Really, Really Stupid Policy Choices Of The Day

Some days you gotta wonder just how it is that humanity is still around rather than having expired from a surfeit of bad thinking, short-sighted blundering in its collective version of inter-personal relations AKA foreign policy. This is one of those days when flat-out silliness seems to be ruling not only in Washington but around the world. A few items which demonstrate this contention follow.

As usual the US, or, more properly, the Obama administration leads off. The issue this time is the ongoing imbroglio over the non-coup "military coup" in Honduras. Not only does the Deep Thinking Brain Trust In Charge Of Foreign Policy not yet get the fact that the removal of Manuel (Lefty) Zelaya was mandated by the Honduran Supreme Court and merely executed by the military but that the majority of the country's institutions support the continued ouster of the wannabe President For Life.

Another basic reality of human affairs which eludes the Deep Thinkers is that pressure consolidates long before it fractures political will. The addition of yet more pressure, in this case the restriction of visa services, will further the will and ability of the de facto government and its supporters to hang tough. The people in charge of such matters as this might be aggrieved that the Organisation of American States delegation was unable to achieve an acceptance of the compromise plan brokered by Oscar Arias, but they have neither asked why this is the case nor considered the impact of their attempt at applying more pressure.

Quite possibly had Sr Zelayas refrained from some of his more belligerent rhetoric and bellicose demands during his sojourn in the friendly and fraternal land of the Ortega regime, the de facto government would have gone along with the idea of letting Zelaya back in to fill the last few months of his term--provided he didn't seek some new electoral ploy. But, Zelaya and his supporters, headed by Hugo (Mouth of the South) Chavez couldn't be bothered by taking a time out from berating not only the "Great Military Coup and Death Of Democracy As We Knew It in Honduras but also the supposed sponsorship of the coup by the US. (Of course, they also sought with success the diplomatic support of the US while lambasting the Yankees.)

Now, bucko, all policy choices cause reactions. The reactions are, in the terms of mathematics, emergent systems. That means there is no linear relationship between the magnitude of the input--the decision--and the output--the reaction on the part of the target government, state, or people. History shows rather conclusively that policy choices which are meant to coerce, to force the target to bend to our policy, will cause a greater, much greater firmness on the part of the target to resist. The direction of the target's response--resistance--can be predicted correctly but, and it's a big but, the magnitude cannot. It is often disproportionate to the input stimulus.

So, pace, all you Brilliant Minds in Foggy Bottom and littering the White House landscape, your most recent essay in coercive diplomacy is not likely to pay off. It is, however, not unlikely that it will result in both short and longer term resistance and hostility from Honduras. And, guess what, guys and gals, it won't buy you any warm fuzzies with Hugo, Daniel, and Raul. Not even with Ewo and Rafael for that matter.

In second place--no--strike that--in a tie for first place in policy debacles du jour comes Russia. In a move which seems almost carefully crafted to assure that the Islamist jihadist plus nationalist insurgency in the North Caucasus continues, Vladimir Putin has gone on down to warmly embrace (at least metaphorically) the Kremlin appointed regional strongman, a man capable of creating a desert and calling it peace but failing to quell insurgency, named Ramzan Kadyrov.

Kadyrov is both corrupt and inefficiently repressive. The latter characteristic is the more important. Under his sway a simulacrum of peace emerged in Chechnya. The insurgency was not defeated despite Putin's claims to the opposite. It went underground. Became stronger. Took on far more of an Islamist jihadist tinge. And, came back. First in Ingushtia and then in Chechnya.

The insurgents are back, bigger, badder and better than ever. It will be far harder to defeat them now then it was during the desperately mis-handled First and Second Chechnya Wars. The Third Chechnya War started even before the bodies of the Second had been counted--but no one was willing or able to realize this unpleasant, brutal reality.

There is a way which has the potential to defeat the insurgents. The Geek even took the time to outline it. The historically derived way to win definitely did not have a role for people such as Ramzan Kadyrov, who, by the way, has already been repeatedly and severely castigated in elements of the Russian media for his repeated boorish acts which rival those of previous Soviet era failures.

The decision to continue more of the same old same old is another example of the tenacity and universality of decisions resulting in emergent systems. Again the direction of the response by the insurgents and uncommitted majority in the North Caucasus can be predicted--resistance--but the magnitude cannot be accurately estimated other than to say more, a lot more, blood will flow without positive, long-lasting result.

Vladimir Putin has demonstrated that he is sufficiently ideologically blinded and short-sighted to get a job in the current US administration or State Department should he find himself unemployed back at home. No greater insult is possible in the Geek's estimate.

In distant third place in the derby of asininity in foreign policy comes the Nonaligned Movement. Reportedly one hundred of the one hundred eighteen members of the NAM have signed on to The Protect Iran's Nuke Plants From Israel (and the US.) Over the years the NAM has been a source of much amusement given their collective propensity for loud sounds, posturing, and generally overly boisterous behavior at the UN and other global fora.

Does this unwieldy congeries of nations ranging from the important to the utterly inconsequential really, really believe that by running the Iranian proposal through the UN to protect Iran's nuke facilities from attack would be worth the paper it is written on? Even if the nuclear powers of the Security Council would be willing to restrict their nuclear counter-force targeting to be restricted by the UN in principle, in practice it would be ignored utterly.

The same is true for other countries including NAM leader India which would hit Pakistan's nuclear plants in a New York second if there was good (read "existential") reason. Why should Israel be any more constrained by the Iranian proposal should it be passed by the UN?

The subtext of the NAM support for Iran is that the member states harbor a number of unrealized (and perhaps, unrealizable) nuclear dreams of their own. And, many face regional rivals with which relations are less than peace, love, and flower-power.

The subtext of the support also bespeaks of animus toward the US and its presumed desire and need to constrict access to nuclear power in all its forms. The American policy toward the spread of both military and peaceful uses of the uranium atom has been mixed. Uncle Sam has shown a real ability to turn the Nelsonian eye on nuclear developments in some countries but not others.

This admitted and (perhaps) regrettable inconsistency has given rise to a degree of paranoia on the part of some members of NAM, but this is scarcely justification for siding with a dangerous, destabilizing, and relentlessly hegemonic power such as Iran. Perhaps these countries have swallowed the preposterous Iranian line that it simply wants electrical power. In that case, the words of Nicholas Sarkozy are relevant. "Frankly, who can believe them?"

Iran is not some poor little hounded victim of Israeli and American persecution. The member states of NAM have to get a grip on this. Otherwise they are condemning NAM to even more irrelevance in the international game. Numbers aren't everything--even at the UN, and the NAM has to understand that as well.

To be sure there are other examples of human idiocy in the foreign affairs arena today. But, three are enough. The Geek is getting old. His stomach churns too easily at sheer unadultrated stupidity these days.

Clinton's Confusion--Saudi Arabia Isn't A Vassal

President Obama and SecState Clinton are practicing a foreign policy (that term is used in its loosest sense) that should be titled, "The Audacity of Arrogance." It's chief features are an equal mix of overbearing insistence for compliance and a snivelling willingness to agree with the positions of others.

The Obama administration has been ordering Israel around with a degree of imperial disdain for the locals which is breathtaking. Not even the administration of Bush/Cheney, which was scarcely known for its humility, tried that--even with Russia, the country they liked to kick. Even at the worst moments of those-who-are-not-with-us-are-against-us self-importance, the neocon ninnies seemed loath to dictate a country's internal policies.

The Obama-Clinton attitude of unchallenged and unchallengeable superiority is seen as well in our "policy" regarding Honduras. When even the Nicaraguan Vice President, Jaime Morales, has advised Sr Zelaya to pack it in, that he ain't going back as prez, the Obama-Clinton Axis of Arrogance insists that the Hondurans take back their constitutionally valid act of presidential removal.

But, what the heck, Honduras, like Israel is heavily dependent upon us, so we ought to be able to order them around. And, have those ingrates obey, damn it!

At the polar opposite, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy duo cringes in the best servile way before the Chinese. The administration is quite willing to accept "affirmative action" in the Great Climate Change Charade. Both Mr Obama and Ms Clinton believe in liberal guilt. They feel it. They both believe that penance is necessary--for Americans, that is. China can go on spewing carbon atoms beyond count. That's OK. We Americans are guilty. We must pay the price by doing with less and paying more. By losing jobs and industries.

Of course, those filled with liberal guilt will not pay as much as the rest of us. Nor will they suffer the other consequences of penance.

Now the real deal is simply that China holds 800 billion dollars of our Treasury Notes and Bills as well as other securities. The expansive agenda of the Obama administration and its colleagues of the Progressive Caucus demands the Chinese keep on buying our IOUs.

So, China is not a vassal state. It will not do what we order it to do. Rather, it is us who must comply with the new realities, accommodate ourselves to the altered nature of the US-PRC relation. That is just jake with Mr Obama and Ms Clinton both of whom believe to the depths of their left ventricle enhanced hearts that nationalism, national interest, national sovereignty are deadly evil relics of the past--as far as the US is concerned.

It's OK for China to be nationalist, to act in its national interest, to defend its national sovereignty against creeping globalism. But not the US.

Comes now Saudi Arabia in the person of the Kingdom's ForMin, Prince Saud al-Faisal. With the Secretary of State right there by his side, the Prince gave an absolute, firm, complete, total, final, utterly without compromise, nyet to the mild, not to say, meek, American suggestion that maybe, perhaps, the Saudis might lead off in symbolic gestures to Israel such as overflight rights for the Israeli national airline. The Geek used the Russian form of "no" as the Saudi prince had the same grim, set, obdurate expression and manner of the old Soviet diplomats of the most frozen days of the Cold War.

When pressed very hard and repeatedly as to whether the ForMin's attitude made the administration's task tougher, SecState Clinton said that it did not. She said it with what appeared to be a straight face and earnest tome.

Poppy-freakin'-cock!

Of course the stance of the House and Kingdom Built On Sand And Oil makes the job of finding a comprehensive peace settlement far more difficult. For sheer cussed obstinacy and intransigence, the Saudis have few (if any) peers. Israel is difficult. The Arabs, particularly those of the Saudi state, are quite impossible.

The Kingdom and all those Arab/Muslim states which fall in line behind the Keeper of the Two Holy Places will not be satisfied until and unless Israel gives up all the fruits of the Six Day War. They will not give the slightest compromise unless and until the Israelis withdraw all 300,000 of its citizens from the towns built since 1967. Unless and until the physical plant is turned over lock, stock, and barrel to the Arabs of Palestine and the last Jew high tails it to the other side of that artifice of 1949, the Green Line.

While that stance is not palatable to the 224 Congresswallahs who recently sent a letter to the king of Saudi Land pointing out the reality that compromise is a two-way street, it is just fine with Ms Clinton and Mr Obama. After all, the US needs the oil. More than that, the grand plans of the Agenda For Transformation needs the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia and other oil shiekdoms to buy T-Notes and Bills.

This means that Saudi Arabia is not a vassal state. Like China it is OK for the House of Saud to pursue self-defined national interest and act like a sovereign state.

Israel and Honduras are vassals in the Obama-Clinton view. Saudi Arabia and China are not. It is justified to order the vassals around. But, it is not possible to do the same with those whose money is central to the progressive agenda.

Or, to err on the side of accuracy, the Obama-Clinton post-modernist view holds that nationalism, national interest, and national sovereignty are bad, very bad for the US. And, for the vassals of the US. These same features are simply wonderful when exhibited by China, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps some other countries which will be identified over time.

It is enough to induce projectile vomit. And, that's a fact, Jack.

The Only New Aspect Of Honduras Is Obama

Senator Lugar (R) is considered one of the Senate's foremost experts in foreign policy. That high esteem often seems less merited by the Senator's insights and understandings than by the generally dismal level of senatorial grip on either the fundamentals of foreign affairs or the nuances of diplomacy.

This time Senator Lugar is in the right. He has written SecState Clinton asking a clarification as to the basis and goal of American diplomacy in the contretemps pitting two-thirds of the Honduran government--the judiciary and the legislature--against the third--deposed President Zelaya.

The question--and the response--are long overdue. To say that US policy regarding the Affair Zelaya is confused is akin to calling the yowls and screeches of a cat fight melodic.

Getting a grip on the ground truths in Honduras does not require a PhD from Georgetown University's foreign affairs institute. It is straightforward, simple, nothing to it.

Zelaya ran as a moderate conservative. He was elected. He moved sharply to the left. On his watch crime flourished along with poverty. Even Zelaya's base--large sections of the country's poorest citizens, lost ground rather than gained it as they expected.

Zelaya was, to put it undiplomatically but accurately, an inept boob in office. He nuzzled ever closer to Hugo Chavez, the self-proclaimed successor to Fidel Castro, and Daniel Ortega, the one time far, far left guerrilla leader and, more recently, elected president of Nicaragua. These friendships apparently ignited previously dormant ambitions in the heart of Sr Zelaya.

He suddenly discovered in the last year of his constitutionally permitted term that he was The Man of Destiny. To achieve that destiny Sr Zelaya proposed a referendum on the term limit provision in the Honduran Constitution.

Start of "crisis." The Supreme Court of Honduras said, "No way." The referendum was ordered squashed and the printed ballots were ordered seized. Zelaya, perhaps inspired by the ghost of President Andrew Jackson, who famously said when confronted with a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed, "Mr Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." The hot tempered South Carolinian backed down quickly and obeyed the court order.

But Sr Zelaya was made of sterner stuff. He, in essence, told the Supreme Court, "Stuff it."

The Court, not at all amused, ordered the Honduran army to seize the ballots. Sr Zelaya sacked the Chief of Staff in an effort to prevent the seizure. The Court then deposed Sr Zelaya as apparently is provided by the constitution. It ordered the army to arrest the now ex-president.

The army did so. Probably with some degree of joy, at least in the higher ranks. Sr Zelaya was defenestrated via private plane.

The legislature joined the fray. Not only did it second the Supreme Court's action, it installed an interim government. Again, all relevant constitutional processes seem to have been followed.

The conservative elite of Honduras--not surprisingly--approved. So also did every media outlet. The Catholic Church did as well. So, and here is the surprise, did a large chunk of Sr Zelaya's old base, the poor peasantry and urban workers.

In the "we disapprove" column were Sr Zelaya's running buddies with Hugo Chavez baying in the vanguard. The UN became involved because Nicaragua's one-time ForMin is now the President of the General Assembly. The OAS also disapproved--as they usually do whenever a regime is changed without an election monitored by Jimmy Carter, unless, of course, the new regime is headed by a bona fide denizen of the progressive sort.

Most importantly, the US, or more correctly, the progressives of the Obama administration disapproved. Mightily. Fervidly. Vocally. Repeatedly.

In the past our protests to changes in government (provided they were not to the far left) were generally pro forma. A gesture for the record as it were. Then Washington got on with business as usual since that was the reason our government has a State Department.

Not this time. The Obama administration has huffed, puffed, hyperventilated as if the Honduran generals had taken over at gun point. This, as the record shows clearly, was not the case. All along the way, constitutional processes were followed by all hands--except Sr Zelaya.

This time the Obama administration has suspended aid. It has cancelled the diplomatic visas of Honduran diplomats. It has almost declared the interim executive of Honduras to be the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. One would be forgiven for thinking that perhaps Hugo Chavez was offering behind the scenes guidance to the administration.

Not having a PhD in clinical psychology, the Geek is not one to speculate on the motives of President Obama. However, it is of more than passing interest that the Nice Young Man From Chicago ran as a moderate liberal. Was elected on that premise. And, then turned sharply to the left.

There is an old cliche that holds, "By his friends a man is known." And, cliches always grow around a germ of truth.

SecState Clinton Says, "We're Doing Great!"

One would have to have a resident alien visa in Fantasyland to think a politician would ever assess his/her own performance and that of the party they serve as anything other than "perfect and getting better by the minute." As the Geek has been condemned to stay in the gritty world of reality, the self-serving puffery of Ms Clinton on NBC is no big shokku.

In her view the Obama administration has succeeded in the last six months in achieving a condition in Iraq which allows the withdrawal of American forces. Apparently the "surge" which was opposed by then Senator Obama and many others of the Progressive Caucus had nothing to do with the improved security condition in Iraq. Of course not, that would give credit to the icky-poo Republican administration, and we all know how dastardly that bunch was.

Nor could she bring herself to acknowledge that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which provided for the scheduled withdrawal was negotiated by a team which did not include either her or President Obama. Of course not, to do that would allow reality to intrude on the dream world of Ms Clinton and her associates in the administration.

She bragged at some length on just how well the Obama administration--and herself, of course, had created a mighty diplomatic coalition against Iran and its pursuit of the bomb. Leaving aside such unpleasant holes in the Mighty Diplomatic Coalition as China, Russia, and the assorted European members of the Billion Dollar Club, she is right.

Heck, she did not even bother to point out that the administration of which she is a prime member has not even pushed the Refined Petroleum Products Sanction bill recently introduced in the House. She must be aware that pressing hard on the lack of refined petroleum in Iran is the single greatest harm we can inflict in the short term. Still, not a word about the necessity of seeing this bill become law so we have a big stick to wave in the direction of Tehran.

Instead of addressing such centralities as just what real coercion might be exerted on the mullahs, the Secretary danced around the floor about negotiating with a government whose legitimacy is more presumed than real. Of course, Madam Secretary, diplomacy is all about dealing with those who are in power whether they are there via honest elections or pure force. Why belabor the obvious except to escape talking about the problems of talking without any credible set of inducements and constraints.

Among the constraints (and inducements) you did not bother to touch upon is the availability of a domestic opposition in Iran which we can support in a discrete manner. By not touching upon this open nerve in the mouths of the mullahs, you made the same mistake that the Bush/Cheney neocons did back in the period 2001-2003 when they did not bother to deal with the reformers while this group under Khatami was at its peak of success and the reactionary mullahs in a fever of fear.

True, the reformers are not in power right now, but they might be shortly. That is why the mullahs and their equally reactionary secular adherents are having serious attacks of anxiety.

Is there any wonder that the Israelis are having Xanax moments of their own? They are looking at an administration which seems bootless about the realities of what Secretary Clinton calls "intensive diplomacy" aimed at convincing the Iranians to mend their ways. They are hearing repeated calls to be "patient" and not go for the military option as the centrifuges spin and the Great Leader continues to demand that Israel cease to exist.

Is it surprising that Secretary Clinton was reluctant to wave her "defensive umbrella" in the faces of the NBC crew? When push comes to shove there is not a great desire in Washington at the present to enter into guarantees of territorial integrity and governmental sovereignty which would cover the entire Mideast against the Iranian threat.

Discussion on the potential ramifications and implications of the "defensive umbrella" would be a distraction and a diversion from the administration's "Agenda of Transformation." Right now, they and the Progressive Caucus cannot afford any side jaunts which might delay further the passage of the ambitious set of bills before them.

Ms Clinton had many, many kind words for China's cooperation on North Korea. The truth here does not matter. She and the Treasury Secretary will be meeting with senior mandarins next week. Considering the Chinese hold 800 million bucks of US treasury paper, it behooves the Secretary to genuflect (kow tow?) to the Boys From Beijing.

In any event it is easy and convenient for China and Russia to be cooperative about North Korea. As long as there is nothing at risk to either country, they will go through all the necessary motions. By doing so they pile up credits to cash later with the US over issues which do matter to them. Come on, Madam Secretary, you bloody well know that diplomacy involves trades and deals. Some deals are far more apparent than real.

The SecState skipped over much during her voyage of self-congratulation. For example, she was silent on Honduras where support for the ousted leftist Chavez clone Zelaya is slipping. It would have been embarrassing to admit that the Hondurans played by their own rules and we didn't like the outcome.

The reason we didn't smile at the result was that the administration is headed by a post-modern progressive who knows as much about foreign affairs as a gnat does of quantum mechanics but "feels" that democracy is somehow off the tracks if a fellow progressive is booted out for not playing by the rules. And, every good post-modern American believes that "feeling" is much more real and important than mere objective knowledge and understanding.

Nor was Secretary Clinton particularly effusive over the foreign policy successes so far enjoyed by the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, the Pakistanis have taken the field against Taliban in Swat and elsewhere with some slight degree of genuine success. However, the substance has been far eclipsed by the shadow.

With respect to Afghanistan the Geek would invite the Secretary to rebut the contentions and arguments in yesterday's post on our forthcoming (self-inflicted) defeat in that country. Certainly your appraisal today did nothing to change the Geek's mind on the subject.

The Secretary attempted to rehabilitate the administration's policy regarding Russia following Joe (The Ever Expansive Mouth) Biden's assault yesterday. Her convoluted explanation may play in Peoria where it is not relevant but will fall flat in the Kremlin.

Overall, Ms Clinton, had your interview on NBC been a web post it would merit one star or less. The Geek wonders if you were attempting to delude the American public or are you simply living in delusion yourself.

Obama's Dreamy Drift In Democratic Fantasyland

In keeping with his evident belief in a post-modern view of history (see the Cairo Address as one example) which holds that every person's "narrative" is equally valid, President Obama and, thus, his foreign policy crew hold that the disposed leftist and wannabe strongman of Honduras, Manuel Zeylaya, is "the only constitutional president" of the country. Only one small detail eludes the US president and one time professor of constitutional law.

(The beauty of the post-modern world view is that a person may pick the "narrative" he feels most emotionally in tune with regardless of objective truth. For, you see, post-modernism does not admit of any objective truth.)

The removal of Zelaya was undertaken by the Honduran military pursuant to constitutionally mandated processes. The action was taken in compliance with a Supreme Court order. It was also validated by the Honduran Congress. While the defenestration of Zelaya might have been a bit unseemly in its execution, it did not contravene the country's constitution.

The mixers and troublemakers in the current contretemps were Zelaya's fellow leftists, Hugo Chavez and Miguel d'Escoto. Without the blatant, full-throated support of these two champions of the vox populi, Zelaya would have faded into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Hugo has made the facilities of his increasingly autocratic regime available to Zelaya. The highly visible attempted return to Honduras by the ousted pretender to "president-for-life" status and thus the demonstrations and (single) death were made possible by Hugo having loaned an aircraft to Manuel. Over the weekend the former Honduran president took to the Venezuelan airwaves on a Hugo controlled TV station to rant against the "ogres" who ousted him.

Unlike his sponsors Chavez and d'Escoto, the once and perhaps future strongman of Honduras refrained from attacking the US for its alleged role in the removal process. This silence was strictly tactical.

Zelaya wants more US support. He doesn't deserve the support he has received so far, but no matter, he wants more. President Obama and SecState Clinton have ignored the realities of the internal politics of Honduras. They have overlooked the nearly monolithic opposition to Zelaya within the Honduran upper and middle classes, the Catholic Church, the press, and the institutions of state.

They have even managed not to read the opinion poll conducted recently by a Mexican polling outfit which saw Zelaya at the bottom of the "trusted leader" list. They have even managed to turn a Nelsonian eye to the reality that corruption, drug driven violence, and crime generally have been on the severe uptick during Zelaya's term in office.

The Honduran people made a mistake when they elected Zelaya. They came to recognise and repent of the mistake. Most were willing to hunker down and let the inefficient, ineffective, and loud mouthed man finish his term while hoping that not much more damage would accrue. But, Zelaya's blatant attempt to subvert the intention of the constitution by seeking a referendum which would allow him to emulate his master, Hugo Chavez, by becoming de facto president for all eternity, was one insult too many.

True, the referendum might have gone against Zelaya but why take chances given the record of electoral corruption throughout the region--including the fun, games, tricks, and general zaniness engaged in by Chavez in what passes for presidential elections on the shores of Lake Maracaibo.

Or, that was the way the Supreme Court saw the matter. The court ruled against holding the referendum. Zelaya tried to overrule the court. He failed. And, the soldiers came at dawn.

Except for those Hondurans at the bottom of the economic heap who fell for the standard issue pap of pie-in-the-sky socialist oratory pouring forth from Zelaya's copious oral cavity, the people of the much beset country breathed a sigh of relief as the tail light of Zelaya's flight disappeared over the horizon. Oscar Arias, who is a man of undoubted integrety and probity as well as political and diplomatic skill, failed to bring a compromise between Zelaya (who didn't even deign to show up) and the current government of Honduras.

The interim president of Honduras (named by the congress not the generals) Roberto Micheletti has offered amnesty to Sr Zelaya should he return to face Honduran justice. This is a lot better offer than the customary one in past military coups--a firing squad. More, Micheletti has made encouraging noises about holding elections before the currently scheduled date in November. Again, this is not the customary practice in "military coups."

If Mr Obama were not so lost in the haze of some fantasyland understanding of democracy, he would be standing beside the new Honduran government. He would be welcoming both the amnesty offer and the re-scheduling of elections. He would acknowledge that while the military's removal of Zelaya lacked a touch of class, it was done according to the rules. Honduran rules.

If Mr Obama were not so much a prisoner of the post-modern, he would at the very least both understand and publicly state that democracy was in a heck of a lot better shape in Honduras than it was in Venezuela (and other states bitten by the "Bolivarian" bug.)

Ah, but reality has never been a favorite of the Nice Young Man From Chicago.

Our Guy Is Tough, Not Just Likable

The image makers and message spinners reportedly are viewing the Moscow meetings between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev yesterday and the Real Power Dude of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, as the big chance to show that the American president is not simply a Nice Young Man From Chicago with a great smile and the divinely bestowed title of Transformer Guy. No, while he is both these things, the meetings in Moscow also demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Transformer Guy is also tougher than a posse of velicoraptors on steroids.

Wow! You bet. You could just see Obama's canine teeth becoming ever more fang-like as he shook hands with one time judo champ, Putin. Gonna put that Rooshan in his place fer sure.

The fabricators of public perceptions must be hard up considering that the big news of the mini-summit was the announcement of plans to replace the current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty set to expire this year with one which provides for further reductions in both nuclear munitions and delivery systems. This development is both welcome and overdue. It certainly is not a mark of "toughness," however that word might be defined.

On the margins of the main topic, the related one of the proposed missile defense system was discussed. The Obama administration is not enamored of the current plans set in place by the Bush-Cheney administration.

The President belabored the obvious by averring fearlessly (and presumably with a tough glint in his eyes) that there would be no need for an ABM system if Iran was somehow to forgo its ambitions. Adding to his tough stance, Mr Obama added that no defense system could possibly impair or impede the "mighty" Russian offensive capability.

That must have made Putin, to say nothing of Medvedev (who never shot a bear in Siberia or won a judo match or been seen in the public press sans shirt), just standing in awe of Mr Obama's toughness. Further afield there can be no doubt that after this display of hardnose, hard line, refractory verbiage, the mullahocracy in Iran, the Dear Leader in the Hermit Kingdom of the North, and the Men of the Forbidden City instantly decided not to try their luck against the hard boiled President from the streets Al Capone made famous.

Presumably, the prestidigators of spin as well as those who direct their services have been perceiving a need to portray Mr Obama as not falling in the less-backbone-than-a-banana category. Perchance there is a hint of fear in the corridors surrounding the Oval that Obama may be falling into Category W (as in wimp) in the foreign affairs department.

Oh! Say it ain't so!

What could possibly be leading to the interpretation of the Presidential Posture as being closer to over cooked pasta than Krupstahl?

Could it have something to do with asymmetrical pressuring in the Mideast? Pushing on Israel to make concessions (not that the notion of a few timely giveaways is a poor idea) while giving the Arab states a walk on reciprocity?

Or, perhaps, might it have something to do with the Obama rejection of real enforcement of real sanctions against Iran even though some of the usually highly reluctant to do anything beyond natter European Union states are ready to go that way as the last, best chance to avoid the blandly termed "military option?" Is it the patented Obama method of "engagement" with a regime which is not simply repressive but using an effective combination of deeply rooted Iranian nationalism with religious zeal with the goals of regional hegemony and global influence?

Or, to add a third factor, is it acting as the running buddy of "progressive" regimes such as those headed by Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa to cozen or coerce the Honduran government into reversing itself and re-installing the "progressive" Zelaya, who was removed from office according to the lawful decisions of the country's Congress and Supreme Court?

Perhaps, there was a surfeit of "likable" and a paucity of "tough" in the craven rewriting and companion distorting of history in the Cairo Address so as to fit the needs of the self-esteem challenged Muslims of the world.

Then there is the small matter of President Obama, his White House flacks, and his State department bending over and spreading their collective cheeks to offer assurances that the US had not given a "green light" for an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear complex just because Joe (Flapping Lips) Biden had been factually correct by saying that Israel is a sovereign state with the sole right to determine how to respond to threats it perceived as "existential." A spectacle? Yes. Edifying? No.

The list could go on. But, the Geek bores of the exercise.

Being liked is nice. Most all politicians want to be liked, even loved. However, in a famous primer for rulers, a philosopher of rulership, an Italian fellow, one Machiavelli by name, stated a brutal truism: It is better to be feared than loved.

"Feared" may be too stark a word for our sensitive and enlightened age. The word "respected" may be profitably substituted. A country, a government, a president is respected when it (or he) takes a consistent, reality based view of the world. When it (or he) sets and executes policy in a candid, straight forward manner. When it (or he) takes the world as it is without any need to pander, to genuflect, to pitter-pat around the facts, the truth, the national and strategic interests.

When and if Mr Obama and his administration can show that he and it sees the world as it is, understands what American national and strategic interests might be, comprehends what states, entities, and personalities seek to limit, constrain, or defeat our attempts to implement policies in our national interest, then the president and his administration are on the road to respect. If in addition he and it can eschew post-modernist confections suitable for the English department but not government such as espousing, at least implicitly, cultural, political, and ethical relativism, then he and it will be moving well toward the goal of respect.

And, what does respect get a country?

It gets one a fair chance at achieving a better state of peace without the horrid necessity of having to go to war first. It means being liked less, but not having to produce "tough" acts to support the earlier "tough" words.

So, Mr Obama, some free advice from the History Geek. Don't worry about being liked. Don't fret over being tough enough. Just go for a little of that R*E*S*P*E*C*T.

Getting Back To Business--Central America

It is time for the Obama administration to get a grip on the realities in Central and South America. Instead of wasting time, energy, political capital, and prestige on the attempt to resurrect a man, Manuel Zelaya, it should be using its efforts to seek stability in countries now being wracked with the effects of drug traffic driven crime, corruption, and violence.

The reality is simple. Sr Zelaya is shown by a recent Mexican poll to be the most disliked, distrusted, and discredited politician in Central America. Both of Honduras' major parties--including Zelaya's own--as well as the Catholic Church, the Congress, all the major media outlets and over two-thirds of the people want Zelaya out of office. Sure, this impressive majority was willing to see Zelaya finish his term in office and leave next January, but, when he seemed to be lusting after some sort of legitimate way to become Strongman For Life, both the country's Congress and Supreme Court said, "You have been here too long, get thee hence."

The Army carried out the direction of the Supreme Court and removed Zelaya. While there have been a few quite minor protests against this action, the real opposition resides external to Honduras.

Sr Zelaya has his supporters. They are headed by Hugo Chavez, a man whose love of democracy is questionable but whose distaste for the United States is monumental. Other supporters include Daniel Ortega, who once upon a time headed a group which shot its way into power but was finally forced to back down, regroup, and ultimately seek office via election. Ortega's one time companion in revolutionary arms, Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who abandoned the priesthood to become Nicaragua's foreign minister and current president of the UN General Assembly, has served as chief cheerleader for the ousted fellow leftist from Honduras.

The lesser cheerleaders--all of whom are on the far left shores of politics and most of whom seek to emulate Hugo Chavez by gaining constitutional changes which will allow presidencies-for-life include Ewo Morales and Rafael Correa. Neither of these have shown any reluctance in supporting Sr Zelaya irrespective of his genuine popularity among the homeboys of Honduras.

Zelaya has made a close and attentive study of the ways in which the staunch upholders of Left Socialism under its new name, "Bolivarianism," sought and retained power by exploiting not only the legitimate hostility engendered among the lower orders by the exploitative actions of a distant, haughty elite but also by manufacturing fear and loathing of the United States. Doing the latter requires no great effort considering the alternating fits of total indifference and daring interventionism of varying sorts which typify whatever passes for US policy toward Central and South America.

In recent days both Chavez and Ortega have threatened military intervention on behalf of Sr Zeylaya. The deposed wannabe dictator has vowed to return to his country in triumph. In a response which is not surprising, the military and acting president of Honduras, Roberto Michelletti, have pronounced the republic to be in peril and have summoned the reserves back to the colors.

In large measure due to the urgings of Miguel d'Escoto and the out-to-lunch approach of the Obama administration, the UN has inserted itself in the dispute. The decisions of the congress and supreme court of Honduras as carried out by the military are strictly an internal affair of Honduras. There is absolutely no justification under the UN Charter for that entity to involve itself in the matter.

Admittedly the UN has consistently expanded its view of its own importance and scope of its missions far beyond those seen by the drafters of the UN Charter over sixty years ago. Some of the "mission creep" seen by the UN in recent years can be marginally justified by asserting that internal disorder resulting in refugee generation at a level which threatens the stability of neighboring countries constitutes an actual or potential "breach of the peace."

By that interpretation the UN General Assembly and Security Council have the precedent on their side should they be so bold (or ill-advised) as to further involve the organisation in the ongoing affrays in Somalia or Sudan. But, even this broad understanding of UN Charter derived authority cannot be used to excuse any meddling in the current situation in Honduras. Other than the normal "migrant" population drifting north, there are no "refugee" hordes streaming across international borders.

The Organisation of American States (OAS) has some fig leaf of respectability in its efforts to defuse any crisis which may now attend the accomplished feat of Zelaya's removal. In any such efforts the OAS would only undercut any legitimacy it may possess should it either heed or give a platform for voices such as those of the Ortega regime or that of Hugo Chavez, which have a, shall we say, badly checkered past in the transparent practice of pluralistic democracy department.

The Obama administration would be wise if it were to quit hyperventilating over the removal of Zelaya and accommodate the new reality in Honduras. We do nothing constructive by damning the new government, halting our normal course of business with the regime and its military. All we do is surrender the field to the biggest mouths of the region. That is not in our interests. Nor is it in the interests of the people, stability, and future of Honduras.

Instead the Obama administration had best focus on the proliferation of destabilizing violence related to drug trafficking which is scourging not only Mexico but other countries in Central America. The Mexican situation has deteriorated from last year as the body count shows. This has occurred in spite of the strong effort to counter the violence made by the Calderon administration;

Crime--including kidnappings, murders and lesser forms of assault--dominate the upcoming election. The Green Party has even taken the quite unthinkable step of calling for the reimposition of the death penalty for kidnapping and murder. That in and of itself demonstrates the effect the narcotrafficking based crime tidal wave has had on the Mexican population.

Mexico is not alone. The press of Guatemala is filled with reports detailing assassinations, kidnappings, run-of-the-mill robberies which sound as if they should be datelined "Juarez" or perhaps "Chicago--1930." By some accounts the body count per day runs ahead of that seen in Mexico. Overall, a person is safer in Iraq or even Afghanistan than he is in Guatemala or portions of Mexico.

The pattern is repeating itself in Costa Rica and--during Zeylaya's watch--Honduras. As has been seen over the past two decades and more, the cycle of drug trafficking, violence, and political corruption by the those involved in these criminal activities can threaten the stability of a state. Just review the history of Columbia.

If outsiders seek to exploit to their political advantage the rents in the social and political fabric made by the violence and money of drug trafficking, the resultant instability can be far more difficult, perhaps impossible, to combat. For this reason alone the Obama administration should deal with reality as it is in Honduras--and elsewhere--not play meaningless and potentially counterproductive rhetorical games over the need for democracy to be observed regardless of the outcome.

Climb down from progressive fantasyland, Mr President, your country and the region to our south needs realism. Get a grip on it.

Hugo Chavez Falls In Line

Apparently taking his cue from the mullahs and re-elected president of Iran as well as the Dear Leader of North Korea, Hugo Chavez, the wannabe Castro of the 21st Century, has entered the Bluster-For-All-You're-Worth Festival of International Bad Actors. Reportedly the semi-dictator of Venezuela has ordered his military to stand by for a possible intervention in Honduras.

The Mullahs Best Friend In LatAm has announced he will do whatever he can to "abort" the military coup which displaced Honduran president and Chavez' buddy, Manuel Zeylaya, early today. Chavez also warned the Honduran military that any attempt to harm or kidnap his ambassador in that country will be met by force.

Chavez must feel he is riding a high of (probably manufactured) public support given the demonstration by his supporters against the only ant-government TV station still on the air in the oil powered new socialist paradise of South America. It might be mentioned that the latest piece of Chavez posturing comes on the heels of the Obama administration's decision to put our mission in Caracas back on the ambassadorial level and only weeks after President Obama poured love and smiles on the far-left leaning and profoundly anti-American Chavez.

Can we say, "Spanner in the works?"

The rhetorical tirade launched as is usual on nationwide television by Chavez calls into question the value of Mr Obama's search for "engagement" in lieu of the previous administration's confrontational approach to the chest-thumping former paratrooper turned president morphed into dictator. In this context in might be mentioned that Chavez hinted darkly that the US was somehow behind the military coup.

Hugo's suspicions run counter to the reality that the US has worked to stave off the coup over the past several days. While the Honduran president is no friend of the US, there is no longing in Washington for regime change. Even if such is the desire of the Honduran political elite.

The deposed president is the primary proximate cause of his own involuntary plane ride to Costa Rica. In an attempt to emulate the success of his supporter and role model, Hugo Chavez, Sr. Zelaya sought to ram through a referendum which would have changed the Honduran constitution approved some twenty years ago so as to allow him to run for re-election when his term ends next January. The referendum was declared illegal by the Honduran congress and supreme court.

The position taken by the Honduran congress and supreme court represent the political elite which has never had much, if any, use for Zelaya. His support comes from the non-elte in the country. There is no doubt that the lot of the average Honduran is not good. Crime, particularly homicide as well as drug traffic, particularly cocaine, run rampant in the country, which was recently ranked by the World Bank well below the median of 209 countries rated in security.

The reduction of remittances from Honduran illegal workers in the US has had a dramatic, even devastating, impact on the nation's economy. And, the average Honduran, elite or not, is very well aware of the realities in which they live.

So also is the ambitious Sr Zeyala who, like the majority of wannabe dictators of the left, wants to be a transformational figure--or at least the Big Enchilada. Riding the wave of discontent rising from the lower, alienated, and hopeless portions of the population is the time-honored way to gain power for life. This is what lies behind the proposal for the referendum.

It is both unfortunate and predictable that the Honduran army which, like the majority of armies through the sweep of LatAm history is the protector of both the privileged and the status quo, intervened as it did. Pressure from the Organization of American States and the US might reverse the coup. (Note: the US is far and away Honduras' largest trading partner.) But, the Chavez saber rattling will not.

If the Great Man of the Bolivarian Revolution has any grip on reality he is well aware of this. After all, how is he going to project force into Honduras? What will his Russian supplied naval vessels do if the US Navy interposes itself? Come in shooting? Or, will he use the nation's airborne forces? And, if the US says, "No," then what?

OK, Hugo, the Geek agrees you are trying to get up there with Iran and North Korea. But, you have a long, long way to go. Iran is a genuine and growing threat to regional and, potentially, world peace. North Korea is a well established player of global extortion with a degree of resolve behind its apparent lunacy which is both well-honed and developed.

Venezuela, however, under the inspired revolutionary leadership of Hugo Chavez, is not even into the minor leagues of global troublemaker. That may change given the regime's ties with Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as its willingness and ability to foster and protect the international traffic in illegal drugs.

But, for the moment, the Chavez regime would be best off building its capacity for future bad acting and keeping a lid on premature bluster. There is nothing more damaging to a regional problem child than having its poor manners greeted by derisive laughter and not the sound of knees knocking.

How's Your Spanish?

If your grip on Spanish of the Central American-Mexican variety isn't good, you had best get to work on it. There is still time to master the tongue. But (you knew this was coming, right?) from the perspective of Mexico City, not too many days or maybe minutes. Those lads seem to be in a heck of hurry or muy pronto, if you prefer.

Consider a couple of recent articles from the Mexico City press. The first is from Excelsior and was published a couple of days ago. According to the report the full assembly of the Chamber of Deputies has passed what they term a "Point of Accord" in which the sense of the Chamber is conveyed to the Foreign Minister.

To put the thrust of the Point of Accord bluntly but not unfairly, the Chamber wants the ForMin to work with dispatch toward the less-than-modest goal of convincing the US to "regularise" the status and "end human rights violations of migrants now living and working in the US." Unpacking this demand makes it read as a Mexican version of President Reagan's famed call at the Berlin Wall, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Among those speaking in favor of the Point of Accord was Edmundo Ramirez Martinez, chairman of the Population, Borders and Migratory Affairs Committee. This politico is perturbed by the US attempts to control its own borders. Or at least that which is presumed to divide the US from Mexico.

He pulled out the rhetorical stops and put the tongue's pedal to the metal with a luscious rhetorical fusilade.

"We regard with concern some of the statements of Secretary Janet Napolitano, in which she sets forth that the militarization of the border would be to bring the end of organized crime on the border, because in these statements she continues to associate the issue of migration with that of security. The Mexicans who work there are not terrorists and for that reason we have stated this to North American congressmen with great concern"

A fine counterpoint to the Mexican position was reported the same day by El Universal. The leaders of several Central American countries were having a high level palaver in Managua. The president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was reported to have said, “to emigrate is a human right and not a crime and we’re going to ask him that the issue of migrants be removed from the security agenda and that it be moved to the development agenda.” By context it is evident that the "him" referred to was Vice-President Biden. Why the veep and not the Prexy, the Geek knoweth not.

If you put the two reports together you get a good view of the policy direction not only in Mexico but in the republics of Central American generally. The policy might be characterised as "Cross the line and you're home free, compadre."

The governments down south have some strange ideas about the nature and character of borders as well as a nation's right to control those borders. One cannot help but note the robustness of Mexico's efforts to prohibit, or at least limit, "undocumented" movement across its southern border. The same pattern can be noticed with each and every of the CentAm countries.

The Geek can well understand the internal forces at work in Mexico and the others. Honduras, for example, is a very poor country with an official exchange rate GDP for 2008 of 13.78 billion dollars which is significantly less than the same year's "GDP" of the Mexican drug rings which is conservatively estimated at twenty billion bucks. With a per capita income of less than four kilobucks, it is easy to see why the Honduran president would love to see wide open American borders.

Honduras' per capita income is less than Guatemala's $5,400 or El Salvador's $6,400 and far behind the $11,900 of Costa Rica. While the newspaper was silent on the matter, the Geek has to wonder whether President Daniel Ortega who presides over an economy so pathetic that the per capita GDP is even lower than that of Honduras seconds the opinion that the US must open its borders to all comers from down south.

The US has no obligation to become the hemispheric sump for all those millions who are economic refugees. That is a given. While any number of employers have been and continue to be eager for very low paid undocumented workers, this is no reason for the US to drop impediments to free flow "migration" (to use the term preferred by the Mexican and CentAm governmental elites.)

The basic concept of the nation-state depends upon two conditions being met: Defined borders is one. Control of movement across the borders is the other.

The nation-state is a political reality which has existed as a bulwark against the unrestricted movement of peoples. While many High Minded sorts in academia and other (usually) harmless enclaves have long decried the existence of the nation-state as the fount of all wars and related icky-poo aspects of the human experience, the nation-state is not dead. It isn't even on life support.

The representatives of the nation-states which signed and ratified the various international conventions which define the movement of people as a "human right" had as their stated intent the removal of all barriers to the exit of people from a country. The President of Honduras should have been aware of this. Honduras is a signatory to the relevant agreements.

Nowhere is there any reference to "free" or "unrestricted" entrance to any nation-state. The US along with Mexico or Honduras has an absolute right under international law and convention to place restrictions of whatsoever nature on the right of entrance. Indeed, any and every state has an affirmative duty to restrict entrance when that is in the best interests of the indigenous population.

Admission of foreigners to a nation-state is an act of national self-interest or, on occasion, an act of international mercy. If the political elites of Mexico or other CentAm states want to see more of their "surplus" citizens admitted into the US, it is necessary to demonstrate how this is in the American national interest or how it is a fit matter for mercy.

This implies that Mexico and others must engage in the usual game of diplomatic horse trading. There must be a quid for the pro quo of admitting or regularising the status of their citizens.

This means simply that it is up to Mexico and Honduras and the others to make an offer that we can't refuse. Give the US government and We the People a reason to let more and more inhabitants of the Lands Down South to come here, perhaps to stay.

The Geek has a suggestion to make to Mexico. Open your oil fields to American investment and development. Not only will that help Mexico's economy it will benefit the US. Benefits deserve a bit of reciprocity. Say, something like an easier course to regularization and a reduction of ICE raids in the workplace.

The Geek knows the suggestion won't fly with the ever-so-tetchy nationalists of Mexico. But, without something along the lines of the exchange of money for people, there will be no ready solution that is minimally acceptable on both sides of the Great Fence of the South.