Post-Holbrooke Question: ‘What Now?’

When President Obama turned to Richard C. Holbrooke during a White House meeting on Afghanistan last year, Mr. Holbrooke spoke gravely of the historic challenge the two men faced, likening it to when Clark M. Clifford advised Lyndon B. Johnson about what to do in Vietnam. “Richard,” an impatient Mr. Obama interrupted him, “do people really talk like that?” That strained exchange helps explain why Mr. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was an awkward fit in the Obama administration. A man of high drama and an acute sense of his own role, he ruffled feathers in a White House that prides itself on team-playing and a lack of drama.

That lack of acceptance of a dissenting voice can be the basis of failure. President Obama has made an impressive showing with his tax policy compromise with Republicans, but Afghanistan is his crucible.

Intelligence Reports Offer Dim View of Afghan War

With Mr. Holbrooke’s death on Monday, the administration has lost one of its most resonant voices, just as it completes its latest review of its Afghan war strategy. His death confronts the White House and State Department with some difficult questions, starting with how to replace a larger-than-life statesman in a post that was created for him and which he built from scratch.


For all the encomiums, though, Mr. Holbrooke was on tenuous footing with the White House. He was left off Air Force One on Mr. Obama’s last two trips to Afghanistan and was increasingly marginalized in policy debates. He held on to his job, several officials said, mainly because Mrs. Clinton protected him.

In the game of political hardball, he had his supporters and detractors. Only Secretary CLinton could protect him from the President's impatience, surely.

Civilian Replaces General as Nat'l Security Adviser

General Jones’s exit had been expected at the end of the year, but it came earlier, administration officials said, after the White House became annoyed by the appearance of quotations attributed to General Jones in Bob Woodward’s book “Obama’s Wars.” [973.932 W]

 General Jones brought military experience to the White House team, but the president never let him into his inner circle, said David Rothkopf, the author of Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. “Aloof himself, he served an aloof president, so there was zero chemistry or connection,” Mr. Rothkopf added.[355.033 R]

Petraeus: Times Square bomber likely acted alone

On 7 May this item was released by the AP.

Gen. David Petraeus says the Times Square bombing suspect apparently operated as a "lone wolf" who did not work with other terrorists. The general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan tells The Associated Press that alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad was inspired by militants in Pakistan, but didn't necessarily have direct contact with them. Authorities say Shahzad told investigators he went to a terror training camp in Pakistan, but they have yet to confirm that. Shahzad is a U.S. citizen, accused of an attempted terror attack nearly a week ago in New York's Times Square. He was caught late Monday night trying to leave the country

Immediately, my question was: how does he know? He's military. Why is he saying that? Does a military get the right to make policy judgments? Is this for future use, if the General decides to run for public office.

Now that the government has said that it is probable that Shahzad had collaborators, what does the General think?

Depends on your point of view

President Obama was interviewed by Bret Baier of Fox News; that is, he consented to be interviewed by the Fox guy. These days my sympathy for, and support of, the President flags, but these Fox people are quite a breed.

I saw some of the interview on Countdown (with Laurence O'Donneell; I can not abide Olbermann these days). Granted, MSNBC is biased on the liberal side, so the excerpts played dovetailed with their point of view. Nonetheless, in one exchange Baier kept interrupting the President and reading him excerpts from letters received by Fox complaining about the Democrats and the President. In turn, the President said that he receives hundreds and thousands of letters completely counter to the letters Baier quoted. So, it depends on your perspective.

Fox has its own way of looking at things. Here is one article appearing today: Obama's Presidency Is On the Line -- And It Shows by Andrea Tantaros - FOXNews.com. Bret Baier's questions for President Obama revealed the uncertainty of our leader and the direction of our country.

Say what? It is an opinion piece, but, where is this person coming from? The extreme right wing, surely.

El Universal, Mexico City, has this story on its website: EU debe ayudar más a México: WP
El periódico estadounidense The Washington Post asegura en su editorial de este jueves que la estabilidad del país es tan importante como la de Irak, Afganistán o Pakistán.

That editorial is  Is the U.S. doing enough to help dying Juarez?

THE BRUTAL slaying of three people connected to the U.S. consulate in Juarez, Mexico, last weekend has called attention to a crisis that is getting too little attention and resources in Washington: Mexico's desperate battle against drug traffickers. For Juarez, and for the democratic government of Felipe Calderón, this has become a fight for survival -- a war as bloody and as important as those being fought in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. But though Mexican stability is a vital interest of the United States, the federal government's investment in the problem is far below what it should be, on both sides of the border.