Obama's Gotta Wonder--Is Anybody Listening?

For a long time now whenever an American president has spoken, the world has listened. The global (and domestic) audience might not have liked what they heard, but ears were attentive, brains were engaged. As recently as last year the American president was both heard and heeded on matters both great and small. If nothing else people were ready and willing to hope that the new voice meant substantial and positive change in affairs ranging from health care at home to a globe ranging recession and the very nasty little war in a very faraway place.

In recent months, weeks, even days, the situation has reversed course with an abruptness which startles the observer. Bluntly put, a new dynamic exists, a new dynamic which bloomed with stunning rapidity, a new dynamic in which no one really cares what the American president might say--other than to dismiss the words as not having been worthy of hearing.

There are two excellent indicators of this new dynamic. One comes from the domestic front in the familiar form of a poll. The other comes from the nations comprising the G-20 nations, in the quite unfamiliar form of flat rejection.

The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted between 17 and 21 June shows that Mr Obama and his progressive agenda have been rejected by very significant pluralities of We The People. The numbers, particularly the sixty-two percent who believe "the country is headed down the wrong path," are those one would expect from, say, a Rasmussen, or even a Republican Party sponsored "push poll" not one from the WSJ/NBC News folks.

There are, of course, many inputs to this new domestic perspective. These include the nature and extent of the Great Transformational Agenda so beloved by the Progressive Caucus and the Man in the Oval but which violates the American propensity for modest changes achieved slowly. There are other, equally or more important factors involved. The administration's response to the BP oil blowout is one. The failure of the economic stimulus packages is another. Even the evident erosion of American influence around the world plays a role.

There is no little probability that the president's action of yesterday--firing McChrystal and replacing him with a man who is a highly regarded political general but no warfighter--will add more suspicion and distrust to the mix in the weeks to come, particularly if General Petraeus alters the McChrystal strategy and operational plans. The net effect of appeasement, getting tough with Israel, bowing to a Saudi king, appearing far less than resolute when faced by an act of war by North Korea, kicking the British in the crotch, encouraging the Russians to behave more and more like the Soviets of bygone days, has been to lessen America in the eyes of the world and the American president in the esteem of We the People.

The more head snapping demonstration of the new dynamic comes from the G-20, more specifically the European members of the assemblage of the largest economies. You recall that Mr Obama sent a letter to the heads of government of all G-20 states which, in essence, begged one and all not to become deficit hawks but rather to continue along with the US on the path of stimulus spending.

Apparently, the political advisers who line the walls of the Oval like vultures around the slaughter house came to realize that the Social Democrat propelled states of Europe had reversed course with the blinding rapidity more characteristic of a school of tropical fish than a cluster of European parliamentarians. In a femtosecond or less, the several European states had gone from their traditional stance of cradle-to-grave benefits provided by other people's money to a posture of austerity severe enough to bring a smile to the face of Messrs Calvin and Knox.

At the same time, the US continued to cruise along fueled by money which is not our own in pursuit of the Great Transformational Agenda. The Sages of Politics feared that this lonely position might impose a political cost on the Democratic Party and the incumbent president. So, the begging letter emerged.

It was written. It was signed. It was delivered. It was ignored. With greater or lesser degrees of courtesy, the American president's plea for unity was blown off. Blown off by one and all. The Eurocrats had come to the conclusion that there were times when the US should be quite unilateral.

The irony in this is as tasty as a triple chocolate cake. The American president in common with many of the American hoi oligoi sees Western Europe with its economic and political philosophy of democratic socialism, its post-modernist languor, its cultural relativism, to be the most seductive of Edens, the most attractive of Paradises, the capstone of ten and more cycles of centuries of human "progress."

"If only we could be more like them," came the lovelorn sigh of thousands of Americans, members in good standing of the self-appointed elites of politics, media, and academe.

Just as the new American president seemed to be leading his people successfully out of the wasteland of America-past and into the Promised Land of Europe-West, a not-so-funny thing happed over in the Continent of Dreams. The place morphed overnight it seemed from the Repository of All Things Great to a a remake of the Old USA.

Benefits beyond count, vacations which never ended, being held harmless against all perils foreign and domestic, became suddenly, shockingly, totally yesterday. In a flash, the good life, the "third life," la dolce vita, was cast aside, to be replaced with the pain and suffering, the sackcloth and ashes of austerity.

Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so, Barack! Nancy! Somebody! Anybody?

But, it is so. And, the US is alone. Swimming upstream. Headed by a leader to whom no one will listen. Urged on by a voice unheard in the world and increasingly unheeded or unbelieved by those of us who are members of We the People but not card carrying adherents of the domestic elite.

Once, not that many months ago, a conveniently unnamed aid to the Man in the Oval (in)famously remarked, "We were elected to preside over the graceful decline of the United States." Now it appears that We the People unwittingly elected a man destined to preside over, not the decline, but the defeat of the US.

We elected the man for a number of reasons. Some of us practiced identity politics--placing the subgroup of ethnic, racial, religious, economic, or ideological affiliation above the primary loyalty to the US. Some of us voted from a basis of frustration and alienation, terminally fried off by the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Bush/Cheney years. Still others of us were taken in by the false flag campaign of Mr Obama. (Of course that latter is no excuse as all political campaigns are to some extent of the false flag sort and experience should have made us too hip to have been taken in by the "hope and change" slogans coming from the TelePrompter propelled mouth over the palpably empty suit.)

In any event We the People still have some faint chance of forestalling our looming defeat in the world. If nothing else we can take a clue from the Europeans. That's right, boyo, the Europeans.

The European hoi polloi have shouted "enough is enough!" The common men and women of West Europe have had it up to their dandruff with cultural relativism, multi-culturalism, the surrendering of painfully won defining institutions and values to the new barbarians, the hordes of arrivals from the primitive regions of the Islamic world.

We can do no less. And, no more. Tolerance, forbearance, and diversity are valuable values, but none mean we must abandon the unique features and attributes which have served so well for so long to make us a self-conscious entity.

Now European politicians are demanding of their people (and in the case of the new British government, themselves) that individuals no longer ask, "what's in it for me?" but rather ask, "how will this benefit us all?" European politicians are seeking to force a powerful and painful change upon their societies and polities, a change from indulgence to sacrifice, a shift from give-it-to-me-now! to delay-for-a-better-future. They are asking the nearly impossible--to surrender an overly pleasurable today for the prospect of an OK tomorrow.

We can do no less. Since so few of our political figures are willing or able to emulate their European counterparts, We the People must demand that they do so. This is to ask of ourselves something even more strenuous, more arduous than the European politicians have asked of their publics.

Yeah, that's where it is at--demand that our politicians demand of us both austerity and the accompanying sacrifice of our version of la dolce vita.

It may be an impossible task for us to undertake. However, the alternative, the defeat of the US, makes the task not only important but central--if we are to have a tomorrow.

The Deeply Divided Mind Of Pakistan

If Pakistan or the collective Pakistani people were a single individual there is a better than good chance it would meet the criteria for schizophrenia outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. There has never been any real doubt that the Pakistani government was badly split over the nature of the threat or threats confronting it and the country. The Pakistani people are just as badly and deeply conflicted over who should do what regarding "extremists."

In one area alone is the collective mind of Pakistan in full unity. That area is religion. Specifically, Islam of an austere and demanding nature.

The government of Pakistan most recently demonstrated its capacity at double think (the capability to entertain two, antipodal ideas at the same time with the same fervor) in the matter of the US UAV hit on Baitullah Mehsud. The Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, is apparently quite pleased that the "drone" whacked the Taliban heavy. At the same time he demanded an end to the UAV operations.

It is not that the minister has anything against the Predators and Reapers in principle. No, not at all. Actually, he is rather in favor of them. So much so that he (along with the rest of the current government) demands the US furnish some to Pakistan so that the Pakistanis can decide against whom and at what time the machines will be used.

The target could be Taliban. It might be al-Qaeda. Or, it could be in India.

Considering the long standing focus on India as the main enemy, there is no reason to believe that the government has suddenly experienced an epiphany resulting in Taliban outranking the feared and hated power to Pakistan's south. This fundamental orientation is good and sufficient reason for the US not to pass along UAVs to Islamabad--even if we had some to spare, which we don't.

Malik maintains that the UAV attacks kill too many civilians. In this the Interior Minister is accurately reflecting the view of the majority of Pakistanis. The average Pakistani in the mosque is highly negative about both the UAVs and the US. Anti-Americanism has grown in recent years and months to the point that a poll taker hanging around after the Friday sermon would have no difficulty determining that most Pakistanis see the US as the new main enemy. India drops to a distant second place.

While the death-from-on-high delivered by remote control may be a high profile symptom, it is but a symptom of the underlying splits in the minds of Pakistanis. So also is the anti-Americanism which is far more apparent than real. Far more a sign of the divisions within than a stand alone phenomenon which should alarm policy makers (or their critics.)

The Pew Global Attitudes Project gives some important tools which aid in both parsing the nature and extent of Pakistani schizophrenia and understanding its relationship to the anti-American sentiments. The same report provides important insights into just how Pakistanis view Islam and what constitutes "extremism."

One very important factor in contemporary Pakistani public opinion is the growth in negative perceptions of both Taliban and al-Qaeda over the past year. Currently seventy percent of Pakistanis have an unfavorable view of Taliban, which is more than double the percentage a year ago. The unfavorable view of al-Qaeda has nearly doubled from thirty-four to sixty-one percent. At the same time the favorable views of these groups has dropped significantly with only ten percent or less entertaining the positive outlook.

During the same period the percentage of Pakistanis concerned over "extremism" in the country has inched from seventy-two to seventy-nine percent. When the views on aspects of Islam or, more accurately, Islamist, doctrine and practices are taken in to account, one may wonder just how Pakistanis understand the word, "extremism."

The Pew pulse-takers found that more Pakistanis view India as a "very serious" threat than either al-Qaeda or Taliban. India leads the threat parade in the minds of sixty-nine percent with Taliban coming in with fifty-seven and al-Qaeda trailing at forty-one percent. At the same time some sixty-four percent of Pakistanis perceive the US as an "enemy" while only nine percent view the US as a "partner."

Going a bit deeper in the numbers, the anti-US feelings are nuanced. Over half of all Pakistanis want improved relations with the US. They perceive the best, fastest road to improved relations is for the US to pump humanitarian and economic development money into the country. Just shy of nine in ten Pakistanis want to see Yankee greenbacks flood the areas now contested with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The men at the mosque also are in favor of the US providing intelligence assistance to their government and armed forces.

Just don't kill anybody while you're at it. Money good. Intel OK. Doing something lethal is seen as very, very bad.

The downturn in favorable views of Taliban and al-Qaeda has been driven by the boisterous way in which the jihadists have been killing and maiming Pakistani civilians. It has also been driven in lesser part by the dim perception that the US strikes have been in response to the jihadist actions.

Factoring in the overwhelmingly positive feelings Pakistanis demonstrate regarding their Army, a rough calculus can be developed. Muslim troops kill jihadists--very, very good. Jihadists kill troops--very bad. Jihadists kill Pakistani civilians--very, very bad. Infidel American machines kill miscreant jihadists--very, very, very, very bad. Infidel Americans give Muslim Pakistanis money--very, very, very, very good.

Now the problem of defining "extremism." By most standards the monolithic views of Pakistanis on Islamic matters would be "extreme." Overwhelming majorities approve of applying the death penalty to any individual who "leaves" Islam for another religion, lopping off hands and feet or whipping for crimes such as theft, and stoning adulterers to death. These attitudes are indistinguishable from the practices and beliefs of both Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Only in the area of education for girls and women does the Pakistani perspective differ from that espoused by the Islamist jihadists. More than eighty percent of Pakistanis see education being equally important for both sexes.

A final, very important datum located by the Pew survey folks. Pakistanis are intensely nationalistic. The national identity trumps the ethnic or linguistic for nine out of ten. This goes a very long way in explaining why Pakistanis so strongly disapprove of the UAV attacks. They are seen a violation of national sovereignty.

The nationalistic orientation of both people and government is not only a cause of the apparent schizophrenia, it also suggests a way out for the US. The way out includes providing humanitarian and economic development aid as has already been proposed and partially put into action. It also requires a much stronger, far more public effort to persuade the Pakistani public that the UAV strikes are taken with the full cooperation, approval, and support of the Pakistani government.

So far the government of Pakistan may well know that most if not all strikes are undertaken with the knowledge and approval of Islamabad. But, the public does not know. It must be brought into the loop. Both the US and Pakistani governments must get on the stick and let the people of the country know that their national sovereignty is not being infringed or shown disrespect by the infidels and their machines.

The Interior Minister and all the others at the upper levels of both the government and the Army (which is the most trusted institution in Pakistan) must let their people know in no uncertain terms that the UAV strikes are both approved of and highly important in stopping "extremism." Maybe it is past time to go to the videotapes and show the Pakistani in the mosque just what is being done, how it is being done--and just who is being killed down range.

Sometimes dropping the veil of unnecessary secrecy is critical to achieving a necessary success. In this case the success will come when the Pakistanis both in and out of government can overcome the bad case of schizophrenia which is impairing our common effort against the black turbans of Islamist jihadism.