Great news, hopefully the British government will follow suit (not holding my breath though).

Seems like a solid legal decision to me. Provided that there’s no proper legal recourse in her own country, severe domestic abuse is as good a reason for granting asylum as any other.

This seems to be a very fine move. However…

“It also struck me that in addition to foreign policy, the environment and a whole rage of domestic issues like healthcare and science…”

Which differences are those?

Pulling out of Iraq. Overtures to Iran. Loosening of sanctions against Cuba. Condemning coup in Honduras. Re-thinking and focusing on strategy in Afghanistan. Playing the Iranian riots crisis well. Committing to reducing and getting rid of nukes. Wanting more multi-lateralism. Creating better relations with South American countries. Committing to closing Gitmo and making solid moves toward it.

Broadly agree.

Pilger is mad – has been for ages.

Agree – an encouraging development and to be praised.

cj – don’t know about Pilger being mad, but some of his fan club are loopy.

Pilger seems to me to be locked into a world view that froze c. 1977. but as with J Berger and Tony Benn it’s the messianic aura that – for some on the left – surrounds such figures that gives me the willies.

I’m not part of the Obama love-in but anyone who thinks he’s worse than Bush, or any other President in my life-time, is an idiot.

I used to be a fan of Pilger but frankly he’s turning into David Icke.

“Pulling out of Iraq.”

Not quite…

“Democratic Congressional leaders have expressed dismay that President Barack Obama is planning to leave as many as 50,000 US troops in Iraq even after the long-awaited withdrawal of combat troops next year.”

The arrogance remains, as well (ie. illegally jailing one of their citizens – a journalist, no less).

“Re-thinking and focusing on strategy in Afghanistan.”

Yeah, I suppose “re-thinking and focusing” is change, but not necessarily for the better (dropping three million frogs would be change). I’m uneasy with the way that the “surge” in Afghanistan has been promoted on the back of that in Iraq – which was a blinding success, in the most mythical sense.

“Committing to closing Gitmo and making solid moves toward it.”

Perhaps, but he looks like keeping indefinite detention.

I agree that the diplomatic approach has been better, but changes to the most egregious elements of Bush-era policy have been, it seems to me, largely cosmetic: changing Guantanamo (but only in geography), considering investigations (but only insignificant ones), not actually invading Pakistan (just sending over those pointless, bloody drones)…

I suspect we’ll never agree, even if we’re locked in a debating hall for decades. Ah well…

Peace and warm, fuzzy feelings to all,

Ben

I don’t think the Obama administration should be invulnerable to criticism. Certainly if you think the fact that Obama is at least mildly better than Bush is reason enough to support him then you should have no problem voting Labour at the next GE ;p

Having said that, he has been much, much better in many areas domestically. Foreign policy is a little different, and the main difference is one of tone. Change has been slow and incremental, but that’s how change happens in foreign policy. American interests don’t change overnight.

On Iraq, that’s the most difficult area to claim there’s been change. Obama pulled troops out of Iraqi cities in the same month that, erm, George W Bush had promised to pull troops out of Iraqi cities.

I used to be a fan of Pilger but frankly he’s turning into David Icke.

Don’t be silly.

Talking of silly, what does Sunny mean by this?

Re-thinking and focusing on strategy in Afghanistan.

Isn’t that actually the sort of phraseology-substituting-for-substance which people like Pilger find, not unreasonably, so annoying?

Change has been slow and incremental, but that’s how change happens in foreign policy.

Why would you particularly think this?

This is fantastic news! Long overdue too, Refugee Law is a difficult topic to get right. Refugees are usually not in the best situation to promote their own interests, abused women most of all.

Well done Obama.

Pulling out of Iraq. Overtures to Iran. Loosening of sanctions against Cuba. Condemning coup in Honduras. Re-thinking and focusing on strategy in Afghanistan. Playing the Iranian riots crisis well. Committing to reducing and getting rid of nukes. Wanting more multi-lateralism. Creating better relations with South American countries. Committing to closing Gitmo and making solid moves toward it.

However, I have to agree with Ben Six on this one.

Obama is definitely definitively better than Bush, but he is essentially only moving America back to where it was pre-2001.

It’s difficult to remember but Bush came into office pledging a more modest US foreign policy, less interventionist and less belligerent. The US has always had elements of the qualities which Sunny describes above, once Bush got into office he severely perverted that.

It’s great that Obama is behaving like a rational human being, but I don’t think it really deserves to be lauded as some have.

For several reasons. Because a nation’s interests don’t change overnight just because a different person/party has won an election. Because many of the people involved with formulating and implementing that policy don’t change, even when the White House & Cabinet are all appointed by the President and his team like in the US. Because Obama and Bush, however much they disagree, are closer to each others’ opinions than, say, Obama and Khamenei. Because nations are constricted by diplomatic relations. Because change is usually dependent on agreement with other nations and negotiation takes time.

that in response to ejh, if it wasn’t obvious

My point was not “why do you think this might be the case?” so much as “why do you think it is the case?”. It’s not at all clear to me that changes in foreign policy are necessarily less dramatic than changes in domestic policy.

I’m not with you – are you asking in the case of the Obama administration, what empirical evidence has led me to believe that the model of change in foreign policy usually being incremental has held true?

No, I’m asking why you think the assertion, made in post #9 and quoted in post #11, to be true.

But haven’t I answered that in #13? I’m sorry, I’m not being deliberately obtuse, I just don’t understand what you’re getting at.

Is it Friday yet?

Agree with Sunny that far too many people seem to be sharpening tools to stick into their voodoo dolls of Obama, without seeing what a sea change he is.

Is he though? I mean I like him, and in tone he’s as different to Bush as Chopin is to Peter Maxwell-Davies, but I think if people are being told he’s different they’re entitled to ask specifically what that difference is and how big it is.

Yes he is, a massive motherfucking change, I mean take the AIDS tests he and Michelle had, the Stonewall celebrations and first White House LGBT event. These are a few small things but it is a world away from Bush’s world.

Some people seem to have forgot how bad that was…

These are a few small things but it is a world away from Bush’s world.

Thing is, those two propositions seem to me to be not wholly compatible. If it’s a few small things it’s not really a world away.

That’s your judgement based on semantics and slight of hand pedantry.

Do I really need to explain the phrasing to you or is it perhaps best to find something more useful to do?

Not to mention embracing stem-cell research, which was, under Bush, restricted to the point only the Religious Right or the Greens would be happy with.

Yep and the healthcare plan which is a slight over reach but a step in the right direction for those in real need.

Let’s not argue semantics ejh…

The problem is not so much with Obama per se, it is that the US’s activities overseas have shown remarkable continuity for over 50 years.

A quick example, a Liberal President escalated Vietnam and a Conservative one ended it.

Although the buck stops with Obama I admit a lot of what will happen will not be his doing. I just don’t think the US is going to abandon imperial wars. Neither do I se a future when the US will stop leaning on/overthrowing governments when it is in the interests of a large US corporation.

Domestically the change he is attempting is impressively ambitious, but internationally he appears more a correction of previous wrongs than a sea change.

Do I really need to explain the phrasing to you or is it perhaps best to find something more useful to do?

No, you could take the point that changes in style and approach aren’t large changes of substance, especially when they’re actually described as “small” by the person making the point! They may point to larger changes to come, or they may not, but being small, people are surely entitled to remain open-minded about how much they actually mean in practice.

Sorry ejh but you’re clutching at straws and seriously trying to start a rumble over words, ease up rude boy and check your bad self.

Daniel, what are you talking about? And what is “rude boy” and “bad self” in this context?

I’m asking people who talk about small changes in style not to expect other people to agree that they constitute large changes in substance. If there’s a quarrel with that, by all means make it: but as it is I can’t work out what point you’re trying to make.

Ping pong anyone?

Come on you two! Down with this sort of thing, no arguing about words.

On the question of substance – I think Obama has a very different and enormously healthier viewpoint than Bush and in that sense they certainly are worlds apart. But then again I thought the same (and still think the same) about Clinton, but it didn’t really translate into policy then – not to mention the fact that “triangulation”, i.e. placing yourself halfway between your supporters and the other side’s supporters, was his whole modus operandi. And there’s far, far too many of Clinton’s circle around the Obama adminsistration. Quite possibly he doesn’t like them or trust them and I certainly hope not. But even so, there they are.

I dunno, it’s a bit like Manchester City supporters being asked to celebrate because they’ve signed a bunch of players who are rather better than the old ones. Well, great, but as an old football fan I do tend to reserve the right to base my opinion on results on the pitch. And if I shouldn’t – why should I not?

Obama is better than Bush in the same way that the Stasi was better than the SS. What Obama’s been doing since he took office only look great because Bush was so bad.

Daniel – heh.

Ben: Yeah, I suppose “re-thinking and focusing” is change, but not necessarily for the better (dropping three million frogs would be change). I’m uneasy with the way that the “surge” in Afghanistan has been promoted on the back of that in Iraq – which was a blinding success, in the most mythical sense.

I don’t necessarily buy this. Most liberals in the US support the Afghanistan strategy – as do I. The New Yorker had a brilliant article on Afghanistan as couple of months ago about Obama re-thinking strategy.

The point is that strategy changes slowly, especially since many of the generals remain in place and there is internal stasis. That applied to Bush as much as it does to Obama. Bush wanted to invade Iran but the National Intelligence report killed off that prospect with their assessment. So a President can’t just do stuff without taking staff with him/her.

On Gitmo he hasn’t moved fast enough for various reasons which no one wants to touch on. Who is going to take the prisoners? Europe doesn’t want them. He has to convince states to take them but they don’t want it either. In the end Bermuda took some of the Uighurs a couple of weeks ago, but such examples are rare. And China was pissed. Why aren’t these issues highlighted?

It’s easy for people to point fingers and say its terrible but it ignores other realities.

As for Iraq – again I’m sympathetic. A degree of force may be necessary to ensure the Iraqi army itself doesn’t fall apart too quickly and to ensure some semblance of security. I’m not exactly happy about it but it’s better than staying in there.

I don’t think that he means “eke out” at all.
Eking out is what people did with Mars Bars week by week during the war.

Alex: that’s a very stupid thing to say indeed.

The fact still is that after 8 years pissing and moaning some people can’t break the habit andhave to behave as if little has changed, otherwise what else would they have to opine about?

ejh wrote:

“On the question of substance – I think Obama has a very different and enormously healthier viewpoint than Bush and in that sense they certainly are worlds apart. But then again I thought the same (and still think the same) about Clinton, but it didn’t really translate into policy then”

I agree. And I think the same trend can be seen if you consider some of the things on Sunny’s list (although I would agree that the asylum initiative will be a fantastic step *if put into practice*.)

Loosening of sanctions against Cuba.
OK, I may be wrong here but hasn’t he just allowed Americans to visit (and possibly send money?) So no losening of the trade sanctions, which are the ones that have crippled Cuba’s economy.

Condemning coup in Honduras.
A lukewarm condemnation which hasn’t changed anything. And Honduras is one country where the US *could* change the result if it cared enough. Since the new government is likely to be pro-US business interests, it just seems that the Obama administration is also “not translating its proclaimed views into policy” (to paraphrase ejh)

Committing to reducing and getting rid of nukes.
Wanting more multi-lateralism.
Creating better relations with South American countries.
These are all good things, but again, mostly theoretical so far.

I don’t disagree entirely with this article. But I do think that Obama’s record so far has been promising rather than achieving. I hope to be proved wrong eventually, but in the meantime I think ejh has it about right.

“promising rather than acheiving”

Well he’s not been in the job that long and considering that he’s already…

Put a good health care package on the table

Improved the communications between the White House and the American people, never mind the rest of the world

His transportation plan which has created jobs and economic stimulus

$2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition for those seeking a college education

The car industry recovery plan including funding for next-gen cars

Intelligent dealings with Pakistan and aid programs there

Creating an office of Urban Policy in the White House and the re-start of a Bush cut program that means $2 billion to fund anti-gang and anti-gun task forces

Better engagement of the Muslim world

Two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks put under national protection, the largest conservation effort in the last 15 years

How’s that for a start?

Sunny…

“I don’t necessarily buy this. Most liberals in the US support the Afghanistan strategy – as do I.”

Well, if most US liberals support it…

“That applied to Bush as much as it does to Obama. Bush wanted to invade Iran but the National Intelligence report killed off that prospect with their assessment. So a President can’t just do stuff without taking staff with him/her.”

Well, when I say “Obama” – unless I’m referring to a distinct, individual statement or policy – I generally mean his administration. After all, you don’t know that Obama’s behind the asylum move, but you gave him approval nonetheless.

I don’t see why he – personally – deserves the benefit of the doubt, though: he’s occasionally been on the wrong side of his own party.

“On Gitmo he hasn’t moved fast enough for various reasons which no one wants to touch on.”

That’s not the point: what bothers me is that he’s kicking around proposals which would enshrine indefinite detention under law. He’s not buying himself time, he’s “considering whether to issue an executive order to indefinitely imprison a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees“.

If he doesn’t, of course, then we might be cool on that.

“As for Iraq – again I’m sympathetic. A degree of force may be necessary to ensure the Iraqi army itself doesn’t fall apart too quickly and to ensure some semblance of security.”

I don’t see why it would: Iraqis trust it over three times more than multi-national forces…

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/01/iraq-pentagon-report-2008/

Daniel…

“Intelligent dealings with Pakistan and aid programs there…”

Really? To my sleep-crusted eyes, US/Pakistan relations look more like a Laurel and Hardy film…

– The US staunchly maintains that Bin Laden’s in Pakistan, even though the Pakistanis say that he’s either a) dead or b) in Afghanistan.

– The Pakistanis say – over and over again – that they don’t support drone attacks, but the US insists that they’ve given “tacit consent“.

Fevered joy to all,

Ben

Ben, as you know we’ve had this discussion over at yours often and I stand by what I’ve said there, you approach Obama with an oddly beady and judgemental eye, which is all good if he was someone who needed be kept in check like the previous President but the motives and attitudes behind this President’s approach seem, so far, to be good, not perfect but that is just not possible.

I think that there are better targets for yuor ire and your attacks seem one-dimensional, in that you never pick up on the good stuff and narrow in on things you deem to be bad policy.

Like above, you take on Pakistan, which I still think Obama is handly better and funding better than Bush did and ignore the rest. This could look like you’ve got an axe to grind.

I don’t see why it would: Iraqis trust it over three times more than multi-national forces…

They might trust it – but that doesn’t mean the Iraqi army would have the capability to maintain control if faced with a large scale AQ insurgency.

I don’t see why he – personally – deserves the benefit of the doubt, though: he’s occasionally been on the wrong side of his own party.

Yes, but look – the guy is leading through some huge battles as it is, one on the climate bill and another on healthcare and on top of that with the bailoutf of companies. Cut him slack on how many battles he can take on at the same time? If I was him, I’d have done the exact same thing – an investigation could prove divisive and distraction at a time he’s got more important and fear reaching changes to put through. Why can’t such stuff be put on the back-burner?

Sunny: a note, here, and I’m sure someone will tell me if I’m wrong (Ben6?). The Database, the Al-Q’aida from which the name derives, is no longer in any way a relevant force for the future, as I understand it? It was always, at beast, a list of independent and frequently feuding mujaheddin whose leaders (including Zarqawi, bin Laden and a number of others) got temporarily organised in solidarity with one another after the Americans dumped them at the end of the Afghan War.

As far as I can tell from the last three or four years, intelligence estimates are that the original AQ, which was composed of four major organisations and umpteen minor ones, no longer exists because the bosses of the four majors who had personal alliances with one another are either dead or militarily neutralised (at least three are known-dead, including Zarqawi).

The idea that the AQ which planned 9/11 is in any way in control of the Iraqi insurrection/civil war seems to be pretty much dead, isn’t it?

Cut him some slack is the exact phrase I was looking for, either that or investigate why the level of intensity re: scrutinising his behaviour.

Apologies to all for my terrible spelling of late, esp. in 41.

Sunny:

“Cut him slack on how many battles he can take on at the same time?”

Believe me, I’d love to. I hope he succeeds in most of the projects he’s undertaken. But I look at the history of ostensibly left-of-centre leaders like Clinton and Blair and even Brown, all of whom made the right noises and did a few good things, and I look for the radical and radically different policies from Obama, and I can’t see much of a difference.

Yes, he can only take on certain battles at a time. But that’s what his colleagues are for! He could easily, for instance, tell Hillary to put a bit of pressure on Honduras. But I don’t think he’s different enough from previous presidents to do that.

[Warning – Lots of this comment is about my writing: you’d be better off beating your head against a wall.]

Heh, yeah, we’ve been over this before, Daniel, and you know I respect your opinion. However, I don’t really see the problem with a “beady and judgemental eye“, unless, of course, it’s wrong.

I can’t see how I’m wrong, either. You asserted that Obama had “intelligent dealings with Pakistan and aid programs there“, I offered evidence to the contrary and apparently that’s “one-dimensional“. I don’t pick up on “the good stuff” because I largely write about foreign policy and authoritarianism, on which he’s been resoundingly bad. I haven’t written a lot about, say, health or environmental policy so I’ve rarely commented on his performance in those areas.

Are there “better targets” for my “ire“? America’s foreign policy is the most influential in the world, the government’s a close ally of ours, and – without wanting to get into “more dissentier than you“, I’m under no illusions about the worthlessness of my own ramblings – few people have been willing to offer proper criticism.

(Incidentally, I have no axes. If I did, they’d come ready-sharpened.)

Sunny…

“They might trust it – but that doesn’t mean the Iraqi army would have the capability to maintain control if faced with a large scale AQ insurgency.”

John Q. Publican isn’t wrong on this. There is going to be sectarian violence, but American troops have only ever suppressed it – about the only achievement of the “surge” – and, as far as I can see, it’ll be there indefinitely.

However, most Iraqi civilians dislike the militias, and have much more faith in their own government’s troops combatting them.

“If I was him, I’d have done the exact same thing – an investigation could prove divisive and distraction at a time he’s got more important and fear reaching changes to put through. Why can’t such stuff be put on the back-burner?”

– It’s the law, and subjecting the rule of law to the whims of political expediency is another of those dangerous precedence thingies.

– People – many of them, it’s probable, innocent – are still detained, and, for all we know, enduring torture. A good investigation would reveal the hideousness of this, and, hopefully, it’d end.

– It’s the opinion of the Obama admin. that “anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated“*. They should extend that to Americans.

If that’s too “divisive” for the government to follow through then, well — time for the revolution.

Ben

[*] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090710/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarytortureprobecia

Ben6:

It’s the law, and subjecting the rule of law to the whims of political expediency is another of those dangerous precedence thingies.

Er, that precedent was set a very, very long time ago. Obama can’t set it again.

One might also argue that this is administrative expediency, rather than political; his job is to not ever let the US pressure cooker explode. Part of that is relieving pressure, part of that is preventing new build-ups.

It wasn’t him and his guys that did this; political expediency says haul in every member of the Neo-Con war cabinet, stick ’em in the dock and roll the cameras. Let everyone see exactly how bad it was in the abortive New American Century.

Administrative expediency says, if you do that, right now, not only are you going to screw about fifteen international diplomatic efforts, you’re going to do it by setting off a Fundy bomb which will eviscerate any possibility of civilised governance in America over the next two generations.

Yes, seriously. By death-toll the 9/11 guys may still be winning but by frequency of attack, the indigenous right-wing terrorists of the USA are way the hell more of a threat than any external ones. Factor in the pre-existing terrorist cell structure which executed George Tiller. Factor in the amount of money in the rich, white South. Factor in the militant survivalist network and the Minutemen on the border. Factor in that a black man would be putting a white man on trial for treason. Think about how hysterical the American right really are.

The next President might be able to get it done: maybe, maybe, even Obama could do it if he wins a second term. Right now? I would anticipate significant counter-productive side-effects.

Hmmm. My first reading of your comment apparently missed “time for the revolution”. If you really mean that, and believe this issue is worthy of civil war, then ignore my post; it is not relevant to what you are saying, in that case.

Ben:

I’ll out myself as a fan of yours now and I do quite like it that this is the main issue that divides us because there are far worse things to disagree about.

A beady and judgemental eye is all good in some circumstances but I can’t quite fathom why Obama gets so much heat from you when he does so little wrong, I mean you must have been beside yourself when the monkey lord was in charge? Ricj picking indeed.

I’ve said over at yours that Obama’s main success is inheriting such a sack of shit, Pakistan included (as well as recessions, financial sector collapse, car industry collapse and the end of the world type stuff we’ve got knocking about) and doing, what to me anyway, seems to be his level best at negotiating the reality of modern politics and doing the right thing for anyone with a half decent moral compass.

I mean the funding he’s pumping into education into Pakistan is pretty heafty, he’s not all about military expenditure, although he does that too because, quite frankly, I’d be bombing the shit out of some bits of that nation too.

I suppose I now understand why you do less of his good stuff, I mean his domestic policy, which after all is his main job, is pretty watertight stuff for me because that’s not your bag and my bag is more American domestic policy because that sets the agenda for the global one; based on what kind of mentality he can get the US people in.

So I suppose I now get it Ben, although I still think that it can come across a wee bit one-sided but then perhaps I come across as the other way?

And although US foreign policy is by no means perfect, I know it’s on a better tact than before and with such a bad hand dealt, it takes a while to play the hand you want.

Interesting stuff, as ever, John. I’ll give a proper reply to you, and Dan, later tonight, but I wanted to clarify something (and, less nobly, go out)…

Administrative expediency says, if you do that, right now, not only are you going to screw about fifteen international diplomatic efforts you’re going to do it by setting off a Fundy bomb which will eviscerate any possibility of civilised governance in America over the next two generations.

Why would the rad. right leap to the defence of Bush n’ co.? The Minutemen hated them with a passion; most of the Christian Patriots are opposed to federal government. Proper investigations would inevitably clatter into their bugbears – the CFR, Trilateral Commission etc. – which I don’t think they’d resent. In fact, I don’t see how a status quo of their antipathies – immigration, taxes etc. – would be any more provocative than the trials I hope for.

Incidentally, I’d heard that Roeder was involved in the Freemen etc., but is there evidence of a conspiracy behind the killing?

Ooh, and – while I do think the system cries out for overhaul – I’m not proposing armed insurrection. I won’t be leading the troops to the Winter Pa…I mean, Whitehouse…

*Looks around, furtively*

…yet.

I think your armed insurrection army would be small but fun to watch.

Ben6 @50:

Why would the rad. right leap to the defence of Bush n’ co.? The Minutemen hated them with a passion; most of the Christian Patriots are opposed to federal government. Proper investigations would inevitably clatter into their bugbears – the CFR, Trilateral Commission etc. – which I don’t think they’d resent. In fact, I don’t see how a status quo of their antipathies – immigration, taxes etc. – would be any more provocative than the trials I hope for.

Because the machine which is working on Obama is the same machine as was working on Clinton. They tried five ways to get him and came closest with Lewisnski and Starr: this time, they’ve got a lot more to work with. Bill Clinton was Southern(ish), WASP. Obama is (as everyone knows) black, damyankeeliberalelitist, and a [ gasp ] Muslim.

Apply the kind of media savvy and monetised support that put together the Starr Chamber in 1998 and get the Evangelical cable channels driving that kind of popular campaign. The Fundys, the serious ones, the 30 million who genuinely believe in physical rapture and the end of days, the ones like the Dominionists, will first catch fire and then. A black man is putting a white man on trial for war crimes. A muslim is attacking our great Christian President, the man for whom ‘faith-based initiative’ was foreign policy.

That’s why they’d get behind it. Their civil war is a lot more recent than ours, and they own a lot more guns. I do not blame the man for being careful with which fights he chooses to have right now.

Er, “like the Dominionists, woudl first catch fire and then explode“. Damn liberal elitist internet, stealing my words.