´óÏó´«Ã½

BEWARE OF SOLDIERS OFFERING LIFTS

Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, puts me in mind of that pillar of sound judgement (another military man) Iain Duncan Smith, who judged Tony to be doing the right thing over Iraq, and lined up his Tory troops to march to the War lobby. If only the quiet man had kept quiet.
Poignantly, the parallel between Barack and Tony: one of Charisma and Oratory, is plain to all.

Tony's War was really Iain's War (but Iain, graciously, let it go . . .) What will Obama gift the world, that is really all down to Colin Powell?

I agreed with the general thrust of Panorama last night that the West is overestimating the threat from Russia and underestimating how seriously they view the missile defence and rapid Nato expansion.

Assuming its President Obama I hope he does not let Biden go off on a tangent to his own policy thrust.

If Powell is in the mix he may have been a less than enthusiastic neo-Con but when you think of some of his remarks regarding Venezuela I would question whether the US is not creating a new Monster when it already has plenty.

But in the end I disagree with Mark Urban in that I think Obama is honest and knows when he does not know something (Rumsfeld speak?) so will seek advice.

Bush was so ideologically driven that he would be enthusiastic about something like Iraq even when the facts were heavily against him. He would seek the advice that allowed him to see what he wanted to.

An irrational actor replaced (hopefully) by an rational actor?

Unfortunately we do not see Panorama live in my area and I have yet to see the podcast but, from thegangofone's remarks above, I have grasped the main thrust and totally agree. Russia may be tempted to intervene on it's own periphery which it considers to be it's 'back yard', but it does not pose a significant threat to the west. Put very simply, they are making far too much money selling us raw commodities to upset the global apple cart. They are making even more by investing the proceeds back into western economies. (Abramovitch - he of Chelsea FC fame - for example, controls Malev, the Hungarian national airline which in turn is in partnership with BA). The recent statement by the Russian Deputy PM responsible for Foreign and Defence Matters (his name escapes me) that Russia will seek to relocate the Black Sea fleet if the Ukrainians are not open to renewing the Sevastopol lease is a clear indication of a realistic acceptance of the status quo.

As to Obahma, we do not yet know how much of the 'reaching out' message is real and how much is rhetoric but Powell's endorsement might hopefully put to bed once and for all the idea that he is too inexperienced. Presidents do not run the place on their own. There is plenty of advice available from seasoned performers.

#3 threnodio
Yes I know you don't see Panorama where you are - don't rub it in!

Biden was in favour of rapid Nato expansion.

The Russians are understandably puzzled and I agree that the missile defence IS with them in mind (N.Korea and Iran don't have the missiles and would probably use a suit case bomb rather than try an exchange they could not win) and breaks the 1972 ABM treaty.

But the worry is if the shooting starts between ethic Russians (of which there many) and Ukrainians. If they are in Nato and they take the gung ho approach seemingly advocated by Miliband and McCain then we are facing a really serious problem.

The Russians have said they would go in.

After seemingly 2000 or so ethnic Russians were killed by Tshkinvaalis ordered artillery bombardment you can understand why.

So it s a bit of propaganda from the West that it is a "sphere of influence" issue its the presence of ethnic Russians - many with passports. Conversely the US reserves the right to bully Venezuela as that is in its backyard. My history is poor but I think they created the "Cuban problem" that way.

So in my world what they should have done was not drop their guard and let things normalize.

You have Miliband talking of a Cold War and then weeks later you have Mandelson (albeit on EU duty - apparently) on a Russian yacht.

A cynic would think the West wants them to play nicely in the G8 for economic stability but also double up as the bad guy so they can spend zillions on missiles and defence.

So I agree with you there are seasoned performers Obama can listen to - I just think some of the seasoned performers are not performing on key issues.

The other biggy is Pakistan but that situation is changing so fast what may seem high risk today (going in to get Bin Laden) may not seem that way in the near future.

#3 threnodio

Not sure if you pick up on Channel 4 but Imran Khan seemed to have a high opinion of Biden in the Pakistan/Afghanistan arena. His point was that Biden understood that the war lords the alliance put back into power were unpopular mass-murderers and that strengthened the Taliban. He also said collateral damage in Pakistan was strengthening the Taliban.

Apparently also Karzai and the Taliban are meeting for talks in Saudi Arabia.

So maybe I was being harsh on Biden though I do think his Russia/Nato strategy is off the mark.

There are many foreign policy challenges for the next president:
1) War in Iraq
2) War in Afghanistan
3) Taliban
4) Iran
5) North Korea
6) Economics crisis

Now we know who the President-Elect is, now is the time to put some bones upon the flesh of Obama's likely policy towards International and Foreign Policy.

Mark wrote in his piece, "...but those, for example on foreign trade, suggest that his instincts may be more unilateral or protectionist than those of Sen McCain."

Clearly the UK Government think this too as of both ´óÏó´«Ã½ and UK newspaper reports yesterday (5 November) indicate that Gordon Brown had been advised that Obama is likely to do what most Democrats Leaders, do in economic hard times do, and that is go unilateral and adopt protectionist policies.

Obama has reportedly said that he would send the troops into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden but would Obama really risk war with Pakistan when he has so many domestic problems? I feel that is unlikely in reality.

I am not entirely convinced that he is that keen on fighting the unwinnable war in Afghanistan (unwinnable that is unless the USA put ALL of its resources into the one war!) and we all know he would withdraw the US Troops form Iraq tomorrow if could get away with it.

Iran is the most likely global issue that Obama will have to deal with.

North Korea seems to be calm but might kick off again with the volatility of the North Koreans and their desire to take two steps towards accomodating the world and then, to get more out of the Amreicans, one step back.

Thus, I would amend dennisjunior1's list of priorities that Obama will most likely consider his list of "To dos" to:

1) Economic Crisis
2) Withdraw from Iraq
3) War or withdraw from Afghanistan
4) Taliban (so closely linked to (3) as almost inseparable)
5) Iran
6) North Korea

Clearly, if Iran were to be in imminent liklihood of creating weapon grade plutonium then Iran goes to (1) as that is the red line for Israel who must take pre-emptive action even if it provokes war with Iran and drags in the USA (and the World) into that conflict!