Think We Have A Problem?

[Guest]

Another boring subject that you may have missed.

The government of Krygyzstan was overthrown earlier this week and a temporary government was created today. The country is 75% Muslim and it was Muslim insurgent that ousted the government. The U.S. had counted Krygyzstan as an ally, primarily for strategic reasons. (Look at a map.)

So why do we care about a country we never heard of, don't know where it is, and certainly can't pronounce it's name? So what if insurgents formed a new government?

Well, we have a huge airbase in Krygyzstan. Virtually all the troops, equipment and supplies that we use in Afghanistan have to be transshipped thru that airbase. The only alternative is to ship by land on a very long route thru the Khyber Pass and then all the way across Pakistan, thru the region currently under control of al Quaeda and where most think that Osama bin Laden is holed up. Then, all the way across Afghanistan thru areas controlled by the Taliban or tribes friendly with the Taliban. Most military experts think that is an impossible alternative.

in the In February, 2009 U.S. forces been ordered out of the air base by a Krygyzstan presidential decree that stunned Washington. It didn't get much news coverage here--our political leaders were lambasting one another shortly after President Obama's inauguration, arguing about TARP, the financial crisis, and whether or not we were going to close Guantanamo Bay. There was some evidence that pressure from militant Muslim minorities and pressure from Russia were behind the decree.

We settled with the government and the decree was removed by tripling the rent we pay Krygyzstan for the land on which the airbase was built--from $17.4 million a year to $90 million. But that deal was with the old government. Now that the Muslims are control of the new government of Krygyzstan, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the old deal might be off.

Anyone think we have a problem?

There's lots of stuff in the news that looks boring, but is well worthwhile reading.

[Guest]

Another boring subject that you may have missed.

The government of Krygyzstan was overthrown earlier this week and a temporary government was created today. The country is 75% Muslim and it was Muslim insurgent that ousted the government. The U.S. had counted Krygyzstan as an ally, primarily for strategic reasons. (Look at a map.)

So why do we care about a country we never heard of, don't know where it is, and certainly can't pronounce it's name? So what if insurgents formed a new government?

Well, we have a huge airbase in Krygyzstan. Virtually all the troops, equipment and supplies that we use in Afghanistan have to be transshipped thru that airbase. The only alternative is to ship by land on a very long route thru the Khyber Pass and then all the way across Pakistan, thru the region currently under control of al Quaeda and where most think that Osama bin Laden is holed up. Then, all the way across Afghanistan thru areas controlled by the Taliban or tribes friendly with the Taliban. Most military experts think that is an impossible alternative.

in the In February, 2009 U.S. forces been ordered out of the air base by a Krygyzstan presidential decree that stunned Washington. It didn't get much news coverage here--our political leaders were lambasting one another shortly after President Obama's inauguration, arguing about TARP, the financial crisis, and whether or not we were going to close Guantanamo Bay. There was some evidence that pressure from militant Muslim minorities and pressure from Russia were behind the decree.

We settled with the government and the decree was removed by tripling the rent we pay Krygyzstan for the land on which the airbase was built--from $17.4 million a year to $90 million. But that deal was with the old government. Now that the Muslims are control of the new government of Krygyzstan, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the old deal might be off.

Anyone think we have a problem?

There's lots of stuff in the news that looks boring, but is well worthwhile reading.


I sure did not miss it, nor do I think it is simply a coincedence that we began a "surge" and this happens, but of course...we already said we are leaving next year so not to worry.

The entire world situation is beginning to look gloomy and we are just giving up concessions. I do agree that sometimes shaking your fist gets you nothing but as I read the news I see us getting walked over all over the world.

[Guest]

...The entire world situation is beginning to look gloomy and we are just giving up concessions....as I read the news I see us getting walked over all over the world.

Do you think that, just possibly, our diminishing influence has to do with both our rapidly growing fiscal problems as well as the obvious partisan-driven dysfunctional government?

Neither of those problems is new, but they sure seem to have gotten worse in the last 10-15 years. Those "allies" who used to line up with the strong USA now seem to be seeking alliances with other countries which may serve their needs better in coming years. For foreign policy wonks, this is pretty predictable behavior. The only people who seem to be surprised are Americans, who seem to have a far more elevated opinion of our power and reputation in the world than may really exist.

[Guest]

The other day I was reading a list of countries that Obama has dissed. England and Israel come to mind. Seems he likes to suck-up to the dictators. I do not like the direction of our foreign policies.

[Guest]

I should have known. How stupid of me. It's that Obama again.He should have seen the unrest in Krygyzstan and either invaded or bombed them. What is the guy doing?

[Guest]

I should have known. How stupid of me. It's that Obama again.He should have seen the unrest in Krygyzstan and either invaded or bombed them. What is the guy doing?


What does this mean ?

If you agree with our foreign policy under this administration, say so and why !

Your comment was a bit out of line..someone simply stated being uncomfortable with the current administrations foreign policy and why (the constant dissing of countries, including this one)...just say why you agree

OR...

Do you simply agree with whatever he does or whatever you are told to agree with ?

[Guest]

What does this mean ?

If you agree with our foreign policy under this administration, say so and why !

Your comment was a bit out of line..someone simply stated being uncomfortable with the current administrations foreign policy and why (the constant dissing of countries, including this one)...just say why you agree

OR...

Do you simply agree with whatever he does or whatever you are told to agree with ?

Yes, that would take reason and thought. Not a trait in current white house.

[Guest]

"I see us getting walked over all over the world." Please tell me where.
"The other day I was reading about a lot of countries Obama has dissed." Can I ask what that comment has to do with KRYGYZSTAN?
"The CONSTANT dissing of countries." really? when?who?was it called for?

[Guest]

Yes, that would take reason and thought. Not a trait in current white house.

...If you agree with our foreign policy under this administration, say so and why!...


I disagree with the allegation that the foreign policy being executed by this administration is not thoughtfully developed and ineffective.

One doesn't have to agree entirely with the foreign policy being executed by this administration, but to refuse to recognize the effectiveness of their efforts to renew and improve relations with many countries simply avoids the facts.

While I would prefer that the official foreign policy of the U.S. which was prepared and published about 4-5 years ago be renewed and updated, there is certainly a renewed effort to expand our foreign relations footprint which seems to be working. The fact that the "official" foreign policy hasn't been re-done is not unusual. Sometimes as much as a decade passes between official published revisions.

In less than a year this administration has accomplished major improvements in relations with Russia, and has continued the re-focus of the war on terrorism from Iraq to Afghanistan which began at the end of the Bush administration. We are much more effective in fighting the war on terror within Pakistan as the result of efforts to improve relations with them, which was done with a very firm hand. During Obama's first year, he's had to re-establish relations with the U.K., which also had a change in political leadership and may have another as the result of an election only a year or so after Gordon Brown was elected Prime Minister. Our relations there haven't improved, but they haven't worsened either. It's hard to hit a target moving as fast as the English political situation. And it's not as if this President didn't have a few other things to worry about during his first 13 months on the job. Our relations with the rest of western Europe, particularly Germany and France, are notably improved over what they were at the end of the Bush administration.

I think a lot more time should be expended in our relations with Mexico. Personally, I believe that Mexico, which shares a several thousand mile border with us, presents significant threats in several different ways. I just don't sense enough attention being paid to those threats.

There has been little movement in foreign affairs as regards South America or Africa, but their value to us is probably a longer term consideration anyway.

As far as the Middle East, Obama has been far more active in seeking some sort of lasting peace between Israel and Palestine than his predecessor. His recent diss of Bibi Netenyahu was totally justified in the view of most foreign policy observers--and mine as well. Remember, Netenyahu purposely embarrassed Vice President Biden while he was actually visiting Netenyahu in Israel. Then Netenyahu continued his contempt for relations with the U.S. by purposely restating his decision to expand their occupation of Jerusalem in a speech to the Israel lobby group on the very night he met with President Obama. While we'll never really know, it's fair to assume that our strong disagreement with the decision to expand settlements into Jerusalem was a major part of the 90-minute meeting between Obama and Netenyahu that very afternoon.

Make no mistake, Israel is still a strong ally of the U.S. But to the extent their conduct interferes with our attempts to seek a lasting peace in the region and puts our military at increased risk, a concern unanimously held by our Joint Chiefs of Staff, that's a situation that must be dealt with with more firmness than we've seen in recent years. We had a similar problem when Menachim Begin was the Israeli president and it got handled in very tough ways, although in more privacy than the events of recent weeks.

But your criticism that there is no reason or thought in the current foreign policy of the U.S. is just plain wrong. Just because you dislike a political leader doesn't necessarily make everything he does, every decision he makes and every policy he embraces wrong.

[Guest]

Apparently were are reading different sources. Most things that I read about this administration's foreign relations are not very admirable. He disses our friends and sucks up to dictators. How can this be any good in the real world?

[Guest]

Donna2, I agree. I'm not sure how VK thinks are relations with foreign countries have improved. Obama has insulted our friends and our enemies are laughing at us.

[Guest]

what friends,what enemies,what dictators what are you talking about?????

[Guest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040804507.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&sid=ST2http://www.washingthttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/update

[Guest]

One clarification to the military and Israel. The money the United States grants Israel in foreign aide comes back to our country in military purchasing number one, keeping Americans employed number two in that industry, and helping our trade policy. Israel is not the cause of the disembowelment of our country it is the leadership, we are falling apart from within not without; if anything, we are being torn asunder by internal affairs. The externals will always be a constant....what is new is this administration, the one way congress, and the loss of checks and balances. Perhaps Kahuna, you might take in consideration the fact that Israel does not need to be reined in.......not when we have a president who considers the Iranian hot heads building a nuclear bomb more important that one Jew building a home in East Jerusalem. There is NO giving back of Jerusalem to anyone, any nation, or people. Israel reoccupied this land after the 1967 war and finally returned the land to themselves. Be informed, not opinionated.

[Guest]

I disagree with the allegation that the foreign policy being executed by this administration is not thoughtfully developed and ineffective.

In less than a year this administration has accomplished major improvements in relations with Russia.

The Obama administration has been snookered and out maneuvered at every step of their foreign policy decision making process...especially with Russia. Obama's posture...he now owns it... has been reactive and defensive giving away concessions that enhance Russia's position at every point of contention. Do the major improvements you embrace include:

The Obama administration's scrapping of the Ballistic Missile Defense European Capability. Tracking radar and interceptor missile silos coordinated in Poland and the Czech Republic would have provided a powerful shield against Iranian missile threats. Our new "best friends", the Russians, were not happy, in fact they were outright hostile to the defense system. Less we forget the Russian threat of a military strike in Poland if Poland proceeded with the defense system. Russia wanted and got a preferred system under their control. Obama gave it too them without a whimper. Ask the people of Poland and the Czech Republic about their track record with Russian diplomacy. Ask the people of Georgia and the Ukraine about our new "best friend's" ruthless suppression of dissent.

The Russians have agreed to some sanctions against Iran. However, they are categorically opposed to meaningful sanctions such as those on refined gas. Iran has oil but does not have the ability to refine it and has to depend on imports. Hmmmm.....could Russia and China be major suppliers of refined petroleum to Iran? ......and how is this a good deal for our foreign policy?

Do you think the copious and significant energy deals Russia and China have with Iran, including nuclear, could have motivated their favored nation treatment of Iran contrary to the interest of the United States?

I believe, as do many others, that Russian and China for many years, make that decades, have pursued a single minded core policy of creating a new world order without a powerful United States in the equation. They have succeeded significantly with economic advantage and military advantage aided an abetted by a weak schizophrenic American foreign policy.

Perhaps you agree with Obama's articulated new world order philosophy, You know the one where he disses American Exceptionalism and moved away from years of diplomacy that positioned America as a beacon of democracy that so many sacrificed so much for. Obama rejected our position as a world economic power and has all but insured, I submit deliberately, our demise as a leader in that venue.

Sorry K., I cannot agree there is anything significantly positive now or in the long term about Obama's a foreign policy. it's amateur hour at best and something far more sinister at the worst in the White House.

Let's not throw all the incumbents out......let's throw the leftists and the Marxists out.

[Guest]

Apparently were are reading different sources. Most things that I read about this administration's foreign relations are not very admirable. He disses our friends and sucks up to dictators. How can this be any good in the real world?

Yup, we must read different sources.

But as far as who gets "dissed" and who gets "sucked up to", remember the way the foreign relations game is played. The name of the game is to establish relationships--with any kind of country, democratic, socialist or dictatorial--that will achieve the best interests of the United States. Positive resulting relationships are often described as "allies". Allies are only good for as long as the other country can provide what it is we are seeking. There really are no friendships in foreign relations, only temporary relationships where there is a mutual benefit.

We might not like Russian politics, but there are clear mutual benefits that can be gained by strengthening the relationship. The same would even be true of Hugo Chavez. If we could get first dibs on Venezuela's oil reserves, I guarantee that we would "suck up" to him, even though he is a known dictator.

Do you think we really give a rat's a__ about Krygzyzstan other than for the fact that we need a big airbase there to make it easier for us to take military action in the Middle East? And remember where Kryzyzstan is located--it has a major border with China and our airbase is only about 1,500 miles from both Tehran as well as the center of India. The distance to Afghanistan is less than 1,000 miles. We'll make nice with the government of that country--whoever they are--for as long as they let us have our airbase there. If they are a dictatorship, yes, we'll suck up to them.

[Guest]

...I believe, as do many others, that Russian and China for many years, make that decades, have pursued a single minded core policy of creating a new world order without a powerful United States in the equation....agree with Obama's articulated new world order philosophy, ...where he disses American Exceptionalism and moved away from years of diplomacy that positioned America as a beacon of democracy that so many sacrificed so much for. Obama rejected our position as a world economic power and has all but insured, I submit deliberately, our demise as a leader in that venue...

We can agree to disagree, Cabo. But I guess I'm amazed that anyone can really believe that one American President could have accomplished so much change in only thirteen months.

I agree with you regarding the Russian and Chinese objectives of marginalizing the U.S. To a large extent, we've contributed to our loss of influence far more as the result of the actions of our own government over the last 10-20 years than anything the Russians and Chinese have done. We've spent ourselves into weakness and our foreign policy has been alarmingly inconsistent.

Should Afghanistan be the problem it is today had we been more consistent in the way we dealt with that country, even within the last decade? Go back further and read the history of the Middle East. I think it could be argued that the problems that the U.S. and the west are experiencing in the Middle East now are almost totally the result of gross inconsistencies and disdainful refusals to honor treaties and agreements affecting that region, dating back no further than about 1920. The Brits can be blamed far more than the U.S., but we stood by silently and cooperatively and watched it all happen. That was done even before anyone knew there was a lot of oil under all that sand. The Arab states don't believe anything that we tell them and they've got more than enough legitimate reasons to have reached that conclusion and treat us with suspicion and even contempt. We call a lot of Middle Eastern countries "allies". We'll continue to call one another allies as long as we keep sending them billions of dollars in aid and weapons and they either don't directly enter into a war against us and let us continue to buy their oil or ship it thru the waterways that they own and control. Is that a bad deal?

An interesting foreign relations question might be...would we be better off in the long term if we were to break off any diplomatic relations with Russia and China, knowing that they consistently act much more for their own benefit than for ours? You might agree that proposal is ridiculous on it's face. If so, it seems to me that a continuation of diplomatic efforts with those countries still holds promise that we can achieve things that are important to us.

The recent nuclear arms reduction treaty is an excellent example. Russia is still trying to regain its position as a world power, even if it's at our expense. But if by talking we we able to reach an agreement to reduce the threat of global nuclear war while marginalizing both Iran and North Korea at the same time, it seems like a positive development to me.

Does anyone really expect Russia and China to sacrifice major economic benefits that result from their providing refined gasoline to Iran? Would we agree to such a thing if the roles were reversed? What if the U.S. was supplying all the gas consumed in Iran and Russia and China asked us to apply diplomatic pressure by stopping such sales because they felt threatened by the prospect of a nuclear Iran? That's another ridiculous question with an obvious answer. I doubt that either country would cut off diplomatic relations with us because they were PO'd about the obvious decision.

It could easily be argued that both Russia and China will be at greater risk than the U.S. if Iran were to become more unstable and have nuclear weapons. They're both located a whole lot closer to Iran than we are, and Iran clearly has no means to deliver a nuclear warhead as far as the U.S., nor any prospect that might happen anytime in the foreseeable future. If that happens--and it may--who will be in the better position, those countries who have significant economic and diplomatic relations with Iran, or those that do not? Another question with an obvious answer.

Foreign relations is all about keeping up the dialog, getting as much as you can and giving up as little as possible. The key to the game is really understanding what's of long-term importance to you as well as knowing exactly what you can give up that's not too important. It's always a two-way street--until barriers are built and traffic is stopped altogether.

[Guest]

Yes, that's the right idea....break off diplomatic relations with Russia and China. That will certainly help the United States especially with all the debt picked up by China. Then we could experience a real "fire sale" on our country from debt sold at a discount by the Chinese just to be obstinate or worse. Your thinking is skewed Kahuna. Better yet pick up some tapes and begin learning to speak Chinese, that would be a much better option than blaming an administration that has no experience whatsoever in dealing with other governments in the world. We are babies in world politics, but then the voters who put these imbeciles into office don't care. They just wanted revenge for the past Republican administrations. Well they have it now, as will their children and grandchildren for years to come. We will be lucky to have this present administration and the evil it has done out of Washington in only one term, if not we are certainly doomed! We are crumbling from within, not without Kahuna. Fix the internal first, everything else will fall into line.

[Guest]

Yes, that's the right idea....break off diplomatic relations with Russia and China. That will certainly help the United States especially with all the debt picked up by China. Then we could experience a real "fire sale" on our country from debt sold at a discount by the Chinese just to be obstinate or worse. Your thinking is skewed Kahuna. Better yet pick up some tapes and begin learning to speak Chinese, that would be a much better option than blaming an administration that has no experience whatsoever in dealing with other governments in the world. We are babies in world politics, but then the voters who put these imbeciles into office don't care. They just wanted revenge for the past Republican administrations. Well they have it now, as will their children and grandchildren for years to come. We will be lucky to have this present administration and the evil it has done out of Washington in only one term, if not we are certainly doomed! We are crumbling from within, not without Kahuna. Fix the internal first, everything else will fall into line.

Typical "bite off the nose to spite the face" mentality. We will all suffer because of the Left's hatefulness.