Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Much has been made about the similar circumstances surrounding Obama and Clinton's White House entrance, including a failed Bush presidency, eight-plus years of Republican reign, and a country hungry for change. As it turns out, both also had similar challenges their first year in office--strong opposition to a stimulus plan (though Obama was able to pass his, while Clinton wasn't), foreign policy critiques (on Somalia for Clinton and Afghanistan for Obama), and a country disgruntled over a "politics as usual" approach.

General Stanley McChrystal's recent comments about his civilian peers in the Obama administration have left the sometimes-controversial former commander of the war in Afghanistan standing in the unemployment line. To be sure, McChrystal did cross the threshold of professional decorum in today's military and for that, he needed to be held accountable. But the General was not insubordinate. In fact, his perspective on the troubled situation within the Obama administration's foreign policy team should be considered--and not overshadowed by its delivery or the firing.

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report (pdf) has been anything but a strategic watershed for U.S. nuclear policy. A congressionally-mandated review that establishes the nuclear policy, strategy, force posture, and capabilities of the United States for the next five to ten years, this NPR aggressively promotes the Obama administration's vision for realizing a nuclear free world. But rather than proscriptive policy for definitive action on real issues, the review is more about political posturing and ideological blustering leaving U.S. policymakers without the necessary suite of options for hedging against nuclear risks and addressing the multi-faceted set of challenges this nation faces.

Last Wednesday marked the one-year anniversary of the Recovery Act, also known as the "stimulus." In the midst of the political gridlock that has stalled health care reform, it is easy to forget that President Obama started off his term with what undeniably was a major legislative accomplishment. In fact, the Recovery Act was one of the largest progressive achievements of our time, and one wonders whether Obama would still be considered ineffectual if it had been broken down into smaller pieces and passed individually throughout last year, rather than all at once. The media, after all, has a very short attention span, and tends to forget success quite easily.

The latest issue of Rolling Stone hit newsstands today, but most Americans already know about the stunning feature inside of it: the profile of General Stanley McChrystal, former commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The now-infamous article features harsh comments critical of the Obama administration made by McChrystal and some of his aides. The general was called to the White House for a meeting on June 23, where President Obama accepted his resignation and nominated General David Petraeus to be McChrystal's replacement.

During the State of the Union Address late last month, President Barack Obama announced that he will work with Congress to revise the U.S. Military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy, which has been in place since 1993. The law acknowledges that gay and lesbian personnel can be dismissed from the military should their sexual preference be revealed.

Last week President Obama announced $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear construction projects in Georgia, after three decades of an ad hoc nuclear moratorium across the country. For all of the coverage last week, the media frenzy missed an important part of the story--the destructive processes at the front end of nuclear power.

For more than thirty years, there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in the United States. This is due to a number of reasons, including cost overruns, environmental lawsuits, political palatability and an unjustified fear of nuclear technology. That may all change with President Obama recently announcing support for nuclear power by giving his blessing and taxpayer dollars for two new nuclear plants in Georgia.

Last week the Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the President signed the new START (strategic arms reduction treaty) with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. This week, leaders from more than 40 nations have convened in Washington, D.C. for the Nuclear Security Summit to discuss global nuclear risk and a strategy for controlling insecure nuclear materials. YPNation spoke with William Schirano, an international security consultant based in Washington, D.C., about these recent events.

Our national security professionals continue to have their work cut out for them. Since the failed attempt to bring down a Northwest airliner on Christmas day, we've been told by the heads of our intelligence agencies that al Qaeda will execute another attack against the U.S. homeland within a three to six month timeframe. What kind of attack they are planning remains unknown at this point. But given al Qaeda's obsessive focus on certain types of targets, it's probably not a bad idea to keep a close eye on our airline industry.

What's going on with funding for the Peace Corps? Nearly a year ago, several news reports noted that the Peace Corps was being funded through a continuing resolution. But a Google news search doesn't turn up anything recent. This is from a Huffington Post piece last February:

When it comes to national security, I can't say I've found myself in agreement with Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich for the past eight years. But after reading through their supportive remarks on the President's Afghanistan speech to West Point the other night, it's rather pleasing to see that slowly but surely, they're coming around to my view of the world. That isn't to say everything in the President's speech came up roses--the needless (and frankly hypocritical) criticisms on domestic policy, for example, or the failure to address the central issues that plagued our Vietnamese effort and the risk of repeating those mistakes in Afghanistan.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (pdf) that corporations should be allowed to spend freely in political elections. The decision will have a profound impact on how candidates are elected, starting with the Congressional campaigns in the fall. And the reactions have been heated.

The deficit is a funny political issue. On the one hand, it often riles up politicians, who use it as evidence that the government (and the party in power) is dysfunctional and isn't responsible with taxpayers' money. On the other hand, few of these same politicians actually propose doing anything specific to solve the problem. They usually just fall back on the old cliché of "cutting waste," whatever that means. The problem is apparently important enough to complain about in a very serious voice on the Sunday talk shows, but not important enough to offer specific solutions.

Before the special election, I stated that Martha Coakley would emerge the victor by a mere few percentage points in Massachusetts, enough to leave the impression that no Democrat is "safe" in his or her seat for the midterms in November. Many of the Republicans I spoke with could not quite fathom the idea of Ted Kennedy's seat turning red. Some even rolled out half-baked conspiracy theories of the Service Employees International Union counting the votes or even--a la Minnesota--"discovering" ballots in the trunk of a car.

I'm hardly one of President Barack Obama's most avid supporters. But for the sake of debate it would be nice if the media stopped repeating and started reporting.

There is an interesting piece by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post, in which he claims Tuesday's results blow the theory that the 2008 presidential election signaled the creation of a grand new ideological alignment.