The U.S. military will pour thousands of troops into Afghanistan by next summer and can expect to commit a sustained force for several more years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and his top military commander there said Thursday.
When the additions are complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will climb to more than 50,000. About 31,000 U.S. troops are there now.
Six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program stalled Wednesday after the North rejected a Chinese proposal outlining how monitors could verify its past atomic activities. North Korea was refusing to allow outside inspectors to take samples from its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon — a central method for checking whether the country was truthful in its accounting of its nuclear programs.
To the Editor:
Re “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex” (front page, Nov. 30):Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey makes much of his opposition to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Whatever General McCaffrey or other unnamed individuals may believe, though, I am unaware of any decision to “cut off General McCaffrey’s access to the Pentagon’s special briefings,” as stated in the article.We held briefings for former senior officials who served presidents of both parties, think-tank specialists from across the political spectrum, and many others. Divergent views were often expressed, sometimes strenuously.Secretary Rumsfeld never suggested to me, the official responsible for the program, that we stop holding the meetings, or disinvite people — including General McCaffrey — because they didn’t agree with our policies.General McCaffrey actually enjoyed special access by virtue of his relationships with senior military officers, yet it seems he benefits from brandishing the bloody shirt of alleged maltreatment by Secretary Rumsfeld.Lawrence Di Rita, Potomac, Md., Nov. 30, 2008The writer was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001-06. He also served as acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.Editor’s Note: The article referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, Nov. 30, 2008.
POST: Transformation Leadership. Aditya Birla Group, India’s First Global Corporation
One of the best descriptions of transformational leadership has been penned by Prof. Bernard Bass, a renowned exponent of the idea. He says succinctly,
“Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-actualisation, when they foster in followers high moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organisation or society.”The Dalai Lama is a leader of an altogether different mould. He has no overt base of power; he holds no political position; neither does he command an army; and he has no control over mighty economic resources. Yet, he strikes a powerful chord. In a world driven by material progress, and the incessant thunder of conflict and strife, he offers the message of peace and humanity.
What makes the Dalai Lama so interesting and influential? Why do people around the world care about a simple Buddhist monk who 50 years ago was forced to leave his country, and who for years has headed an unrecognised government-in-exile, a ‘virtual’ nation of 6 million Tibetans?
I believe it is entirely appropriate to speak of him as a transformational leader. Why? Because, while his basic message is spiritual, his work has ramifications that are entirely down-to-earth. What exactly is the difference he has made, and what are the dimensions of what he has achieved?
North Korea Threatens To Snip Ties With South (New York Times)…Choe Sang-Hun, Nov 24, 2008.
In a reversal of recent progress toward reconciliation on the divided Korean Peninsula, North Korea said Monday it would ban South Korean tourists from the ancient city of Kaesong and “selectively expel” South Koreans working in a joint industrial complex there starting Dec. 1.
Report Sees Nuclear Arms, Scarce Resources As Seeds Of Global Instability, (Washington Post)…Peter Finn and Walter Pincus, Nov 21, 2008.
The drive for dwindling resources, including energy and water, combined with the spread of nuclear weapons technology could make large swaths of the globe ripe for regional conflicts, some of them potentially devastating, according to a report released by the National Intelligence Council yesterday.
CIA Chief: Iraq Not Main Front, (Washington Post)…Walter Pincus, Nov 14, 2008.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.
C.I.A. Chief Says Qaeda Is Extending Its Reach, (New York Times)…Mark Mazzetti, Nov 14, 2008.
Even as Al Qaeda strengthens its hub in the Pakistani mountains, its leaders are building closer ties to regional militant groups in order to launch attacks in Africa and Europe and on the Arabian Peninsula, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency said Thursday.
On the day after elections in America, it seems like a good time to talk about democracy elsewhere. Politicians like to talk about politics and the ideologies behind their particular brand of politics. In the West, we are fond of democracy — especially representational democracy — and we try to spread the gospel about it wherever we go. Often we hear it in speeches like the one President Woodrow Wilson gave before Congress in April 1917: “The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.” Over a decade and a half before that speech, Wilson had defined what he meant by democracy. “Democracy,” he wrote in a March 1901 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, “is not so much a form of government as a set of principles.” Winston Churchill, on the other hand, did see democracy as form of government. He reportedly uttered, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
My colleague Tom Barnett and I have preached that if you want to instill democratic principles in governments then improve the lives of the people in autocratic countries. Economic progress almost always precedes political progress.
In tracking “political” progress, Freedom House tracks trends and publishes a map of the world that identifes countries that are free, partially free and not free.
Barnett’s Pentagon’s New Map identifes the countries that are connected economically via globalization. In his map, note that Russia and China are are considered connected but are not rated as politically free by Freedom House.
Closing the gap … Prediction Markets are one approach that can be used to raise awareness and visibility and provide the feedback that may get people more involved in issues (political and economic) that they may be interested in influencing.
Play the news / Will Israel strike Iran’s nuclear sites?, By Haaretz.com Staff.
In June, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel would strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of George W. Bush’s term in 2009.
Iran’s uranium enrichment – considered a sure sign of progress toward nuclear weapons – continues despite pressure from the West to stop.
Israel considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. Others fear Iran could transfer weapons to militant groups, yet Tehran maintains its nuclear industry is ebing built for peaceful purposes.
Will Iran and Israel go to war or can a compromise be found?
Haaretz.com has teamed up with playthenewsgame.com to bring our readers a new and exciting interactive experience – a game that lets you put your news savvy to the test.
The idea is simple: Take one hot topic and try to predict the outcome. Use the game’s guides and advisers for advice on what to do – and what not to do!
To get started, simply click on the box below and follow the instructions.
Next President’s Iraq War, (Washington Times)…Austin Bay, Oct 17, 2008. p25.
In a month, Iraq will be the next president’s war. From the American perspective, the next president’s phase of the Iraq war will be twofold. First off, it will be a proxy war with Iran’s tyrannical mullahs. The second “fold” will be even more strategically significant: The next president’s war will measure America’s commitment to defending democracy and promoting genuine international security in the 21st century.
The Iraqi perspective differs a shade. Iraq’s war will be yet another Iran-Iraq war, but one where the Iraqis will have an organizational advantage and a significant ideological edge.Iraq’s organizational advantage has two components. First and foremost, Iraq engages Iran with the United States as an active ally – unless the next U.S. president proves feckless and makes the inexcusably stupid mistake of denying Iraq diplomatic and military support in a crisis.Iraq’s second organizational advantage is its increasingly capable military and more responsive government.The next president will be tested by these robed thugs.Iraq’s emerging democracy presents the mullahs with a complex challenge. Democracy gives Iraq an ideological advantage in its struggle with Iran’s dictatorship. Disgust and discontent has become a way of life inside Iran. The Khomeinist revolution has failed and fossilized as a corrupt theocracy backed by secret police and Revolutionary Guards. The Iranian people look west and see Iraqi Arabs and Kurds seizing a historic opportunity to create their own open, democratic system – and they know the mullahs are the gangsters denying them that opportunity.
Success Through Quality's Weblog 