Thoughts on the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan

The President’s decision to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan is the right decision. Unfortunately, the attached conditions leave me disappointed. While I understand the political difficulty of the President’s decisions, I hoped for another outcome.

White House Photographer Pete Souza

President Obama in his address on “the Way Forward” in Afghanstian said he would commit 30,000 new troops to the war-torn country, but stipulated they will begin withdrawing in 18 months.

I recognize the tough political position President Obama is in. The left is already blasting him for creating a “surge” and the right, though more friendly than the left, is upset at the timetable.

His decision reflects the difficulty of bridging domestic politics and international relations. Throughout U.S. history, policymakers have faced this dilemma. Moreover, throughout the recorded history of international relations, policymakers have faced this dilemma. How does one reconcile the “national interest” with public opinion, the influence of democratic institutions like Congess and other political interests, i.e. the people who donate money and drive your policy?

President Obama was elected on a platform of change. Thus is his difficulty of continuing the war in Afghanistan much the way his predecessor did and thus is the reason for the timetable – to pacify his political pace. You can’t blame him, it is an obviously necessary move if he doesn’t want to ruin his party’s midterm elections in 2010 or his reelection campaign in 2012.

Having admitted that I understand his logic and reasoning for implementing a time table, I still have to share my distaste. I hoped that the President might put politics aside for the sake of victory.

It comes down to this question: do we have a vital interest in a peaceful and allied Afghanistan? I would answer yes and say furthermore, we have an interest in a peaceful and allied Middle East. That includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and beyond. Because defeat in Afghanistan would allow the Taliban to operate functionally, Afghanistan is a country of vital interest to the security of the United States. Lest we not forget from where the terrorist attacks of September 11 were orchestrated.

The President disagrees, I believe and has done so by making evident his lack of desire to achieve total victory in Afghanistan. He has scaled back the war on terror, actually ended it, and this move further reiterates that point.

The President has developed an exit strategy not predicated on victory. He has done so for the two reasons I already mentioned: (a) domestic political influence and (b) failure to understand the vital importance of a peaceful and allied Afghanistan.

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger…

Tiger Woods released a statement Wednesday revealing little, but making apparent he has had an affair. The National Enquirer published an article last week claiming this, which Tiger initially denied. After his car accident, it became apparent there was a domestic problem and Tiger had to come clean.

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family.

…

For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

This should come as no surprise – a celebrity being unfaithful to his/her spouse is nothing new. Tiger Woods has to be the last person the sports world would expect though.

Tiger Woods

For years Tiger has been the epitome of perfection. He has dominated his sport, his image has been spotless and his name recognition is 100 percent. He was the perfect athlete on and off the playing field. Everyone rooted for him and everyone loved his commercials. He was a role model for countless aspiring athletes across every sport.

Will any of this change? No one really knows yet. All I can say is that I’m extremely disappointed.

Tiger Woods is human and we must recognize that we can ask no more of him than we ask of the guy in the office or the guy down the street. He is allowed mistakes and deserves to be forgiven. Recognizing he is not super-human doesn’t make this any more difficult for sports fans.

Sarah Palin

There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin in recent weeks. Her book tour as thrust her back in the national spotlight a little over a year after her defeated bid for the White House with John McCain.

Her book, Going Rogue, sits loftily on top of the New York Times Bestseller List. She sold 700,000 copies in the first week and that is undoubtedly only the beginning. People have waited in lines for hours, in mid and late November, mind you, to meet the former Governor of Alaska.

The Associated Press reported last week Palin sold 700,000 copies of her memoir in its first week, a number that far surpasses most political books.  But it falls short of the more than 900,000 copies sold of Bill Clinton’s 2004 memoir “My Life” during its debut week.

As a conservative, I was supportive of her candidacy for the Vice President and thought John McCain made an excellent decision when he picked Palin to be his running mate. Had he not, the landslide victory for Barack Obama might have been an even bigger landslide.

No one can say for sure what Sarah plans to do over the next four years, but it appears she is in the early stages of mounting a campaign for President.

There is obviously no litmus test for who is qualified to be President. No one, I think, is truly qualified to do the job. Sarah Palin is just as capable of making decisions that affect the country and the world as anyone else. I say this because I believe no one is capable or qualified to make the decisions. Rather, all we can do is send up the best person we have and hope they don’t screw it up.

With that said, Sarah Palin isn’t the best person we have.

I love Sarah Palin. She excites people, she motivates people and she is an unapologetic conservative. But she is not a viable candidate. She is not the right kind of person to be President. Sarah Palin is better suited for an AM talk radio show rather than the situation room.

I firmly believe America needs a President much like the one we have now. Not that I agree with his politics or philosophy, but Barack Obama is a smart and capable man. A smart man who has excelled at every stage in his life. The people around him have attested to his ability and desire to work on policy rather than politics, and we all know he gives a good speech. In short, we have the right type of man as President now, just not the right one.

Sarah Palin isn’t the type of person I want to be President. She’s not a thinker, not a decider. Yes, she’s inspirational and yes she’s exciting, much like President Obama, but she isn’t necessarily intellectual. She isn’t a visionary or leader like Reagan.

I don’t oppose a Sarah Palin Presidency for who she is, but rather for who she is not.

Does President Obama’s Approval Rating Mean Anything?

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has been hovering just below 50 percent this week. According to Gallup’s three-day rolling average, only 49 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as President.

Symbolically, it is somewhat significant. Historically, it might not matter at all. Addressing the latter first, it should be duly noted that although President Obama is the fourth fastest President to fall below 50 percent, every President but John Kennedy since Harry Truman has done so.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan’s drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama’s (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

Of all the Presidents who dropped below 50 percent, Truman, Richard Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush were all re-elected. Only Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were not.

Which way will things go for President Obama? The answer probably depends on health care and Afghanistan.

If Congress is able to work through health care reform, with or without a public option, the President may be able to claim victory and use this as a spring board in the 2010 mid-term elections and then in 2012. Also, if his Afghanistan decision is well received with the public, his numbers could rebound.

These are only two of the issues President Obama will have to address and it is still early in his term. But, the President’s opportunity to get his agenda passed is slowly waning. Next spring will be his last opportunity with this Congress. After elections in 2010, he’ll have the early part of 2011, but after that campaigning will begin again for 2012.

In sum, the trend for President Obama probably means little, if anything at all. Nonetheless, it has to be troubling for a President who was so popular just 10 months ago to have fallen this far.

On U.S. Fiscal Responsibility

President Obama is expected to make fiscal solvency the focus of his presidency in 2010, beginning with his State of the Union Address in January. This is a step in the right direction for his presidency and the country, but it is not enough. If we are honestly interested in solving our “debt problem,” then it is not enough to merely make fiscal solvency the focus of the Administration. Rather, sustainability will need to be the primary objective of the White House and Congress on every policy issue presented.

The Congressional Budget Office called the federal budget, in its current form, “unsustainable.” A working paper from the American Enterprise Institute highlights the CBO’s projections, with a concluding analysis.

According to several recent reports issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 44 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 61 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. The current deficit is due in part to the stimulus legislation and efforts to stabilize financial markets. CBO (2009a) projects that spending related to such economic weakness will push primary spending (defined as all spending, except interest payments on federal debt) up to 26 percent of GDP this fiscal year, the highest since World War II.

The long-term budget outlook is equally troubling. The CBO report (2009b) projects that under the Obama Administration proposals, the cumulative deficit for the period 2010-2019 will be approximately $9.1 trillion. In other words, the average deficit per year will approach $1 trillion. After 2019, the situation is expected to worsen with deficits (under certain scenarios) projected at 17 percent of GDP by 2040.

These projections raise serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy. If spending grows as projected and revenues do not rise at a matching rate, annual deficits will climb and federal debt will grow significantly. As debt increases, a higher and higher share of national output will be devoted to interest payments, and the level of taxation needed to sustain government becomes historically unprecedented. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, lead to more borrowing from abroad and also lower domestic investment. If such a path is to be averted, then changing policy sooner reduces the size of the problem significantly.

Fiscal solvency is the most-pressing long-term issue faced by the Obama Administration and the current Congress. Our fiscal recklessness undermines our economic future, the position of our currency in the world and threatens our position as the world’s pre-eminent economic superpower.

The need to save our economy from the brink of collapse and create jobs is, understandably, a top-priority. Beyond that, and beyond the current economic cycle, however, policymakers need to be committed to not only balancing our yearly budgets, but also lowering our debt load. It could even be said that if the United States had maintained over the past three decades a fiscal policy even somewhat resembling that of a responsible one, short-term deficits would not be a problem. Short-term deficits are acceptable if and only if the United States has a responsible long-term fiscal policy.

As our deficits grow and as we leave them unattended, more and more of the burden for repaying our debt will be passed on to my generation and my children’s generation. It will require more resources and a larger part of their economy to make these payments. That could mean a weaker social safety net and higher taxes. It could mean reduced military spending and the sacrifice of strategic security. It could mean cuts to education, transportation and more. The sacrifices we have to make today in order to put ourselves on a path to solvency will be marginal compared to the choices and challenges of the next thirty years, if we allow our fiscal irresponsibility to continue.

McDonnell on Islam

Bob McDonnell, Governor-elect Bob mcDonnell, I should say, did himself  a solid this week and stayed above the fray invovling Pat Robertson and his comments on Islam.

The famous televanglist, who coincidentally founded the University where McDonnell attended law school, said Islam was not a religion but a “violent political system.”

McDonnell didn’t condemn Robertson, but he definitely didn’t defend his remarks either:

“I’ve got probably 15,000 donors to the campaign and I can’t stand and defend or support every comment that any donor might make,” McDonnell said in response to a question from CNN at the Republican Governors Association annual meeting near Austin. “I think people are entitled under the First Amendment to express whatever opinions that they may have, but I can only say that as governor of Virginia, I intend to have an inclusive administration where we bring people across the political and religious system to help us govern.”

This highlights why I like Bob McDonnell. Throughout the campaign he displayed a remarkable ability to stay on message and answer questions in a way that did him no harm and offered his critics no fire power.