An Obama Presidency: The Niggles Begin

As I was on the move, I wrote this before reading today's papers. The Times of London is claiming, based on information from "aides", that "Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office."

With a couple of colleagues from Clinton Institute, listened to a speech by Senator Patrick Leahy at University College Dublin.

Leahy, a skillful speaker, gave a short set-piece presentation about the excitement and hope of the Obama victory, includoing the possibility of rebuilding US image abroad.

Not much detail, however, so I thought I would press in question-and-answer. "Given the Bush Administration's vast expansion of executive power, for example, on torture, detention, surveillance, and the use of signing statements, how soon could we expect Obama and the Democratic-led Congress to roll back those powers?"

That's when the warning flags came out. Leahy was forceful enough in saying that the US Government had forgotten the basic maxim, "Follow the laws", so American image as promoter of freedom had been tarnished. And it should be noted that Leahy, as chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, has given Bush Administration a rough ride over its re-interpretation of laws and power, especially in the case of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But he wouldn't grasp the nettle on the question. He merely said, "I hope some of these executive powers will be rolled back; if not, there will be pressure." That pressure was undefined, and the rest of the answer was a stall on whether Obama and Congress revoke powers on torture, detention, surveillance, and military operations.

And there were more disturbing omissions and deflections. In response to another question, Leahy said, "We're going to need a bipartisan coalition to close [the US detention facility] at Guantanamo".

Ummm, no, you don't. Just as President Bush could open authorise detention with an executive order, so President Obama could stop revoke it with a signature. The issue has nothing to do with Congressional authority.

Translation? I think Leahy is still worried that the Democrats will look "soft" on national security if they challenge --- at least without assured support from some Republicans --- the Bush Administration's grab of executive power.

That impression is reinforced by Leahy's (non)-answer to another excellent question: "Given the Bush Administration's effective institutionalisation of power and Government infra-structure, for example, through the extension of military authority, bases, and planning, could the Obama Presidency do much to push this back?" Leahy spoke for several minutes in reply, but I could not find a single word of substance to jot down.

I like the poodle best

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-A-KcMiVtc[/youtube]

Amnesty International reveals the hitherto unknown talents of monsieurs Putin, Bush and Ahmadinejad. [via Very Short List]

Homeland Security: Obama = Nazi/Communist/Socialist Alert

Today's Vigilant Citizen Award has to go to Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia.

That's because Broun has uncovered Obama's plot to impose an American Gestapo upon us. He tipped off the Associated Press on Monday, "It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force."

In July Obama gave a speech in which he called for an expanded civilian service corps. In addition to expanding the US foreign and diplomatic service and doubliing the Peace Corps, he proposed a civilian national security force to support the US military. Now to you and me, that might sound a homeland security measure alongside the police and National Guard, but Broun has the real story.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

In addition to the historical breakthrough of establishing that 1930s Germany National Socialists were exactly the same as 1930s Soviet Communists (that later war between them must have been a fluke), Broun has called the President-elect to account: "We may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

And, in an essential update of the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" rule, Broun can reveal that, as the civilian security corps hauls us in for enhanced interrogation, Obama's gun control laws will take our weapons away from us.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun warned. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Congressman Broun, I thank you. And to you, Enduring America readers, I say: Be vigilant. Be very vigilant.

Hanging Out with the Clintons (Kind of)

I'll be working in Dublin today with our partner, the Clinton Institute for American Studies at University College Dublin. So other folks will be minding the shop today --- posting will resume this evening.

Iraq: Slouching Towards Limbo

So Iraq, after a break away from the front pages, will be back tomorrow. Dozens of people have been killed in three bombings in Baghdad, one in Baquba, and one in Samarra.

It's a sad reality that Iraq only makes Page 1 now with a series of incident like today's or with a carefully-packaged story by the US military on the state of the "surge". If you're thousands of miles away, there's an eerieness as tragedy makes a brief appearance and is then whisked out the door by the myth of American success. There is nothing in between.

Nothing, for example, in the US press on the quiet but significant British announcement that their soldiers are out by July 2009 and possibly by April. That's right, gone. The withdrawal of the 4100 troops may be spun as a testament to success, since violence in the south is down in recent months, but it is equally likely that the Brits will just slide away with little fanfare. This hasn't been London's fight for some time, and certainly not since Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister.

And the "minor" incidents of violence aren't likely be in your breakfast headlines. Consider, for example, this from yesterday:

Baghdad: Around 10 am a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in the Rubayee street in Zayuna neighborhood (east Baghdad). Six people were injured including two policemen.

Anbar: Around 9 am a female suicide bomber targeted the emergency room of the Amiriat Al-Falluja hospital. One woman was killed and five other people were injured including three women, Falluja police said.

Diyala: Around 9 am a bomb planted in garbage container detonated near the main market in downtown Baquba. One sweeper was killed and five other civilians were injured. A roadside bomb detonated in Khalis market ( north of Baquba). Five people were killed and 8 others were wounded including the district commissioner of Khalis town, Uday Al-Khathran.

Kirkuk: Gunmen riding in a Toyota pick up car kidnapped a policeman who was in his own car in Rashad town (southwest Kirkuk) on Saturday night, police said. Gunmen opened fire on an Iraqi check point in Askari neighborhood of Tuz Khurmatu (south of Kirkuk) around 5 am. Three soldiers were wounded.

Mosul: A roadside bomb detonated in Intisar neighborhood (downtown Mosul city). Two people were injured. Gunmen killed a policeman in front of his house in Ghizlani neighborhood in downtown Mosul. - A suicide car bomber targeted a police patrol in Mansour neighborhood in Mosul city around 5:30 pm. Eleven people were injured including 6 policemen. A roadside bomb targeted an army patrol in Al-Zihour neighborhood in Mosul city. Three soldiers were killed and seven people were injured including four soldiers.

But, maybe most significantly, you'll have to search long and hard for the latest on the proposed Status of Forces Agreement, which the US hopes will be in place when the UN mandate (the current basis for the occupation) expires on 31 December. After months of wrangling, the al-Maliki Government has passed its almost-final verdict on the arrangement: it's going to pass the buck. That is, caught between US insistence on exemption of its soldiers from Iraqi sovereignty and the opposition of much of the Iraqi population to the agreement, the Government will put the proposal to the Iraqi Parliament for a straight up-or-down vote.

No more negotiations, especially with a lame-duck Bush Administration. And given the mobilisation by key Iraqi groups --- the Sadrists, other Shi'a parties, and even some of the Sunnis whom the US has been touting as Awakened Allies, it's highly likely that the Parliament will have enough cover to throw the agreement back at Washington.

This political wrangling doesn't have the drama of "liberation" or an insurgent's bomb. It's far too complex to make for an easy read. And so it will probably continue to hide behind the "surge" tales and superfluous speculation of US troops out by end of 2011, mid-2011, end of 2010? In recent days, only the New York Times has broken cover to put forth any original thinking:

If the agreement is stymied, the United States and Iraq should ask the Security Council to extend its mandate. Or the two countries could agree to let the American forces keep operating until the pact is concluded.

The fact that the process is taking so long is also a reminder that there is no moving forward in Iraq without bringing Iran into the process — something Mr. Bush has fiercely resisted.

But, of course, that quick burst of thought merely stirs up a bit of trouble. Talking to Iran, the enemies next door to the former enemies in Iraq? Surely not.

And so we're likely, even in this time of "Change", to be falling back on more surge, surge, surge and little else (apart from inconvenient quintuple-bombings) for the near-future.