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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by waynet

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 ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

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.

"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?

Originally Posted by Donna2

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

Originally Posted by Bucco

...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.

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?

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.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...tration/update

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.