No Time for Amateurs
By Larry Johnson on January 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM in Current Affairs
Bill Clinton may have run a dandy domestic policy during his first term, but his foreign policy was a bust. Somalia and Rwanda were two of his worst moments. The appointments of Les Aspin as Secretary of Defense and James Woolsey as Director of CIA, in retrospect, were busts. And then there was the debacle of National Security Adviser Tony Lake (who so happens to be Obama’s foreign policy guru) who reprised the role of Nero and fiddled while Rwanda was consumed in an inferno of ethnic cleansing. Barack Obama may be scoring some debating points when he quotes Bill Clinton defending himself against charges that he lacked experience to run for President (e.g., “The same old experience is not relevant: You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience,“) But the question of experience in organizing and managing a foreign policy team is relevant. Can we afford the learning curve of foreign policy naif like Obama? History tells us no. (For more on the Hillary vs. Bill re Rwanda please read this AFP article.)
Regardless of party affiliation, it is time we admit that putting amateurs with limited foreign policy experience in charge of U.S. foreign policy usually causes more harm than good. What do I mean by experience? We are not talking posting a good SAT score. Yes, knowledge of international geography, the names of foreign leaders and cultural and religious differences is helpful, but it is not the “experience” that is relevant to running a sound foreign and national security policy. It is more important that our next leader fully understand the bureaucratic resources he or she will control–this includes the full panoply of diplomatic, law enforcement, military, intelligence, trade, and financial capabilities. It also is essential that the President appoint competent people to administer those agencies and effectively coordinate their activities thru the National Security Council.
Sounds easy but this has rarely happened. With the exception of Harry Truman, every first term president with no significant prior foreign policy experience who has served in the last fifty years has created a mess of things during their first term. With John Kennedy you got the Bay of Pigs. Lyndon Johnson mired the United States in Vietnam. Jimmy Carter lives with the legacy of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of the Islamic Republic in Iran. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan failed to devise an effective counterterrorism strategy until well into his second term. And George Bush has shown us that a weak, not-too-bright leader, can really cock things up on the foreign policy front even when surrounded by senior folks with scads of foreign policy experience. (How can a team comprised of Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney mess things up so badly?)
The presidencies of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush–all who brought fairly significant prior experience working on foreign policy issues–generally avoided the problems that plagued the administrations of the other presidents.
On the Democratic side of the ledger, the most experienced candidates who understand the foreign policy/national security bells and whistles are Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton. Only Richardson and Clinton have experience on both the executive and legislative sides of government. Richardson, hands down, has more foreign policy experience than any candidate in the race. While Clinton’s role in her husband’s administration was limited on foreign policy issues, she did play a positive role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Senator Biden’s lack of executive experience is offset by his long tenure with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You cannot sit through as many briefings as he has, chair as many hearings, and visit as many countries without picking up some useful knowledge.
I put Chris Dodd and John Edwards in the second tier. Dodd’s time in the peace corps makes him a great travel guide in the Dominican Republic, but he has had no practical experience managing anything comparable to the national security bureaucracy. Edwards is a knowledgeable guy but also has limited experience on this front. Dodd has far more experience in the Senae than Edwards, so the edge to Dodd on the foreign policy/national security side.
Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama are unqualified. Period. Making a speech opposing an invasion of Iraq does not constitute qualification for understanding how to organize and implement a foreign policy. Barack is a gifted politician, but his knowledge of the workings of the State Department, the Pentagon, the U.S. Army and Marines, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, DIA, DEA, NRO, Treasury, and Commerce is deficient.
Even more worrisome for me is the foreign policy team he has assembled. Tony Lake and Susan Rice–his top two advisers–were not the stars of the Clinton Administration. In fact, both demonstrated a remarkable ineptness in dealing with the genocide in Rwanda. They did nothing. While Bill Clinton was the President and commander-in-chief at the time (and ultimately responsible) it also is true that his staff failed him. Presidents cannot know everything and must rely on senior staff to monitor problems, identify developing threats, and propose courses of action. Lake and Rice failed Clinton on this front and there is no evidence that either learned anything in the interim. If so, where were they in opposing the invasion of Iraq? Quiet, insignificant voices.
Who ever is selected as the next President, restoring order and competence to the National Security Council must be a priority. The President’s National Security adviser is first and foremost a traffic cop–identifying priorities and forcing the bureaucracies to reach decisions in timely fashion. The Clinton Administration stumbled significantly during the first two years. For example, the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) governing the organization of counter terrorism policy was not acted on until after the bombing of the Okalahoma City Federal Building in April of 1995. But when historians compare the Clinton NSC to the fiasco that has been Bush’s, the Clinton era appears as a veritable golden age.
The next President must enter office ready to take control of a foreign policy and national security bureaucracy that is in shambles. Giving the reins to well-meaning, inexperienced novices like Barack Obama would be a mistake that will only be appreciated after the fact.
Agree about Obama.
And, HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Except for Biden, I don’t believe any of the Democratic candidates are that experienced in foreign policy. And I have a hard time with Biden because of his support for the Iraq war and stated desire to partition Iraq [euphemism for genocide, which has been going on without Biden]. Obama isn’t my favorite candidate either. [Actually I don't have a favorite.] But does Hillary’s role as Bill’s sounding board count as experience? Anyway, if Iowa chooses Obama and he becomes the Dem nominee, he’d still be a lot better than Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani.
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates all say they support Iraq withdrawal, yet all of them keep voting to fund the debacle with no strings attached. They also keep skipping important war votes–all of them. [Edwards isn't in the Senate, so he can't vote.]
Anyone who becomes president will have a steep learning curve. Because the only job that comes closest is Governor. Ugh…I’m not happy with any of the frontrunners…just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.
Conversely, I’m very happy with the Democratic field of candidates — except for Obama due to his lack of experience and his constant use of GOP talking points.
(Seems the electorate feels the same way. I read a fascinating tidbit in today’s MSNBC First Read: Even the second-tier Dem candidates like Richardson and Biden get as many people at their events as GOP front-runner Mitt Romney and other Republicans. The electorate wants to elect a Democrat. Let’s make sure it’s the right one.)
I was excited in 2004, while Dean held the lead. Then the media/GOP got him! So then I wholeheartedly embraced Kerry/Edwards. But this time…I just can’t get worked up about Clinton, Edwards or Obama. All three are too DLC for my tastes…I won’t even get into specific issues or lack of experience. Although it’s very exciting to see the first woman and first black so close to winning the presidential nomination. That’s amazing!
Anyway, the Dem nominee will be chosen before NY votes in February, and I’ll support whoever that is.
Joe Biden’s foreign policy just comes naturally. The man is a diplomat. For instance, when he was a junior senator, Biden wrote a paper on Poland. Shortly after Karol Wojtyla was elected as Pope John Paul II, he invited Joe Biden to a private meeting at the Vatican. Biden, accompanied by Father Roberto Balducelli, the Pastor of St. Anthony of Padua Church in Wilmington, Delaware along with a delegation of other Delaware catholics went to Rome, and the USA has had excellent relations with Italy ever since. Joe Biden is a statesman and an all-around stand-up guy. People, where is the dirt on Joe Biden? I don’t think you can find one spec. This is the kind of leader we need in the White House.
The world does not need a leader who thinks he has a right to decide to carve countries up into pieces against the will of the people of that country.
And how many troops would you be willing to commit to ensure that present day Iraq (a British creation) maintains its territorial integrity?
I cannot see that HRC has the experience you claim for her. She has never held a position in the Executive Branch other than First Lady and although she was a better than average Good Will ambassador in that role and no doubt met many world leaders, she did not have a policymaking or executive role.
Given that most Americans think (rightly) that their federal government is broken, they are hardly likely to elect a President who is identified as a long-time Washington insider. We can regret that and you’re right that it has cost us dearly in lives and treasure, but we have regressed to the point that no one with real experience is really in the running in either party.
I am looking for a candidate who has the intelligence and inner strength to hire strong leaders for our key international agencies and departments. I want a candidate who has a clear vision of the role the United States should play in world affairs and will gather experts who share that vision but have the skill and experience to make it real. That rules out Clinton, Obama, and Biden (who has a vision that I do not share). I want to hear more from Edwards and Richardson (the most experienced of the lot), but they are the only ones I would consider at this point.
Charley, check out this bio at Wikipedia. Scan down past the short summary, to the nitty-gritty details of what she did out of law school for children and women, in Arkansas for children, women, and schools, and then in the White House, around the world, for women and children, and helping the Northern Ireland peace process — so much so that she was singled out for special thanks by leaders.
Until it dawned on me to go to that Wiki bio, I hadn’t any idea that she had done so much — especially when she was young and long before she was in any spotlight. Every item, btw, is fully vetted and linked.
There’s also this new AFP article on her involvement in foreign policy during her White House years — the AFP story also counters the tenor of the NYT story last week.
Then there’s that she’s been in the U.S. Senate since 2001, and on the vitally important Armed Services Committee. She’s also successfully brokered significant legislation by working with Republicans, — some of her best legislation has been to help the troops. And much more.
Her involvement in foreign policy during her “White House years” includes egging on her husband’s genocidal Iraq policies, which included not only unspeakable deprivation of basic human necessities that led to the deaths of an estimated one million children, but also deadly and destructive bombing operations, most notably so-called Operation Desert Fox.
Oh, yes! Tell Iraqi women and children what a wonderful humanitarian she is! They’ll be impressed all right!
PS I am less interested in how she helped the troops than I am in what she has done for the victims of the troops.
Susan
I just heard Bill Clinton make the whole Hillary pitch yesterday afternoon here in Iowa, making some of the same points you do. Afterwards as I thought about it I realized that much of the legislative experience he cited was for non-foreign policy-important issues. When you say “some of her best legislation has been to help the troops”, referring to the same examples Bill was making, you are damning her with faint praise.
Then I stumbled on her laughing response to Gravel’s face to face challenge for voting for Jingo Joe Lieberman’s stealth authorization to attack Iran. I was appalled. Is she a secret neo-con?
We’re going to have to do without a foreign policy savvy president. So who is it going to be? God forbid that it’s Hillary.
Susan -
Hillary’s foreign policy experience prior to 2001 is a patchwork that requires a leap of faith. Where I disagree with Larry is that, other than a President, no one has the kind of foreign policy experience that a President should have.
I believe that we need to understand how a candidate makes decisions and does this candidate have the ability to surround themsleves with the “best and the brightest.”
When it comes to most of the Presidential candidates and the issue of the Iraq War it is flagrant Monday Morning Quarterbacking and that does include HRC (”if I knew then what I know now”). President’s have to make a decision and live with it. They don’t get do-overs.
I am basing my judgement on the ability of a candidate to have the calrity of an informed decision, have the courage of their conviction to that decision.
Oh, Hillary has the courage of her convictions on her bad decisions about Iraq. Feel free to correct me, but as far as I know, never once has she suggested that she would change any of her votes on Iraq.
I would far rather see someone in the White House who has the courage to recognize, admit, and do what is needed to reverse poor decisions.
“Poor decisions” based on what? Politics? Public opinion polls?
While Hillary did say “if I knew then what I know now” which was her way of weaseling her way out of the Iraq vote she made.
I want a leader - not a follower - a person who can make a wise decision and then have the courage (key word) to follow through.
By Hillary’s statement, she does not qualify.
I’m impressed by her work as Chairman of Legal Services, Inc. Under Carter, she quadrupled funding for legal services for the poor. When Reagan tried to abolish Legal Services, Hillary tied him in knots so he couldn’t. Reports are that she was brilliant and aggressive in defending Legal Services from the President.
That was at age 33 - the age when her Yale classmates were just vying for junior partner in corporate firms, she was running a $300 million agency and winning a head-to-head cage match with POTUS.
How very “convenient” to produce a campaign-era article that states Hillary tried to “urge” hubby Bill to intercede in Rwanda genocide. I’m sure there’s lots of proof of that. uh huh… ’scuse me while I send the Clinton library another FOIA demand. Right.
Any news articles of that era about Clintonian arguing in the WH over Rwanda to be had? Of course not. And what fool would expect Mr.-finger-in-the-air Clinton to act militarily against the will of the UN/UNSC majority? Not his MO.
Nope… a “report” of being on the “right side” of an issue that timing says is too convenient, and too patronizing to be believable. Pure stump stuff, and insulting to masses that like more than lip service as a character indicator.
This BS is right up with the Bill absorbing the only admin experience she can claim - Hillary care - as his fault and undoing. He will happily acquiese to be the scapegoat… just long enough for them to change their address to Pennsylvania Ave, DC again.
Also, INRE Ms. SusanUNPC’s comment below… Wikipedia as a source? Oh my… ’nuff said.
The only experience one can attribute to Ms. Clinton is far from appealing. Sad bit is, I have to agree that in the field of the Dems, she is probably the cream of the crop. And that doesn’t bode well.
The same can be said of the Reps.
And one of either corrupt party that is elected becomes my President - so count me not only a seriously concerned citizen, but more-than-usual highly unenthused about all voter. In fact, it really all comes down to who will pick the best advisors. And how will we know that? Everyone is stacking up the favors owed.
HILLARY IS NOT GOING TO WIN IOWA OR ANY OTHER PRIMARY. AND BILL HAS AGED SO MUCH, HE DOESN’T LOOK AT ALL HEALTHY AND MIGHT NOT FINISH HIS, ER I MEAN, HER TERM, ANYWAY. WHO NEEDS THEM?
“It is not the “experience” that is relevant to running a sound foreign and national security policy. It is more important that our next leader fully understand the bureaucratic resources he or she will control–this includes the full panoply of diplomatic, law enforcement, military, intelligence, trade, and financial capabilities. It also is essential that the President appoint competent people to administer those agencies and effectively coordinate their activities thru the National Security Council.”
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/01/no-time-for-amateurs/#more-1233
Zonds, to me Larry… you’re a “dead-ringer” for the next Sec State…!
Olde soldier sends…!
No way man. Why do I want to take a pay cut to work in Government? Been there, done that.
I know, and you know…You’d take a “pay cut” …!
Yes even you did aspire before and you would, again…!
Even today… It’s in your blood soldier…!
Anytime, anywhere and anyplace for your dear olde USA requested, asked, signed, sealed, sent and delivered…that your sorry bony ass required…
Not withstanding your very small, almost insignificant, minisqueale, personal expertise and experience…with respect to the current ops!
You would and could not say… “Naught” …!
Have you ever heard that word “Naught” used before…?
I haven’t either…?
Olde soldier sends…
Naught, not, nyet, nein. And NO!
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230…
Olde soldier sends…
LJ…
All my best to you and your’s in the New Year…!
…and our great country the good olde USA!
Olde soldier sends…
Best regards…!
jgocht@countryspeed.com
Larry,
I, for one would like you to rethink that a bit - Pay Cut as in salary - Yup - but did you ever think that maybe Warren Buffet could manage a blind trust for you and you may actually come out way ahead financially?
I make this argument, because Larry, your country REALLY need top quality people like you in key positions. And with your credentials you would have your pick of jobs. Again, just say maybe and not defintely NO WAY-Please?
What if they made you one of those high paid Blue Badgers, Mr Murder spoke of?
Larry:Who ever is
selectedelected as the next President,..???Off to the Supreme Court again? Gee Willikers Gomer! Not that again,you say! You forgot Nada.
We could make it like fantasy football and see what the free agency market will bare.
You guys are funny. I will be happy to help at the start of an Administration in getting the various agencies staffed up. But I’m not looking for a new job. Like what I’m doing. Have full control over my schedule and I’m spending most of my time taking down tobacco and liquor companies for money laundering.
YES, get those money launderers!
After eight years of Cheney/Bush is there anything left of foreign service boots left that can be depended on?
Or are they all corrupted by the anti-brown egg factions?
Larry - A few days ago you told us that your first choice is really Edwards, but all the posts have been rah-rah Hillary.
Can you please elaborate on your earlier Edwards comment?
Yes, Larry, please explain why, if your preference is Edwards, there has not been a single posting here about Edwards’ candidacy while the pro-Hillary/anti-Obama postings have been virtually non-stop.
Personally, I think Edwards would make a better national candidate. However, Edwards is not being attacked like Hillary.
I think Obama is a joke. He’s so naive that it borders on dangerous. However, this specific article does not endorse Hillary. And honestly, Hillary is more qualified on the foreign policy front than Edwards.
Both Edwards and Hillary surpass Obama by light years.
Hope this helps.
Also, I gave Wayne Williams and Brad Parker, two rabid Edwards supporters, full permission to post anything they want about Edwards. I can’t make them post.
It really doesn’t help all that much, Larry. If you think Edwards is the better candidate, then why aren’t you making any effort at all to promote his candidacy, and instead focusing Hillary, even if you are doing so via negativity about Obama? The fact that she has been attacked just doesn’t seem like a rational reason to completely ignore the candidate you think is best.
As for foreign policy, if you want another hawk in the White House, OK. I, for one, do not.
Yeah, I don’t get that either: Supporting Hillary based on the number of attacks against her…a sympathy vote. Plus preferring Edwards, yet campaigning for Hillary.
Larry..
I think your article is really a great Piece ..worthy of reading two or three times over for content and meaning..and for your fair and honest analysis of the failure of U.S. and Administration Policys when those who govern make poor and ill advised decisions ….
And when our own CFR and National Security Advisors and
the U.N. Security Council team up..to help create preventable Tragic Humanitarian situations like the 1994 Genocide and mass murder of
800,000 to one million human lifes…men ..women and children of all ages…mostly by machete..over a one hundred day period.. mistly because france..Belgium and the United States..ignored all requests for Operational assistance for UNAMIR ..in Rwanda..being run mostly by the Canadians there..
This also resulted in the mass exodus of 2 million refugees to horrible conditions in Zaire..(Now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) causing two more civil Wars there..
President Clinton later conceeded that he could have prevented the whole situation with 5000 Peace Keepers..but He didn’t because State Departement attitude was that the situation in “Rwanda” was a tribal Matter..and it was inevitable that they settle matters among themselfs..and afterwards we can hold tribunals with “Rules”..
You are right Larry..Failures are Failures..Bill Clinton made them in a big way..especially with Rwanda..and other Foreign Policy Arenas..and George W. Bush made them especially with Iraq..Same result..The United States Goverrnment is responsible in that it could have prevented both tragic Situations..with a Good President..Cabinet and Good Secretary of State..
You are right Larry to also focus on the NSC…it plays a far greater role in United States Policy than anyone..or the Media..has every Focused On.. or also on the CFR..
At a minimum..I would like to see you at least seated around the “Round Table” on the Next NSC..
It has distressed me to know that the blood of hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda and Iraq is on Americas Hands..just because One Group didn’t have anything Our Leaders wanted..and the other group did..People have suffered either way..
I don’t know if The United states has reached a Cross Roads..or if Our Politicians have finally brought us to the Point of no Return..
Thats why your Advice..Analysis ..Concerns and this Years elections are so important Larry..along with the Quality of Leadership We..The American people get
Next..
Like Our Founding Fathers…Larry..I know that You will Walk the Walk ..if asked too..and the Bell Rings..
Honestly, can the CIA & other behind the scene operations be trusted anymore?
Could they ever?
Is it really the CIA anymore?
Dr. Hillhouse:
.
http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2007/12/cia-contractors.html
http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2007/12/dod-withholds-u.html
A quote from another AFP story that underscores Larry’s point:
It doesn’t take much thought to realize that the only reason Dennis Kucinich is giving the nod to Obama when he drops out of the race is because Obama says he would not have voted for the Iraq war had he been in the Senate. The thought of another Clinton in the White House being torn apart by the right wing isn’t pretty but that isn’t a good enough excuse not to vote for her. I would rather have President Clinton fighting the enemy she knows than President Obama taking notes from the right wing and accepting their advice as honest and right. He needs to share more hours in the senate and stop taking talking points from the right.
1. Obama has also stated a number of times that he does not know HOW he would have voted (my bet based on his record is that he would have either voted for it, or ducked out of the vote altogether), and has voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq matters since he has been in the Senate. Surely Dennis Kucinich is aware of that, so I doubt it is merely Obama’s claiming when it was politically expedient that he would have voted no on authorization.
2. I don’t understand voting for or against Hillary based on “the thought of another Clinton in the White House”. The only rational basis on which to vote for or against her is her record and her stated policies. If you are fine with a hawk who has consistently, and enthusiastically championed, and in some cases urged, military action over and over again, who has made clear her intention to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, who says she will significantly increase the size and budget of the military, and who has declared her willingness to use military action, and even nuclear weapons, to force other countries to comply with the U.S., then she is the lady for you.
In short, if you are OK with a president whose foreign policy is similar to that of Ronald Reagan, and not all that far from George W. Bush, and whose record on international law and respect for the UN and the world community in general is close to that of George W. Bush, then by all means vote for her.
And by the way, Obama on foreign policy is not significantly different from Hillary.
Being that they are different people and will respond differently, the policy of a given person will be different. People will position themselves where it is in their self-interest. This world spins to fast to look at policy in isolation. I’d look at how they operate under stress and what efforts they make to work with dissent.
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Hillary has consistently taken hawkish positions, and made hawkish statements in regard to foreign policy and military policy. Harder to tell with Obama, as he does not have as lengthy a track record, but so far his record matches hers pretty well.
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
Listen to Robert Parry discuss the foreign policy positions of the Democratic contenders and his article, “Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush.”
http://consortiumblog.blogspot.com/
Regarding how they operate under stress and work with dissent, I don’t know about any specific examples for either Hillary or Obama. However, Hillary as some behaviours that look to me like red flags, and would prompt me to look carefully at her record if I were considering voting for her.
For example, there is that horrid sarcastic, derisive, shrill and lengthy laugh she has unleashed on her opponents on several occasions. I have called it a cackle a few times, but that calls up the image of a witch, which is not at all what I am suggesting, though the word laugh just doesn’t quite capture the sense it conveys. It does not give me a comfortable feeling about the way she deals with those who oppose or disagree with her. At this point, though, all I am saying is that in that light of that and a few other things, I suggest digging a bit deeper.
This “red state, blue state” game says it’s for ages 5 -15. Why adults find it fun to play, “Lord of the Flies only knows.”
No Quarter:
In a previous post re: foreign policy and Pakistan Larry suggested:
“We need to define our interests in the country and
region and proceed constructing our policy from there.
I suggest we consider the following as our primary
objectives:
promote a stable government that upholds rule of law
and shies away from religious extremism (come to think
of it, that should be our goal for the U.S. as well);
maintain and strengthen close ties with police,
military, and intelligence officials willing to engage
Islamic extremists;
ensure that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in the
hands of responsible, secular officials and
institutions;
support economic development activities to counter the
influence of the madrassas;
encourage regional cooperations among Iran,
Afghanistan, and India to
eliminate drug trafficking and paramilitary training.”
What we never get is specifics on what the Democratic or Republican candidates intend to do re: world affairs i.e. I get more specifics in blogs and my email Group.
No Quarter:
The US is not the world leader in counterterrorism efforts - in my opinion - SE Asia leads:
Below are listed the precedents for counterterrorism
practice as stated by ASEAN. If we are to review the
year re: the address of both terrorism group
operational capacity and motivation (based on a model
of Dr. Boaz Ganor) then I think this is a good place
to start
http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/Legislative%20Response/ASEAN%20Convention%20on%20Counter%20Terrorism,%20Cebu,%20Philippines,%2013%20January%202007.pdf
ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism, Cebu,
Philippines, 13 January 2007
ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism
Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) - Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of
Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar,
the Republic of the Philippines, the
Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand, and
the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, hereinafter
referred to as “the Parties”;
RECALLING the Charter of the United Nations and
relevant principles of international law,
the relevant international conventions and protocols
relating to counter terrorism and relevant
resolutions of the United Nations on measures aimed at
countering international terrorism, and
reaffirming our commitment to protect human rights,
fair treatment, the rule of law, and due
process as well as the principles enshrined in the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in
Southeast Asia done at Bali on 24 February 1976;
REAFFIRMING that terrorism cannot and should not be
associated with any religion,
nationality, civilisation or ethnic group;
RECALLING also the ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action
to Counter Terrorism and the Declaration on Terrorism
adopted at the ASEAN Summits in 2001 and 2002
respectively;
REAFFIRMING our commitment to the Vientiane Action
Programme done at Vientiane on 29 November 2004,
particularly its thrust on “shaping and sharing of
norms” and the need,among others, to work towards the
conclusion of an ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance
Agreement, and an ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism, and the establishment of an ASEAN
Convention on Counter Terrorism, Cebu, Philippines, 13
January 2007 ASEAN Extradition Treaty as envisaged by
the 1976 Declaration of ASEAN Concord;
DEEPLY CONCERNED over the grave danger posed by
terrorism to innocent lives, infrastructure and the
environment, regional and international peace and
stability as well as to economic development;
REALISING the importance of identifying and
effectively addressing the root causes of
terrorism in the formulation of any counter terrorism
measures;
REITERATING that terrorism, in all its forms and
manifestations, committed wherever, whenever, and by
whomsoever, is a profound threat to international
peace and security and a direct challenge to the
attainment of peace, progress and prosperity for ASEAN
and the realisation of ASEAN Vision 2020;
REAFFIRMING our strong commitment to enhance
cooperation in countering terrorism
which covers the prevention and suppression of all
forms of terrorist acts;
REITERATING the need to improve regional cooperation
on counter terrorism and undertake
effective measures through deepening cooperation among
ASEAN law enforcement agencies
and relevant authorities in countering terrorism;
ENCOURAGING the Parties to become parties as soon as
possible to the relevant international conventions and
protocols relating to counter terrorism;
Clinton’s showdown with Eric Edelman is a good example of what you’re talking about.
While Obama was making speeches to court the anti-war left, Clinton had her eye on Cheney and the Pentagon. She found out contingency planning for safe troop withdrawal was being blocked — to limit the redeployment options of the next President. We know what happened next — she called Edelman on it, and put pressure on Gates. Hillary had sources in the Pentagon that alerted her to Edelman’s game, bucking Cheney in the process. A perfect example of the difference between saying ‘bring the troops home’ and making it happen.
Nixon said that, even in 1960 after 8 years as VP, he didn’t yet have the skills to make his China opening. It took him another 8 years traveling the world to get to that level.
Fine, except that Hillary has made it clear that she does not intend to bring all the troops home. She has stated clearly her intention to keep a large number of troops in Iraq indefinitely.
[...] then examines Obama’s claims, and find them wanting, as has former ambassador Joseph Wilson, Larry Johnson, and [...]
parry sound real estate
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it.