|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 4, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Wednesday, November 4 |
ELECTION FALLOUT
What do the Republican victories say about the American voters' current opinion of the Obama administration?
"You don't get it. We, in New Jersey, voted out Jon Corzine. It had nothing to do with President Obama."
Karin Roy
Manalapan, NJ
"Neither candidate in New Jersey was attractive. I voted for Christie to send a message to Washington, end of story."
Jane Racko
Bayville, NJ
"Obama couldn't elevate the Democrats for whom he was campaigning. That doesn't mean Americans didn't consider his policies when voting."
Jeff Rowan
Connellsville, PA
"The changing of governors in New Jersey was not just about Corzine, nor was it just about Obama. It was about both of them."
Michael Raimondi
Trenton, NJ
"The notion that election results in Virginia and New Jersey only reflect on the local government is wrong."
Chris Lilienthal
Brighton, MI
"The referendum on President Obama was evidenced by the people who chose not to vote in Virginia and New Jersey this year."
Steve Hutcherson
Richmond, VA
ADVISOR O'REILLY?
Talking Points thinks the Obama administration should hire Bill as the President's top advisor.
"Senior advisor? I'd rather have you as President. You'd bring a new sense of accountability, morality, responsibility and leadership to the White House."
Audra Warner
Lancaster, PA
"You said if you were picked as President Obama's top advisor you would bring common sense to the White House. I think that would automatically disqualify you from the job."
Ken Prochnow
Campbellsport, WI
"Americans are angry at the government for not listening to us. We're really angry! We're trying to make it clear that we want the massive spending to stop."
Kathy Perez
Mena, AR
"We the people are not afraid that Washington can't get anything done. We're appalled at what they're trying to get done."
Chaz Bosarge
Clinton, MS
"We distrust Washington because they won't leave us alone!"
David Dawson
Greenville, TX
BODY LANGUAGE
Bill appears on the Halloween edition of 'The View' and has it out with Whoopi Goldberg when he teases her that she's jealous of the success of 'Bold Fresh.'
"Whoopi Goldberg's body language was reprehensible when you were on 'The View.' Her disdain was evident in the way she recoiled from you."
Scott Carey
Tampa, FL
"You obviously have a bone to pick with Whoopi. Why not get her on your show and have it out, no spin style?"
John Turnbull
Holtville, CA
"You know I love you, but I have to agree with Whoopi. There's no way she would be jealous of you. Whoopi has been Whoopi for longer than the Factor has been the Factor."
Glen Barbour
Fairfax, VA
"How come you dressed up for Halloween on 'The View' and the ladies just wore their regular witch costumes?"
John Thomas
Windermere, FL
"Tonya Reiman was wrong if she thought Whoopi Goldberg was just playfully upset with you. Goldberg was really ticked off!"
Gary Cheezig
Edina, MN
MILLER TIME
The D-man takes on Nancy Pelosi for saying election night was a win for the Democrats. What was she thinking?
"Why do I get the impression Miller doesn't care for Nancy Pelosi?"
Chuck Waldron
Lakeland, FL
"I disagree with Miller. This country's third in command is not a certified buffoon, she only comes off as one because her life is completely run by emotion."
Butch Higley
Marianna, FL
"Miller is right about Pelosi being empty and vapid. The longer she's in office, the more robotic she becomes."
Susan Joy Durovey-Tuley
Shamrock Lakes, IN
"The only thing Nancy Pelosi's comment proves is that she's living in the land of Oz and doesn't have a staff who can do research for her."
Owen Miller
Lebanon, OR
"I agree with Dennis Miller about Pelosi. Every time I see her, I get the same feeling of disgust I got when I saw Richard Nixon."
Tom Monfort
Columbus, GA
MISCELLANEOUS
"I know this is sappy, but you're the most positive influence on my life. You are making me a better person by your example."
Todd Morris
Hemet, CA
"You should become the Common Sense Czar for the Obama administration!"
Cliff Conti
Paramus, NJ
"Bill, don't be a wisenheimer."
Chris Topple
Oshawa, Canada |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:10 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| November 3, 2009 |
| Stratfor.com: Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time |
Making sense of U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy at this moment is difficult. Not only is it a work in progress, but the pending decisions he has to make—on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia—tend to obscure underlying strategy. It is easy to confuse inaction with a lack of strategy. Of course, there may well be a lack of strategic thinking, but that does not mean there is a lack of strategy.
Strategy, as we have argued, is less a matter of choice than a matter of reality imposing itself on presidents. Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices. He seems to be fighting to create new choices, not liking what is on the menu. He may succeed. But it is important to understand the overwhelming forces that shape his choices and to understand the degree to which whatever he chooses is embedded in U.S. grand strategy, a strategy imposed by geopolitical reality.
Empires and Grand Strategy
American grand strategy, as we have argued, is essentially that of the British Empire, save at a global rather than a regional level. The British sought to protect their national security by encouraging Continental powers to engage in land-based conflict, thereby reducing resources available for building a navy. That guaranteed that Britain's core interest, the security of the homeland and sea-lane control, remained intact. Achieving this made the United Kingdom an economic power in the 19th century by sparing it the destruction of war and allowing it to control the patterns of international maritime trade.
On occasion, when the balance of power in Europe tilted toward one side or another, Britain intervened on the Continent with political influence where possible, direct aid when necessary or—when all else failed—the smallest possible direct military intervention. The United Kingdom's preferred strategy consisted of imposing a blockade—e.g., economic sanctions—allowing it to cause pain without incurring costs.
At the same time that it pursued this European policy, London was building a global empire. Here again, the British employed a balance-of-power strategy. In looking at the history of India or Africa during the 19th century, there is a consistent pattern of the United Kingdom forming alliances with factions, whether religious or ethnic groups, to create opportunities for domination. In the end, this was not substantially different from ancient Rome's grand strategy. Rome also ruled indirectly through much of its empire, controlling Mediterranean sea-lanes, but allying with local forces to govern; observing Roman strategy in Egypt is quite instructive in this regard.
Empires are not created by someone deciding one day to build one, or more precisely, lasting empires are not. They emerge over time through a series of decisions having nothing to do with empire building, and frequently at the hands of people far more concerned with domestic issues than foreign policy. Paradoxically, leaders who consciously set out to build empires usually fail. Hitler is a prime example. His failure was that rather than ally with forces in the Soviet Union, he wished to govern directly, something that flowed from his ambitions for direct rule. Particularly at the beginning, the Roman and British empires were far less ambitious and far less conscious of where they were headed. They were primarily taking care of domestic affairs. They became involved in foreign policy as needed, following a strategy of controlling the seas while maintaining substantial ground forces able to prevail anywhere—but not everywhere at once—and a powerful alliance system based on supporting the ambitions of local powers against other local powers.
On the whole, the United States has no interest in empire, and indeed is averse to imperial adventures. Those who might have had explicit inclinations in this direction are mostly out of government, crushed by experience in Iraq. Iraq came in two parts. In the first part, from 2003 to 2007, the U.S. vision was one of direct rule relying on American sea-lane control and overwhelming Iraq with well-supplied American troops.
The results were unsatisfactory. The United States found itself arrayed against all Iraqi factions and wound up in a multipart war in which its forces were merely one faction arrayed against others. The Petraeus strategy to escape this trap was less an innovation in counterinsurgency than a classic British-Roman approach. Rather than attempting direct control of Iraq, Petraeus sought to manipulate the internal balance of power, aligning with Sunni forces against Shiite forces, i.e., allying with the weaker party at that moment against the stronger. The strategy did not yield the outcome that some Bush strategists dreamed of, but it might (with an emphasis on might) yield a useful outcome: a precariously balanced Iraq dependent on the United States to preserve its internal balance of power and national sovereignty against Iran.
Many Americans, perhaps even most, regret the U.S. intervention in Iraq. And there are many, again perhaps most, who view broader U.S. entanglement in the world as harmful to American interests. Similar views were expressed by Roman republicans and English nationalists who felt that protecting the homeland by controlling the sea was the best policy, while letting the rest of the world go its own way. But the Romans and the British lost that option when they achieved the key to their own national security: enough power to protect the homeland. Outsiders inevitably came to see that power as offensive, even though originally its possessors intended it as defensive. Indeed, intent aside, the capability for offensive power was there. So frequently, Rome and Britain threatened the interests of foreign powers simply by being there. Inevitably, both Rome and Britain became the targets of Hannibals and Napoleons, and they were both drawn into the world regardless of their original desires. In short, enough power to be secure is enough power to threaten others. Therefore, that perfect moment of national security always turns offensive, as the power to protect the homeland threatens the security of other countries.
A Question of Size
There are Obama supporters and opponents who also dream of the perfect balance: security for the United States achieved by not interfering in the affairs of others. They see foreign entanglements not as providing homeland security, but as generating threats to it. They do not understand that what they want, American prosperity without international risks, is by definition impossible. The U.S. economy is roughly 25 percent of the world's economy. The American military controls the seas, not all at the same time, but anywhere it wishes at any given time. The United States also controls outer space. It is impossible for the United States not to intrude on the affairs of most countries in the world simply by virtue of its daily operations. The United States is an elephant that affects the world simply by being in the same room with it. The only way to not be an elephant is to shrink in size, and whether the United States would ever want this aside, decreasing power is harder to do than it might appear—and much more painful.
Obama's challenge is managing U.S. power without decreasing its size and without imposing undue costs on it. This sounds like an attractive idea, but it ultimately won't work: The United States cannot be what it is without attracting hostile attention. For some of Obama's supporters, it is American behavior that generates hostility. Actually, it is America's presence—its very size—that intrudes on the world and generates hostility.
On the domestic front, the isolationist-internationalist divide in the United States has always been specious. Isolationists before World War II simply wanted to let the European balance of power manage itself. They wanted to buy time, but had no problem with intervening in China against Japan. The internationalists simply wanted to move from the first to the second stage, arguing that the first stage had failed. There was thus no argument in principle between them; there was simply a debate over how much time to give the process to see if it worked out. Both sides had the same strategy, but simply a different read of the moment. In retrospect, Franklin Roosevelt was right, but only because France collapsed in the face of the Nazi onslaught in a matter of weeks. That aside, the isolationist argument was quite rational.
Like that of Britain or Rome, U.S. grand strategy is driven by the sheer size of the national enterprise, a size achieved less through planning than by geography and history. Having arrived where it has, the United States has three layers to its strategy.
First, the United States must maintain the balance of power in various regions in the world. It does this by supporting a range of powers, usually the weaker against the stronger. Ideally, this balance of power maintains itself without American effort and yields relative stability. But stability is secondary to keeping local powers focused on each other rather than on the United States: Stability is a rhetorical device, not a goal. The real U.S. interest lies in weakening and undermining emergent powers so they don't ultimately rise to challenge American power. This is a strategy of nipping things in the bud.
Second, where emergent powers cannot be maintained through the regional balance of power, the United States has an interest in sharing the burden of containing it with other major powers. The United States will seek to use such coalitions either to intimidate the emerging power via economic power or, in extremis, via military power.
Third, where it is impossible to build a coalition to coerce emerging powers, the United States must decide either to live with the emerging power, forge an alliance with it, or attack it unilaterally.
Obama, as with any president, will first pursue the first layer of the strategy, using as little American power as possible and waiting as long as possible to see whether this works. The key here lies in not taking premature action that could prove more dangerous or costly than necessary. If that fails, his strategy is to create a coalition of powers to share the cost and risk. And only when that fails—which is a function of time and politics—will Obama turn to the third layer, which can range from simply living with the emerging power and making a suitable deal or crushing it militarily.
When al Qaeda attacked what it saw as the leading Christian power on Sept. 11, Bush found himself thrown into the third stage very rapidly. The second phase was illusory; sympathy aside, the quantity of military force allies could and would bring to bear was minimal. Even active allies like Britain and Australia couldn't bring decisive force to bear. Bush was forced into unilateralism not so much by the lack of will among allies as by their lack of power. His choice lay in creating chaos in the Islamic world and then forming alliances out of the debris, or trying to impose a direct solution through military force. He began with the second and shifted to the first.
Obama's Choices
Obama has more room to maneuver than Bush had. In the case of Iran, no regional solution is possible. Israel can only barely reach into the region, and while its air force might suffice to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and air attacks might be sufficient to destroy them, Israel could not deal with the Iranian response of mining the Strait of Hormuz and/or destabilizing Iraq. The United States must absorb these blows.
Therefore, Obama has tried to build an anti-Iranian coalition to intimidate Tehran. Given the Russian and Chinese positions, this seems to have failed, and Iran has not been intimidated. That leaves Obama with two possible paths. One is the path followed by Nixon in China: ally with Iran against Russian influence, accepting it as a nuclear power and dealing with it through a combination of political alignment and deterrence. The second option is dealing with Iran militarily.
His choice thus lies between entente or war. He is bluffing war in hopes of getting what he wants, in the meantime hoping that internal events in Iran may evolve in a way suitable to U.S. interests or that Russian economic hardship evolves into increased Russian dependence on the United States such that Washington can extract Russian concessions on Iran. Given the state of Iran's nuclear development, which is still not near a weapon, Obama is using time to try to head off the third stage.
In Afghanistan, where Obama is already in the third stage and where he is being urged to go deeper in, he is searching for a way to return to the first stage, wherein an indigenous coalition emerges that neutralizes Afghanistan through its own internal dynamic. Hence, Washington is negotiating with the Taliban, trying to strengthen various factions in Afghanistan and not quite committing to more force. Winter is coming in Afghanistan, and that is the quiet time in that conflict. Obama is clearly buying time.
In that sense, Obama's foreign policy is neither as alien as his critics would argue nor as original as his supporters argue. He is adhering to the basic logic of American grand strategy, minimizing risks over time while seeking ways to impose low-cost solutions. It differs from Bush's policies primarily in that Bush had events forced on him and spent his presidency trying to regain the initiative.
The interesting point from where we sit is not only how deeply embedded Obama is in U.S. grand strategy, but how deeply drawn he is into the unintended imperial enterprise that has dominated American foreign policy since the 1930s—an enterprise neither welcomed nor acknowledged by most Americans. Empires aren't planned, at least not successful empires, as Hitler and Napoleon learned to their regret. Empires happen as the result of the sheer reality of power. The elephant in the room cannot stop being an elephant, nor can the smaller animals ignore him. No matter how courteous the elephant, it is his power—his capabilities—not his intentions that matter.
Obama is now the elephant in the room. He has bought as much time as possible to make decisions, and he is being as amiable as possible to try to build as large a coalition as possible. But the coalition has neither the power nor appetite for the risks involved, so Obama will have to decide whether to live with Iran, form an alliance with Iran or go to war with Iran. In Afghanistan, he must decide whether he can recreate the balance of power by staying longer and whether this will be more effective by sending more troops, or whether it is time to begin withdrawal. In both cases, he can use the art of the bluff to shape the behavior of others, maybe.
He came into the presidency promising to be more amiable than Bush, something not difficult given the circumstances. He is now trying to convert amiability into a coalition, a much harder thing to do. In the end, he will have to make hard decisions. In American foreign policy, however, the ideal strategy is always to buy time so as to let the bribes, bluffs and threats do their work. Obama himself probably doesn't know what he will do; that will depend on circumstances. Letting events flow until they can no longer be tolerated is the essence of American grand strategy, a path Obama is following faithfully.
It should always be remembered that this long-standing American policy has frequently culminated in war, as with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Bush. It was Clinton's watchful waiting to see how things played out, after all, that allowed al Qaeda the time to build and strike. But this is not a criticism of Clinton—U.S. strategy is to trade time for risk. Over time, the risk might lead to war anyway, but then again, it might not. If war does come, American power is still decisive, if not in creating peace, then certainly in wreaking havoc upon rising powers. And that is the foundation of empire.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by George Friedman, Stratfor.com at 4:47 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 3, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Tuesday, November 3 |
ELECTION NIGHT!
With key governor races in Virginia and New Jersey, and a hot battle for a House seat in upstate New York, will voters turn out against the Democratic party and President Obama?
"The election results are a clear indication of the country's growing skepticism towards President Obama. People are beginning to fear the vision he has for America."
Lee Bernardo
Lauderdale by the Sea, FL
"The Republican sweep last night was not the result of Obama-care. It was the result of his administration's egotistic and arrogant obsession with socialistic government control. 2010 will be a bloodbath for the liberals."
Larry McBride
Mt. Vernon, IL
"Of the three races last night, the only Democrat that won was the one Obama didn't stump for!"
Nancy Beyer
Houston, TX
"Does everything Obama touches turn to gold? No."
Ken Coleman
Schenectady, NY
"Obama was more concerned with the war in New Jersey than the one in Afghanistan."
Rev. John Gregorek
Satellite Beach, FL
"You are missing a huge point concerning the Republican wins in Virginia. An enormous military base is located in Norfolk, so a high number of military personnel and veterans live in Virginia."
Scott Ward
Bella Vista, AR
"No one mentioned the fact that Virginia Governor Tom Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic party, had no impact on the election. What does this say about the Democratic leadership?"
Brian Glass
Richmond, VA
"The Virginia election of Obama in 2008 was not a mandate for his radical policies. Rather, people were enthralled with the idea of electing the first black President."
Barbara Morin
Charlottesville, VA
"I predict Obama will throw the losing Democrats in NJ and VA under the bus in an attempt to wipe the political dust from his own shoulders."
Clint Loeffler
Colonial Beach, VA
"People do not have confidence in Barack Obama's performance as president. People don't think he can be trusted."
Jean Stephens
Colorado Springs, CO
"The margin of victory here was meant to send a message to our leaders: reign in spending, stop the socialistic policies and give Gen. McChrystal his troops."
Fred Ridgway
Quinton, VA
"If Doug Hoffman had won in NY, it would have been considered a referendum against Obama. So Bill Owens winning a seat held by Republicans for 150 years is certainly a referendum for the President."
Mary Wallace
Syracuse, NY
"A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. If Americans don't vote for the candidate they think will move the country in the right direction, we've lost what makes this a great country."
Nathan Hightman
Concord, NC
STOSSEL MATTERS
The Factor's newest contributor explains how the New York Times criticized him recently for speaking to a conservative gathering.
"My girlfriend thinks John Stossel is cute, so I have to hear about it whenever you pick on him. Please cut him some slack to promote harmony in my household."
Dave Powell
Dunedin, FL
"I love Mr. Stossel's frank style of reporting and the upfront nature of his work. I'm glad to see he's joined the Fox News team."
Michael Connerth
Clarksville, TN
"While at ABC News, John Stossel flew under the New York Times' radar. Now he comes to Fox and he's the devil incarnate? Welcome to smear central!"
Paul Roscelli
Redwood City, CA
MISCELLANEOUS
"While voting for the city's mayor today, my 6-year-old son told me to vote for Abraham Lincoln. He said he's heard he's a pretty good guy."
Sandra Rodriguez Barron
Milford, CT |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:09 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 2, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Monday, November 2 |
POLITICAL POTPOURRI
Rush Limbaugh says Mr. Obama is intentionally trying to sabotage the economy; and health care reform takes another step forward.
"Obama may not want the economy to completely fail, but he clearly wants to keep it in crisis to help get his radical agenda through."
Sam Jahnske
Chandler, AZ
"What Rush is saying is that Obama is purposely creating a crisis to use as an excuse for his government takeover. He did the same thing with the auto industry and banking."
Mark Etterling
West Chester, OH
"Limbaugh speaks only to the converted and changes few minds, but he teaches the converted how to convince others. This is the sign of a growing movement."
Clifford Andersen
Arvada, CO
"You said you doubted Limbaugh changes minds with his rhetoric. Au contraire. Many liberals call into his show thanking him for enlightening them."
Tom Burley
Alto, MI
"As a McCain Democrat, I despise the Rush Limbaughs on both sides. They divide the country."
Al Sams
Cocoa, FL
"I don't think President Obama cares about being re-elected. He can crush the economy in four years."
Charles Baier
Baltimore, MD
"We agree with you on the health care bill and we agree with Rush Limbaugh."
Joseph Fox
Lancaster, OH
"Brit Hume says the public nor members of Congress are ever able to understand proposed legislation. If he's correct, we're doomed."
Dick West
Washoe Valley, NV
"Neil Cavuto has more credibility on health care than most of your guests. Because of his financial success and medical history, he'll be footing the bill for Obama-care through higher taxes."
Teresa Belmonte
Bensenville, IL
"If the government steals from Medicare to pay for his health care plan, how can we trust them not to steal from health care to pay for some other ill-conceived plan?"
Ray Finley
Page, AZ
"The reason I oppose the health care bill is I can't find in the Constitution where it says the federal government should get involved in such activities."
Robert Megee
Plano, TX
"When the bureaucrats get down with it, the bill will be over 20,000 pages. To think this will help our health care system is ludicrous."
Larry Weaver
Dodge City, KS
"The pro-choice lobby should be screaming bloody murder over the government regulation of their bodies! Where are they?"
Becki Thompson
Forest City, IA
"Perhaps Mr. Obama's agenda doesn't include running for a second term. Could it be that passing health care to bankrupt this country is his entire agenda?"
Suann Patel
Puyallup, WA
"It's taking Nancy Pelosi 2,000 pages to give us a public option for 2% of Americans. It took the Founding Fathers 6 pages to give us the Constitution. What's wrong with this picture?"
Clair Staples
East Stroudsburg, PA
MORMON MUFFINS
Reality Check takes a look at a calendar of Mormon mothers posing provocatively. The calendar raises money for breast cancer awareness.
"For anyone to get upset about the way the Mormon Muffins are dressed in their calendar is absurd. They are raising a lot of money for a great cause."
Darold Schnell
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
"I'm a Mormon mother and I don't think the women who modeled for the calendar care much about raising money for breast cancer. They are silly women, being ridiculous and certainly not doing women any favors."
Brooke Nield
Cedar Hills, UT
"It annoys me that whenever Mormons make the news, it involves questionable behavior. The media never pays attention to the fact the LDS church is one of the world's leading charitable organizations."
MacKenzie Ware
Clovis, CA
"Why does reality check support Mormon women portraying themselves not conducive to their faith? Last time I checked, modesty and chastity were still a good thing."
Chris Brown
Provo, UT
"I'm a Mormon and won't be buying the calendar. My 2010 calendar will have pictures of my family, not someone else's wife in skimpy clothing."
Grant Brimhall
Orem, UT
MISCELLANEOUS
"I bet you a bold fresh piece of steak and lobster dinner that Obama is a radical. Americans have eaten here and choked before."
Tom Belanger
Amelia Island, FL |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:08 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 2, 2009 |
| The O'Quiz: Test your current events knowledge! |
Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score declined slightly to 5.16 questions correct out of 10 from the previous week's average of 5.34 out of 10. See how well you do this week!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 10:37 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Videos
