Russian Help on Afghanistan

No, the headline above is not a non-sequitur, as much as it may seem like one. It springs from this article I just read on Yahoo!'s news aggregation service.

Now, there are many ways of reading this fairly short news article from Reuters. On the surface, it appears like the incoming Obama administration is already fostering hope in renewed or strengthened relations with the international community. That could be one way of looking at it, since the U.S., NATO, and Russia had a bit of a falling-out after Russia's war with Georgia last summer. Perhaps Big Bad Vlad Putin and Russian President Dmitry* Medvedev felt like they could mend relations with the new Obama administration better than they could with the outgoing Bush administration.**

* I still can never think of a Russian President/Soviet Premier named Dmitry without thinking, of course, of Stanley Kubrik's all-time classic Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Dmitri Kissoff... ha! Still makes me laugh! There are not many Peter Sellers roles that even begin to approach the hilarity of the three he had in this one movie.

** This, despite Bush's famous quote about meeting with Putin and seeing into his soul.

Another way of looking at the news is that Russia, perhaps, sees another opportunity to exert its influence in a region it has long coveted (unless coveted is too strong a word) during a time of leadership transition in the U.S. government. Russia's offer to "help" us in Afghanistan comes hard on the heels of Tuesday's Inauguration, you have to admit. This honestly could be Obama's first foreign-policy test, but it is too early to tell the true intent of the Russians here.

I loved this quote taken directly from the Reuters article:

"Let us hope the new U.S. administration will be more successful in the Afghan settlement than its predecessor," Medvedev told a news conference after talks with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

Or did he mean, "...more successful than WE were in suppressing the Islamic Mujahideen resistance during our decade-long entanglement in Afghanistan"?!! Which raises a great deal of questions all on its own.

I was old enough to remember the nightly news covering the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when I was a child. I clearly remember President Jimmy Carter boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in retalliation for the invasion, which then was repaid in kind by the Eastern Bloc countries boycotting the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, CA.

One thing I was never fully clear on, and I don't think the nightly news programs* ever answered on their own, was WHY the Soviets felt compelled to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was pretty clear why the U.S. responded the way it did, and the movie they made starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts on Charlie Wilson's War (2007) provided a nice historical perspective, even if it wasn't 100% true. On this topic, the Wikipedia page provides some information related to the events leading up to the Soviet invasion, but it should not be trusted as a source for a deeper understanding of the Soviet rationale.

* The one we probably watched over any others at the time was Dan Rather on the CBS Nightly News, and oh, how long ago does that seem now! Who watches the evening news any more these days?

So, before I go off to the library in search of more scholarly tomes on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I thought I would post the question here: does anyone know which book(s) are the best one(s) on this topic? Wikipedia actually does a decent job of listing source material for the footnotes, all of which are found at the bottom of the page linked above. I could sift through those footnotes to find books on the topic, I suppose. Even then, you always want to be reading the right books, right?

All I know is this: the rationale for the Soviet invasion I remember as being provided at the time, that the Soviets were looking to secure a warm-water port outside their Black Sea fleet, is completely bogus.

The Hill's Speech

This blog will not be focused just on fantasy football; that would cover ground already well-covered by many other writers much more talented than I. Plus, I have many more passions and interests than pro and college football, and I fully intend to write about whatever strikes my fancy on a given day.

Which brings me to the DNC currently happening in Denver, CO. My first reaction when I learned that the Democrats were holding their convention this week was pure fatigue. My wife and I just finished watching days of Beijing Olympics coverage on NBC for whatever reason (normally, I couldn't be bothered by running, swimming, or gymnastics, but for some reason, this Summer Olympics found its way into our TV viewing schedule. And we were not alone; the ratings numbers even surprised NBC, I think!), and I really didn't want to jump into another week of every night extended TV coverage of a "big event." Couldn't they have given us a week off before starting the national conventions? Oh, and the Republicans REALLY should give us a week off before starting theirs in Minneapolis next week! Talk about viewer fatigue! I know the networks have dead time during the summer they need to fill with programming before starting their fall schedules, but this is rediculous.

Having said that, I was interested in watching the Michelle Obama video and speech. I read someone else say yesterday that they wanted to vote for Michelle's dad for President. Her back story certainly is interesting and compelling, and she delivered a very solid speech in support of her man. She would make a heck of a first lady, if they win the general election.

And then Hillary took the stage yesterday, and I couldn't help but think she's in full image recovery mode. Her speech enabled her to save face within the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that she was sincere in pushing for her supporters to back Obama, but it must have been tough to get so close to the nomination only to come away empty-handed (not even the VP!). She was also able to deliver the quippy one-liners that were sure to be clipped into sound bites by the MSM: "No way, no how... no McCain!" Plus the one about Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities. It almost looked like Bill had given her that one to use during her speech. He certainly seemed to be bursting with pride as she delivered; the Clintons will not go quietly into the night!

I do take exception to some of the comments she made, however. If nothing else, she is setting up Obama to fail if he does ascend to the Presidency. Many of the evils she mentioned (the Halliburtons and Exxons, the companies offshoring their jobs, etc.) are simply easy targets to scapegoat during the current economic downturn. These have been the Democratic drum beat for the past eight years. But NO President has control over rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs, the move to cheaper manufacturing locations, or even the move by many companies to incorporate offshore in Bermuda, where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. None of these things would change under any new administration without significant new laws being passed, and oh by the way, that has to be done by Congress.

Let's review what the President does have control over: some elements of Fiscal Policy, although let's be honest, the annual President's budget generally is DOA when it arrives at Congress every fall. Some amount of Monetary Policy, only insofar as the Pres can appoint a new Chairman of the Fed Reserve, whose policies he then has to live with. Everything else revolves around running the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which only very indirectly impacts the economy as a whole. Sure, FCC and FTC policies have an impact on specific elements of the telecommunications sector, but it's not like the President has a whole lot of levers he can pull to effect change. The next Pres won't even appoint a new Fed Reserve Chairman (confirmed by the Senate, natch) until 2010, when Ben Bernanke's term expires. So for the first half of the next President's term, either McCain or Obama will be stuck with the guy appointed by Bush.

So, for Hillary and Obama to make calls for ending the war in Iraq (seems like the Iraqi PM Maliki is giving them less fodder there, since he is calling for a definitive timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal--independent of actions proposed by the POTUS), universal healthcare (how do you propose to pay for that?!), more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (I guess that could be a possibility, if Honda and Toyota build more plants for small, fuel efficient cars here; again, not something the Pres has any contol over), and whatever else makes up the Democratic Party platform this year seems to me to be nothing more than empty campaign promises. As always.

Not that the Republicans will do any better next week. Are you sure we can't get a week off in between the two conventions?! Talk about viewer fatigue. I just wonder who McCain will tap to be his running mate?