving relations after a difficult period. U.S.-Russian cooperation is imperative to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, confronting the terrorist threat, stabilizing Afghanistan, and achieving security and prosperity in Europe.”

Further progress ahead.  President Obama will deliver a major address on nuclear non-proliferation in Prague this Sunday, April 5.  We expect and hope for more about the Administration plans on nuclear weapons issues.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-senate-line-old-bulls-i.html Friday Senate Line: Two Old Bulls in Trouble The last several weeks have not been kind to two senators — one Democrat, one Republican — who came to Congress to…

One should always beware of over-reading or over-interpreting polls.  

Polls are useful indicators at a moment of time and may be accurate to a certain number of percentage points.

Or not.

It is particularly hard to poll a primary many, many months ahead of that primary.

Take the potential Republican primary between long-time Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter and a likely challenger, ex-Representative and 2004 primary challenger Pat Toomey.

Toomey came very close to winning in 2004 and is expected to launch a new challenge for 2010.

Two polls came out this week on this potential Republican primary.  One showed Toomey 14% ahead of Specter while the other showed Specter 15% ahead.

One of these polls is wrong; on the other hand, perhaps both polls are wrong.  The variance is too great.

The bottom line is the Specter is in a world of hurt and could lose a Republican primary.

The other bottom line is to take all polls, particularly primary polls long before the election, with a few grains of salt.

Read on for the poll results

A Quinnipiac Univ. poll conducted March 19-23 and released March 25 – surveyed 1,056 registered voters.  Subsample of 423 Republicans
.
Republican Primary Matchup
41% – Pat Toomey  
27% – Sen. Arlen Specter
32% – undecided, other

A Philadelphia Daily News/WGAL-TV/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/WTAE-TV/WPVI-TV/Times-Shamrock Newspapers poll conducted March 17-22 by Franklin & Marshall College – surveyed 662 adults. Subsample of 211 Republican registered voters.  

Republican Primary Matchup
33% – Sen. Arlen Specter
18% – Pat Toomey  
 2% – Margaret Luksik
47% – undecided, other