Iran announces construction of 10 new uranium processing facilities - ok - provocation or feint? Or both? Or simply cavalier bravado? Feint - in order to throw smoke across the network of secret facilities like one revealed at Qom - also, since such a ramp up in production would seem to be overkill, new construction likely for dummy facilities whose sole purpose would be to seriously complicate any plans Israel may have concerning a military intervention. Feint/decoy makes sense I suppose.

But what would be the purpose of a provocation? True, a feint in and of itself amounts to a provocation as well - but if provocation is the main motive, to what end? Don't see it - which means it must be the feint/decoy - could it be the more bravado and disdain they show in the face of Western opposition the sweeter will be their victory when Obama eventually backs down? There's something of a logic there if one has concluded that Obama brings nothing to the table worth fearing.

Still, if we agree that it amounts to a provocation regardless of how one parses it, what would that say about the regime and how it views itself, the capabilities of its enemies and the calculations of its friends, either announced or standing coyly off stage? It's hard to come up with an answer to that question that doesn't cause worry.

I'm curious - I don't know if someone has considered this - they must have, it seems so obvious - I just don't recall reading anything addressing my concern or curiosity here - namely, with all this gaming going on between China and the US re climate change policy, emission goals etc etc, doesn't it seem likely or at least suspiciously not unlikely that China is pulling the US into a trap here, a trap that the US can't back away from without looking bad? I mean, why would China be so interested in environmental concerns? Seems a highly counter intuitive initiative on their part to me - hell, it's not an open society or transparent polity, if they say they plan to reduce emissions by 20% or whatever how will it be possible to confirm the truth of their claims? Everyone knows they lie about military expenditures, about real GDP numbers, about the true state of their banks, about public health concerns, about social unrest - we're suddenly just going to take their word on climate initiatives? Especially, when viewed objectively, it's hard to see why they'd be so interested in putting constraints on their industrial output, the very thing driving their economy? Sure, I'm a sceptic by nature and am always prepared to doubt the sincerity of somthing, but I have trouble understanding why a person wouldn't be sceptical about China's intentions here.

Of course, the problem is figuring out how luring the US into a trap that hobbles its economy is to China's benefit [pushing America increasingly towards enervating European style policy positions certainly comes to mind - social welfare, state intrusion everywhere, high taxes, sentimentality - these things are not helpful if you're America] - given short term economic concerns China trying to drag the US into some kind of statist inertia doesn't seem in their best interests - but as regards long term geo-strategic considerations? I could see how they may think that long term advantages outweigh short term disadvantages. I don't understand the parameters of the global economy well enough to figure out how everything would or could play out here - I certainly hope though that the people who do understand the fine print are as fond of scepticism as I am.

"... the question will be how much wiggle room does he leave himself - how many declarations leave themselves open to substantially different interpretations of intent - how much of what is 'promised' is subject to contingencies - already we read in the Times this morning that he'll approximate McChrystal's troops request by relying on an unrealistic expectation of increased numbers from allies - that suggests to me an announcement on Tuesday potentially compromised by significant presence of smoke and mirrors.

But to even speculate with some optimism as you do here Feaver becomes in the end essentially [to conjure evil spectre of Sarah] the putting of lipstick on a pig - Obama took so long with this decision because ultimately he has no faith in it and he has no faith in it because it suggests a world view he cannot comfortably abide - this is a man who sees himself giving grand, idealistic speeches and cavalierly pushing for a Great Society Redux during the worst economic downturn in decades - but war? C'mon.

My guess is that what we'll see on Tuesday will be the result of a lot of arm twisting by Gates and Clinton and Obama thinking that after interminable deliberation he has managed to reason out an appropriate answer - but an intellectual construct that is not supported by belief, by a faith in one's purpose, will not hold up under pressure, will not endure. It won't - and I'm guessing the Taliban knows it - they've taken their measure of our 'Professor in Chief' and they ain't goin' nowhere..."

Obama suggests in press conference today that he will announce his Afghan decision next week, adding that he 'intends to finish the job' - which seems to imply that he will either be giving McChrystal roughly what he wants - or redefining what 'getting the job done' means. It's not impossible, with his poll numbers dipping and his presidency in something of a funk, it's not impossible that he could seek to transform the narrative and go with the former - I have a hard time believing it's anything but that latter though. That it was a rehearsed answer to a planted question that tried to imply victory but in ambiguous terms leads me to believe they're trying to aggressively sell the positives of an argument fraught with negatives. Still, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they entirely surprised me here.

[yes, but, c'mon - you'd be shocked if he committed to a robust effort to 'win' the war in a manner that conformed with what the generals thought winning to mean - true, and I don't know how exactly I'll account for it if he does make such a commitment - strike that: it will definitely indicate a backroom victory by Gates and Clinton over the skeptics - I've already speculated that such is the very reason Gates thought it important to stay on as SecDef, and that Clinton has fostered a close relationship with both Gates and Petraeus is common knowledge. Still, regardless, I will definitely be shocked if there's not some significant compromise built into the plan as means to mollify the uber left.

And I maintain that it is wrong to view his unending deliberation over the question as a good thing - there's a front page article in the Post this morning basically lionizing Obama as the 'Professor in Chief' - I think this is a naive and fundamentally flawed interpretation of what has happened here - this is a type of decision and responsibility completely outside of his ideological comfort zone - he tried to subdue it with reason but it is not the type of thing that reason can control - he only gets to where apparently he is with a lot of arm twisting from Gates and Clinton - because the answer to the question is pretty obvious: a 'loss' in Afghanistan will generate serious consequences for years down the road and therefore you have to try and 'win' - now, of course there is much to debate concerning how to go about it and I've certainly expressed much skepticism re COIN - but I don't think that's what he was debating, I think it's much more likely he was looking for some credible way to extricate himself from the mess and that Gates and Clinton eventually convinced him that there wasn't - remember, if six months from now things are going badly and the left is feeling betrayed and loudly expressing it, the lauding in the Post as 'Professor in Chief' will prove cold comfort indeed - reasoning and intellect can only take you so far here and it's utterly naive if not delusional to believe otherwise - if Obama has settled his own fears by imaging he's reasoned out the 'right' answer I would expect to see his confidence in the rightness of that answer to quickly fade and his commitment to the 'Afghan problem' to fade with it should things get ugly. I expect the Taliban is thinking the very same thing - ergo, watch for things to get ugly.

After all - he made very quick decisions on the stimulus plan and health care overhaul, both of which seem poorly constructed with the latter also being unpopular with a majority of voters - no endless deliberation there even though those things will have a much more immediate effect on the population's sense of well being - why? - because the emotional elements are already defined for him - he's on ideological terra firma there - but war requires the marshaling of much intellect because he has no ingrained instinct to rely on with such issues - people who see this as a good thing are fooling themselves because an intellectual commitment requires an emotional commitment to sustain it - without the re-enforcing component of faith in ones purpose the intellectual scaffolding will collapse under pressure]

"... of course, the interesting thing about asymmetric warfare is that it's asymmetric... I mean, it doesn't attempt to match the destructive power of the thing it opposes but rather degrade it on an emotional level... to which I answer, subtend the regressive emotion with a more proactive one and utterly destroy the motherfuckers..."

This decision to conduct civilian trials for a group of the worst offenders from Gitmo, including 9/11 mastermind KSM, is troubling - as in it doesn't seem to make any sense, unless one accepts conservative taking point that this is just a way to put the Bush administration on trial by proxy for the purposes of mollifying the uber left - the argument I guess being that in a civilian trial all the torture and other supposed abuses of due process endorsed by Bush will perforce be put on trial too.

If that's the reason then of all the bad decisions Obama has made so far this may go to the top of the list because from what I've read there seems to be a plethora of downside here and very little if any upside - the rationalization that this somehow sends a good message to the wider world viz American ideals of justice and openness seems ridiculous seeing as how KSM has already been prejudged and the outcome predetermined making it but a show trail which, for my money, would seem to discredit the system, not redeem it - hell, Obama himself went public yesterday with the pledge that KSM would certainly be executed which, as one wag put it, so sullies the jury pool that you'll be able to traverse it by walking on the bloated corpses.

Throw in not only the security concerns for New York, but the very real national security concerns since, if KSM chooses to act as his own attorney, he has the right to see all the evidence against him - the fact you're giving a soap box to the guy which, if he's as clever as I imagine he is, he'll be able to manipulate to his heart's content - the truly vexing problem of blurring the line between civilian and military forms of justice to the detriment of the latter - if OBL is captured tomorrow, will he have to be read his Miranda rights? will he have constitutionally protected right to remain silent? will a chain of evidence need to be secured? if we deny him a civilian trail, how can that now be legitimately justified? Lindsey Graham, in questioning the AG yesterday, brought to light two troubling realities: one, breaking down the barrier between military and civilian justice creates real problems on the battle field when it comes to dealing with illegal combatants; and two, the AG had no good answers for the senator - which says to me they haven't really thought this through - which seems to lend credence to the idea that their motivation is strictly ideological, placate the uber left.

I'm hardly an expert on jurisprudence [well, I'm hardly an expert on anything, truth be told] - but I've read nothing that convincingly suggests this is anything other than a reckless and utterly misguided act of blind partisanship that plays fast and loose with real issues regarding national security. 

... you're playing at semantics, being way too delicate - Obama owned this war the moment he decided to run for president - hell, the moment he decided to juice up his political ambitions by opposing the Iraq war he owned it because at that moment he was letting it be known that he understood 'the big questions' and was willing and able to make the big decisions thereof - he compounded this avowal and commitment and responsibility by embracing the war in Afghanistan during the election - if he didn't understand the nature of that responsibility or didn't care to examine it too closely for fear such an examination might undermine the political utility of looking like a guy who could make 'the big decisions', well, who's to blame for that?

The great unknown about Obama [although personally I thought the answer quite obvious] was what would happen when he had to make a difficult decision that fell outside of his ideological comfort zone. Pass a leviathan of a stimulus package, easy! Pursue massive health care reform - can make that choice over breakfast - those things all nicely comply with his ideological imperatives. But war? The cold hard realities of foreign policy? The brutal, visceral cunning of power, of force against force?

Obama's apologists would have that this endless debate is a good thing but I say it's a manifestation of fear - there's no safe refuge of ideological purity here, no quick satisfaction of acting in accordance with a naive world view that has served him well til now but is a template that no longer fits the harsh realities on the ground. He's afraid and wants to believe that an endless appeal to reason or the vanities of an intellectual inertia will subdue the demons waiting in the shadows, will free him from the curse of action.

Obama can deal with health care reform not going as he may have planned because the ideological satisfaction will still be there to sustain him. But a war decision that doesn't go as he would hope? Or a complication or confrontation on the global stage that resists his charms and insists in acting against his wishes? We've seen his response: every foreign policy gesture he has made since taking office has telegraphed a preference for compromise and accommodation - has telegraphed weakness. He did try to play tough with Israel but even backed down from that - wisely, as far as I'm concerned, but still.

His apologists will loudly declaim against such a portrayal, and obviously the man could still prove me wrong - but until facts emerge that suggest otherwise I'll maintain that America has not elected another Jimmy Carter, they've elected someone worse.

My catty response to Walt, a real lefty foreign policy guy, who wrote a critique of COIN [which I myself have certainly done] based on assumptions that were absurdly simplistic. I guess this is his way of saying that Obama wouldn't be making such a mess of his erstwhile commitment to the Afghan effort if there were no Afghan effort to make a mess of - ie if he's making mistakes that's only because Bush created an environment where those mistakes could be made, therefore, in a sense, the mistakes don't really exist. I can't wait to tell my ex-wife that I don't owe her alimony because if we had never been married I could never have cheated on her.

A remarkably fatuous argument. Surely it was constructed as part of an ironical lampoon of the FP analysis community, yes?

So, if I follow the logic of your thinking, if we hadn't foolishly invaded Iraq in 2003, but, given Saddam's predilections and the endemic complications of the region, we had been required to do so a few years latter, of course only in accordance with principles you judged legitimate, that that war, because it wasn't conceived by fools, would have gone swimmingly and no insurgency would have dared arise. In other words, insurgencies only happen to bad people.

Likewise, again, if I grasp your line of reasoning here, if we hadn't screwed the pooch in Tora Bora but rather had delivered unto OBL on those windswept rocks the full reckoning he deserved, then Islamic radicalism and its necessary dependency on asymmetric warfare and adjunct affiliation with Taliban-like fundamentalism would have vanished with him. In other words, jihad and its appurtenances only happen to bad people.

I now understand your enthusiastic embrace of Obama: the comfort of history and human nature re-imagined not to express the things that are but rather the things we wish had been. It's all so simple.

In response to Niall Ferguson essay on how the current economic crisis will perforce cause a change in the rules governing relations between China and US viz dollar valuations and trade and competition etc I ask, possibly in the manner of 'what I know simply, I simply don't know' - is it true that if China stops pegging its dollar, allowing it to rise against US currency and thusly supposedly mitigating trade imbalance between the two countries - won't Chinese consumers then be required to purchase American products and services which in turn will require a lifting of restrictions on the citizenry and engender a need for an embrace of Western values concerning individual rights and freedoms etc etc much in the manner of post war Japan? Since China has benefited a great deal from an artificially valued currency and fears the consequences of liberalization, doesn't that indicate a conflict is brewing here? Simply can't know limited as I am to only knowing it simply - seems like a problem to me though. I imagine there are several reasons why post war Japan was willing to adopt western values - but certainly one of them was that their past had been significantly discredited - can we really expect any significant liberalization in China without a similar discrediting?

Obama bows to Japan's emperor - really bows, gets way down there, practically prostrates self - the optics of it are certainly ugly, and if I had a relative who died on Iwo Jima or Okinawa et al trying to root out a fanaticism embodied by the emperor I'd certainly have trouble keeping the breakfast down waking up to that photo - but aside from the embarrassing optics, is it right to infer a darker more disturbing presence behind the gesture? Can it be seen as emblematic of Obama's view of America and its place in the world? Does it demonstrate an ingratiating naiveté about what it means to be a global power in a dangerous world and the bedrock upon which democratic principles and Western values rest?

Conservatives obviously think so - livid, shamed, repulsed pretty much sums up what I'm hearing from the right regarding the photo - and one cannot deny that since taking office the message Obama has sent out to the world, either explicitly in the Muslim apology speech, or implicitly in various other speeches and actions [Afghanistan, Iran, missile defense, the F-22 etc etc] that telegraphed a chastened America, a humbled America, an America in retreat, an America no longer exceptional or fit to unilaterally lead like-minded nations - the message he has sent out is that America under him will be governed by ideals and priorities possibly not in keeping with or commensurate to its status and role as a great and paramount power.

That may be to put it too harshly - but essentially accurate all the same I think. Still, that being said, I'm not so sure the photo can be taken as a definite expression of this new American persona under Obama - it could just be him trying to impress the Japanese in a way that his handlers thought astute - in which case I'd say their motive may have been reasonable but the way they pursued it was entirely misguided. It's an ugly photo that verges on disturbing.

[it's not possible, is it - is it? - that they stage these things on purpose in order to rile up the right wing base knowing full well that the more animated and vexed the republican extremes are the easier it will be to pass Obama off as a moderate?]