Well, some sort of healthcare bill will pass, most likely with a watered down opt-out provision. Obama is miscalculating the benefits when he pushes Reid for a trigger provision (even less effectual than the opt-out). It is not difficult to divine the main reason for that: his courtship of Olypia Snowe. She has already stated she will not vote for the bill if it has an opt-out provision, though she might support a trigger. However, the apparent bipartisanship that would come along with her vote is illusory. Most rank-and-file conservatives do not even see her as Republican, so it is hard to imagine even a shred of the historical acknowledgement of Obama’s bill after it passes from either the the Republican caucus, or conservative Americans. It is uncertain on how the moderates will view it. On the one side they are not so dogmatic in their opposition to the liberal agenda, on the other, more and more of them are tuning to Fox News. The only thing that is certain is that the Democratic in-fighting between moderates and liberals is good for the party. It shows Americans that the debate is already focused within the Democratic party, further making the G.O.P. irrelevant to the debate. We must not forget that this was Lyndon B. Johnson’s strategy in the period before and during the 1964 elections. As conservatives liked to complain, he was everywhere: on the left, in the center, and on the right. As a result, the Democrats won their biggest landslide in the 20th century after that. Ultimately, passing the strongest healthcare bill will confuse a portion of right-wing leaning moderates as the benefits of bigger coverage will not be contingent on someone’s political orientation.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam. More and more pundits seem to invoke the most destructive conflict of the Cold War for America in talking about present course in Vietnam. There exist similarities, but they are indeed more of the general any-type-of-war ones like “Win the hearts of locals”. Obama should either provide the 40,000 troops required by the military, but only if he is able to push enough for a revaluation of objectives, or he should decrease the involvement there. It is laughable to hear some analysts say that the McChrystal’s request will allow for an Iraqi-style surge there. For that to happen, Obama would have to send 500,000 troops, not 40,000. If there is one thing that cannot be stressed enough: this war cannot be won militarily, only politically and economically. Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the elections and it seems that Karzai will win no matter what, despite the fact that the rerun was ordered precisely because of his malfeasance. Al Qaeda has no role in Afghanistan anymore and efforts should be made at economic development and bribing the more moderate Taliban warlords. Any decision Obama will make is virtually bad because of the nature of the conflict and because of the “dithering” during the Bush/Cheney years. The best way, I think, would be to create sort of a limited Marshall Plan there, funded largely by national security funding (saving money from everything but procurement), and spend it on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and most importantly, Afghanistan’s police and military force. No troop increase. If successful, such a strategy could allow the U.S. to leave the country in 1-3 years. Whatever scenario is taken, the US will probably stay there for another 2-8 years, largely due to the previous 8 years of Bushian disinterest and focus on Iraq.
Obama is being criticized for his lackluster efforts in repealing DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell). While this criticism is well deserved, there is an often overlooked element that is good about the ages it takes to repeal DADT, namely the growing discussion within the military about it propelled by the media’s interest in the topic. In real terms, what that means, is that once DADT is repealed (either right after healthcare passes, or summer next year so that the promise to repeal it is fulfilled and yet DADT does not come too close to the midterms) there will hopefully be real action to actually implement the non-discriminatory provisions of the bill. Many liberals are rightly outraged at the policy, but they fail to acknowledge that in most countries there exists a de facto discrimination because of the lack of equal rights implementation mechanisms even though there does not exist a DADT-like law. Who cares if DADT is repealed if there will be no mechanisms to enforce it in local military chains of command. In other words, the wait is good. In the end it will produce a sound policy with robust implementation tools. Furthermore, we should be wary of efforts of many pleading Obama to sign an executive order to stop the implementation of DADT. Many are enticed by the rule-by-decree governance, yet we should not forget that this practice broke the American government during the Bush years and corrupted executive power, even if this time it would be used in a right cause.
