Britain and America

All you need to know: 31st December 2007

DEMOCRATS: IF CLINTON WINS IOWA SHE'S PROBABLY WON HER PARTY'S NOMINATION

That's Rasmussen's view: "Iowa is a must-win state for Barack Obama and John Edwards. Now, with just days to go until voters finally get a say in Election 2008, Iowa is way too close to call."

REPUBLICANS: HUCKABEE AND McCAIN GANG UP ON ROMNEY

TownHall.com: "Mike Huckabee says John McCain is a hero. McCain says Huckabee is a good man. And they both seem to agree on this: Mitt Romney is neither." McCain needs Romney beaten in Iowa so that he doesn't get momentum for the New Hampshire primary which McCain has to win if he is to be credible. Huckabee will probably be very happy to be McCain's VP nominee.  Romney has been attack ad-ing Huckabee and McCain.  If Romney bests Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in NH he will probably win the GOP nomination.

CAN AMERICA'S CONSERVATIVE COALITION HOLD?

Perhaps one of the biggest questions of 2008.  Ross Douthat: "It's obvious that the Norquistians and neocons and social conservatives aren't inevitable allies - that many tax-cutters and foreign-policy hawks, for instance, would happily screw over their Christian-Right allies to nominate Rudy Giuliani; or that many social conservatives don't give a tinker's dam what the Club for Growth thinks about Mike Huckabee's record."

MISUNDERESTIMATING GEORGE W BUSH

Michael Barone judges that Bush has emerged stronger from 2007 because of the success of Petraeus' surge strategy: "Some of George W. Bush’s critics seem to have relished the prospect of American defeat and some refuse to acknowledge the success that has been achieved. But it appears that they have “misunderestimated” him once again, and have “misunderestimated” the competence of the American military and of free peoples working from the bottom up to transform their societies for the better."

BILL KRISTOL JOINS THE OP-ED PAGES OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

The Wall Street Journal gleefully records how the left-wing blogosphere has reacted to the news that America's most important newspaper has appointed a neocon columnist.

Hillary Clinton's worldview

This is the third in a series of reviews of the worldviews of leading candidates for the White House as set out in the journal Foreign Affairs.  John McCain and Barack Obama have already been featured.  Tomorrow our attention turns to Mitt Romney.  Today we look at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy priorities: Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century.

America must end the unilateralism of the Bush years: "We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.  But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing... U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy."

>> Bill Clinton emphasises George W Bush's alleged unilateralism in a soft BBC interview

Democracy promotion should still be a policy goal: "Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day. These people risk becoming a vast permanent underclass. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives. The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has temporarily given democracy a bad name, but over the long term the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world."

The American Soldier

The differing ways in which America and Britain honour servicemen has been noted by this website before.   Conservative Defence spokesman Dr Liam Fox has also written about it:

"I watched in Dulles Airport as two soldiers went through security and noted the warmth and courtesy with which they are treated. Are we so out of touch with our Military in the UK that we cannot understand the sacrifices they make on our behalf? Is it because so few people in modern Britain have direct contact with the armed forces that there seems to be so little comprehension about what they actually do or is it part of a general decline in respect for any form of authority? Is it because we see too few servicemen and women in uniform nowadays?"

Yesterday I came across this Toby Keith video, The American Soldier:

Alongside Michael W Smith's There She Stands, that is one of the most patriotic and inspirational of YouTube videos.

PS General Petraeus has issued his letter to the troops.  The text is on The Weekly Standard's website.

Barack Obama's worldview

Yesterday, in the first of a series examining the foreign policy priorities of the main presidential candidates, we spotlighted John McCain.  Today it's Senator Barack Obama's turn.  Tomorrow Senator Hillary Clinton.  All of the posts are largely based on the candidates' contributions to Foreign Affairs magazine.  Senator Obama's full essay - Renewing American Leadership - can be read there.

There can be no understating of today's dangers: "This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts."

Only a phased withdrawal will force the political solution that Iraq needs: "we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country."

>> Video: Unlike other Democrat hopefuls Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning but makes it clear that he's a hawk on terror generally and supported the Afghan campaign

>> Video: Obama and McCain differ on Iraq strategy

John McCain's worldview

In the first of a series of posts, BritainAndAmerica will be summarising the key foreign policy recommendations of the leading candidates to be America's 44th President.  The posts are summaries of essays that the candidates have written for Foreign Affairs.  We begin with Senator John McCain's contribution: An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom.  Tomorrow we will preview Senator Barack Obama's worldview.

America must prevail in Iraq despite the errors of the pre-surge years: "Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership.  The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price. Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success."

>> Video: McCain and Obama offer very differing views on the surge in Iraq, CNN

>> MoveOn.org's attack on McCain ad for his support of the surge

More must be done to address the Talibanisation of Pakistan: "We must continue to work with President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and al Qaeda maintain in his country. These groups still have sanctuaries there, and the "Talibanization" of Pakistani society is advancing. The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country. This would mean enhancing Pakistan's ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist madrasahs and supporting Pakistani moderates."

Dan Hamilton predicts victory for Huckabee or Romney in Iowa but cannot predict the outcome of the Democrats' contest

With less than a week to go until the crucial Iowa caucuses, Dan Hamilton, a Runnymede Borough Councillor,  previews the race.  His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BritainAndAmerica.

REPUBLICANS

For most of 2007, it appeared as if Mitt Romney was a shoo-in for victory in the Iowa caucuses.  Following an impressive victory at the influential Ames Strawpoll in the summer, many political commentators openly speculated that it may be wise for his opponents to “roll over” and concentrate their fire upon later primary states, such was the “inevitability” of an Iowa Romney victory.  With less than a week left until primary day, this is no longer the case, chiefly as a result of a late surge in support for former Arkansas Governor and Baptist Pastor Mike Huckabee.   

Huckabee’s rapid rise in the opinion polls in the six weeks leading up to polling day - he was polling an average of 9% on October 3rd, as compared to 35% on December 4th – could well, perversely, be his undoing. Despite the likelihood of Huckabee polling a greater number of votes than he or his supporters would have dreamed possible only three months ago, his recent lead in the opinion polls has led to a capabilities/ expectations gap that may well have the ability to derail his candidacy.  He simply does not possess the vast resources – human or financial – of his leading opponents, particularly Mitt Romney and must rely greatly upon the power of his message and appeal to religious voters.   

Almost as soon as he was sworn in as Governor of Massachusetts in early 2003, Mitt Romney began his campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination for President.  Long before he officially announced his intention to seek the nomination, Romney’s team had already established a strong network of ‘precinct captains’ across the state, not to mention his almost weekly appearances in the state.  In terms of the ‘money race’, at the end of the third quarter fundraising period, Romney had $9,216,517 cash on hand as compared to Huckabee’s $651,301.   

Undoubtedly, the people of Iowa know far more about Romney than they do about Mike Huckabee.  This may well be part of Romney’s problem.  You see, whilst the Mitt Romney seeking the 2008 Republican nomination has painted himself as a staunch social conservative in favour of slashing government spending, he is only a recent convert to these causes.  To offer but two examples; during his 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts he described abortion rights as “non negotiable” and during his 1994 race for US Senate against Teddy Kennedy, the standard-bearer of America’s far-left, he loftily declared his opposition to the ‘Contract with America’ stating that he was an “independent voter during the time of Reagan… and didn’t want a return to Reagan/Bush”.  His opponents, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson in particular, have been relentless in highlighting his past record.  

Conservative MEP questions USA's treatment of visitors with HIV and AIDS

A Conservative Member of the European Parliament and medical doctor, Charles Tannock has compared the United States' treatment of visitors from overseas with 
HIV and AIDS to that of repressive nations like Saudi Arabia.

At the moment, in restrictions that are twenty years old, the USA prevents all people with HIV from entering its territory under the visa waiver programme that benefits most Britons.

A new proposal from the US Department for Homeland Security suggests that HIV+ visitors will be able to stay for thirty days but they would "waive both their right to appeal and their right to change their immigration status once in the US - for example to seek work, study or be reunited permanently with family members".

Writing on his website, Dr Tannock complains:

"If the new proposal becomes law it could mean that people who are HIV-positive are denied the chance to be reunited with family members and partners, or to work or study in America.  The measures amount to an entrenchment of discrimination, in particular because they will disproportionately affect thousands of gay and bisexual people.  I've raised this issue in a written parliamentary question to the EU Commission and Council because collectively they are likely to have considerable clout with the US authorities on this particular issue.  The US is one of the only countries to place travel restrictions on people living with HIV and AIDS.  America's policy places it alongside countries such as Saudi Arabia. It's unworthy of a country like America, with which we share common values of liberty and equality."

This does seem to be an outdated restriction that stems from a time when understanding of the nature of HIV/ AIDS was in its infancy.  The USA under George W Bush has done much to tackle AIDS abroad.  It is regrettable that it has not moved further against this restriction.

Will General David Petraeus, man of the year, be able to rescue Basra?

Tim Hames, in today's Times, calls the US surge of troops into Iraq as "the most important story in the world this year":

"By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home."

National Review has annointed General Petraeus, author of the surge, as its man of the year.  BritainAndAmerica cannot argue with that.  Even Democrat John Murtha, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war, stated that “the surge is working.”

The US' increasing (although not yet certain) success stands alongside the UK's failure in southern Iraq.  Colonel Tim Collins, who famously stirred his troops for battle in 2003, told BBC Radio 4 this morning that the USA may have to intervene against the "chaos" in the south once British troops have completed their retreat:

“I think that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. I think the chaos in Basra is a temporary thing, because I am certain that the US - which is fast getting control of the rest of the country - will sort it out."

The "chaos" in the south has been well-documented in the last 24 hours.

This is what The Guardian reports this morning:

"As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV."

In yesterday's Sunday Times Marie Colvin documented appalling stories of violence and death being perpetrated - particularly against women - by warring Islamic militias in Basra.  Here is an extract from her report:

"The level of lawlessness is striking even during a short visit to Basra. On my first day,a male relative of the family I was staying with was kidnapped driving into Basra. A series of desperate calls began to try to find him. It has become a well-established ritual.  The next day, waiting in the anteroom of Major-General Farid Mohan, commander of the army in Basra, I asked the man next to me if he was okay. He had two black eyes and lumps on his bald head.  It turned out he was the leader of the first ministry of finance delegation to visit Basra in five months. He had been kidnapped and tortured. Mohan had negotiated his release hours earlier.

Iyad Ahmed sat slumped forward in the grey dishdasha (robe) and leather sandals that he had on when he was kidnapped from his room at the Qusr Al-Sultan, the best hotel in Basra. He had arrived 20 days earlier to investigate the ports and borders.  “When I was kidnapped, I was investigating the theft of 653 new cars stolen from the international free zone in the middle of the afternoon. The thieves killed the guard at the gate as they drove the cars out.”  Following the trail, the ministry team found that 90 of the cars had been used in assassinations, and 35 in suicide bomb attacks.""

The rebuilding of Britain's armed forces will be a top priority for Britain's next Government.  As BritainAndAmerica argued at the time of the British sailors' captivity in Iran, the whole direction of British politics and culture has left Britain a much more vulnerable nation than at any time since the Falklands War.

Did you know that emissions from Kyoto signatories are rising faster than from the USA?

Conservative MP John Redwood has written some interesting blogs about the BBC's coverage of the Bali summit.  Here, for example:

"If the world wanted to do something positive to curb carbon output, it needs to concentrate less on targets and more on technology and incentives. There was discussion of that at Bali. We are not allowed to hear much about it from the BBC, unless it can be fitted into the good guy EU versus the bad guy US script. Fortunately the Indian proposal for technology sharing came along which filled the bill."

America was repetitively painted as the bad guys by the BBC when it comes to climate change and the European Union as the good guys.  An analysis of the EU nations' performance suggests, however, that they are better at signing treaties than actually living up to them:

"In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here's what happened:

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
• Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
• Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent."

Source: AmericanThinker.com

The heat goes out of the Hillary campaign

Photo from Tiger Hawk blog.

BritainAndAmerica still believes that "the machine" - her advisors, ground organisation and money - will see Hillary Clinton become the Democrat nominee but recent events have started to raise serious doubts about her "inevitability".  Obama - although way behind in national polls - is edging ahead in the first two primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  He's competitive in South Carolina.

Here are some of the factors that are causing people begin to think that Barack Obama may yet triumph:

Last week's Oprah-Obama show; with one of America's most popular TV presenters endorsing the young Illinois Senator at electric rallies.

Mis-messaging.  Obama has emphasised a message of change.  Clinton has emphasised her experience.  Dick Morris thinks Obama has chosen the better message because the Democrat grassroots "intensely dislikes things as they are".

Continuing concerns that there is something too cold, too calculating about Hillary Clinton.  Her mechanical laugh - on show again this week - is one of the causes of this suspicion.  Bill Clinton's appearances on the campaign trail only reinforce this sense.  Toby Harnden wrote this for today's Telegraph:

"Bill's easy rapport with voters provides a ready contrast with Hillary's awkwardness, reminding Americans that if he has an heir in his ability to connect to crowds on campaign trail, it is not his wife, but her would-be nemesis.  While Mr Obama has journeyed to remote rural areas and answered hundreds of questions, Mrs Clinton has sought refuge in canned speeches and stage-managed "meet and greets" in diners. Her aides were caught planting easy questions in Iowa - an act of sacrilege in a state that cherishes its role as a laboratory for retail politics."

As Peggy Noonan has noted Bill also tends to talk a lot about himself: "He is showing up all over in Iowa and New Hampshire, speaking, shaking hands, drawing crowds. But when he speaks, he has a tendency to speak about himself. It's all, always, me-me-me in his gigantic bullying neediness."

Her persistently high negative ratings.

The dislike factor has been reinforced by mean-spirited attacks on Obama.  A national co-chairman of her campaign resigned after speculating about Obama's drug use in his youth.  The Clinton campaign also issued a press release accusing Obama of wanting to be President all of his life.  Pot, kettle and black come to mind.