Monday, November 30, 2009

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize escalates war

This Tuesday we had the chance to see another performance of the teleprompter champion: Barack Obama in his official address regarding the future of the war in Afghanistan.

As expected, 34,000 additional US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan, increasing the total amount of troups to more than 100,000 soldiers. The objectives of this surge are "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future."

To fulfill these goals Obama has laid down three main directions:
  1. Setting a military strategy to target insurgencies and emphasizing on training afghans soldier
  2. Establishing political and economic cooperations with the afghan government in order to fight corruption and develop the economy via the agriculture
  3. strengthening partnership with Pakistan to fight terrorist strongholds in afghan-pakistani border provinces
The US President also set a troop withdrawal date (december 2011), highlighting the fact that Americans do not seek nation building in Afghanistan.

Beyond this usual "Yes We Can" rhetorics, Obama is proving again that nothing has fundamentally changed compared to the G. W. Bush administration. Despite the apparent opposition of Obama to nation building, The US is inextricably heading towards this road when insisting on how to shape the Afghan governance and its economy.
The main Neoconservative fallacy is to think that it is possible to impose a western democratic style government to any countries. The world bank reports that 75% of the afghan people live in the rural areas which tends to organize its society into autonomous ethnic tribes. The former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf mentioned, in the video below, that the Afghanistan political system used to be tied to a social contract called "Missah-ke-Milli" which united the different ethnic groups together in an independent manner.

The sovietization of Afghanistan, thirty years ago, was an attempt to establish a central authority imposing foreign values and culture to the entire territory. This experience ended with the worst military failure in the history of the USSR. It is therefore not ill-considered, as Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter from the Cato Institute described in the video below, to qualify the attempt to establish a Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan as over-optimistic and unrealistic.

It is consequently laughable for the advocate of "change" to apply the same recipes of his predecessor. It is even more laughable to see the former republican candidate, John McCain, supporting Obama's decision.

While the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize leaves the funding of this war in the hands of congress, it would be interesting to see how this will end knowing that the progressive wing of the democratic party as well as the libertarian wing of the conservative movement are against this policy.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Facts about why Obamanomics has been inspired by French Socialists

When watching an extract of Fox News Hannity's show last Friday, I stumbled upon an interview of the republican conservative Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the US House of Representatives. Talking about Obama's first 100 hundred days in the oval office and his populist tendency, Gingrich stated that Obama's policies are influenced by French socialists close to the former French presidential candidate, Segolene Royal (referring to the page 11 of the obama's administration budget). Daniel Henninger from the Wall Street Journal confirms this theory by highlighting that Obama's rhetoric about taxing high income Americans is based on the studies from two French economists: Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

The two pundits are well-known in the French and American liberal apparatus for their studies about income inequality throughout the second half of the 20st century and this consequently justify wealth redistribution from the wealthiest Americans to the medium/low income ones.
(Note that Alan Reynolds from the Cato Institute brilliantly demonstrates the flaws and inaccuracies of this theory)

I remember that during the inauguration ceremony of the 44th president of the United States, the French media making fun of Segolene Royal's statement about the influence that she presumably had on Obama's policies, but who contributed to her presidential campaign ? Thomas Piketty! Who is the man talking at a segolene's meeting on the video below? The same Thomas Piketty!

It is a sad day for America!

Sunday, March 8, 2009

"Hooverism" is Obamanomics

I reckon that I have a very masochistic occupation during my weekends: I use to watch US Liberal political shows, in other words I watch MSNBC. One of the most colourful liberal anchors of this channel is probably Rachel Maddow. Constantly denouncing and condemning the so-called right-wing intellectual fallacy on a very sarcastic tone with a simplistic and demagogic rhetoric, Ms Maddow is, for me, the liberal version of Ann Coulter.

In her show last Friday, she argued, that Republican President Herbert Hoover was somehow a fiscal conservative who cut spending and did nothing (nothing liberal of course) to resolve the economic depression.

Once again, farcical journalism is back: facts are replaced by grotesqueness.
Hoover was a proponent of tight collaborations between private companies and governments called sometimes volutarism or associationalism. Appointed as a secretary of commerce under the Warren G. Harding administration, he was willing to transform the free market nature of the US commerce with plans for the government to be "the economic interpreter to the American people". As a president, Hoover continued to surf on this wave of Wilsonian progressivism, by enacting the revenue act of 1932 which increased taxes by 30% on high-income Americans. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was also a brainchild of the the Hoover administration injecting billions of dollar to local governments, banks, and businesses to recover from the crisis. We always mention FDR as the originator of public works and reconstruction after the Great Depression but the true mastermind of this policy is unmistakably his predecessor. Indeed, Hoover was the genuine creator of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act and was one of the first to tour accross the US to advocate central planning and interventionism.

All these measures sound familiar to you? I would say that it tastes like Obamanomics, isn't it ? Well, One of the reasons that could drive liberals to lynch Mr Hoover is maybe because his policies were a total failure and they are therefore fearing the comparison between the 31st president of the United States and the 44th one alias "Mr Change".