Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...

I must not be very intelligent when it comes to matters of foreign diplomacy. Perhaps I should request a crash course in negotiating sensitive matters of national and international security from one of my good friends, who currently works for the U.S. State Department. Or is it the U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action! as their website says?

See, I tend to think that if a person or a country is going to negotiate in good faith using bargaining chips, then those chips should already be on the table before the negotiating session begins. I may very well be wrong about that. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

I did see this article on Yahoo! news this morning, in which the Russians claim to make a wonderful conciliatory gesture towards a more cooperative and peaceful approach with the new Obama Administration. Look at us! We promise we won't deploy nuclear-tipped missiles on the Polish border because George W. Bush is no longer in office! Especially since Obama has not ruled out the possibility of continuing Bush's plans for a missile defense shield in Europe (he only promised to consider the policy on its merits before deciding what to do), Russia's move seems to be fairly magnanimous.

However, check out when Moscow originally announced the deployment of their Iskander missiles: it was 5 Nov 08, the day after Obama was elected President. So, this whole announcement of a new era of cooperation, of extending an olive branch to the Obama Administration, is really just a ruse designed to make the Russians look good. They created the faux crisis a day after our Presidential election for the sole purpose of being able to use that bargaining chip now.

That must be how international diplomacy is really conducted.

Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha...

Best of Luck to the New POTUS

I think he'll need it in the immediate future! Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States (POTUS) today, and plenty of people have already served up their commentary on what his election means for our nation.

I did take the time to watch a live feed of Obama's speech during work today (Shhh! Don't tell my boss), along with several of my coworkers. Perhaps it was just too frigid for the attendees on the vast expanses of the Mall, most of whom had been standing around for hours in the cold, to warm up and applaud at appropriate times during Obama's speech. There seemed to be several instances where he deliberately paused, expecting a reaction from the crowd, only to be met with silence or simply muted clapping. Throughout the speech, there were no real roars of approval except, perhaps, when Obama pledged to get troops out of Iraq in so many words.

What is interesting is this comparison of today's speech to W's last Inaugural speech from 2005, courtesy of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" column in today's WSJ:

First, Obama's speech from today:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West--know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Here is George W. Bush, four years ago today:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The two speeches were not that dissimilar, and gave credence to the same founding principles that are what make America great. In my own humble opinion, Obama's speech was not hugely historic -- definitely not up to the standard set by JFK -- but it served as a reminder that Obama has plenty of challenges facing his administration.

Many people have also commented that words are cheap and that actions, not words, will carry the day. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. It will continue to be very interesting to see just how Obama will govern from the White House, now that he is the POTUS. I continue to have hope in the future, but let's see where the next few months and years take us as a nation.

Most telling will be what the U.S. response is after the next time terrorists attack our interests, be it an attack on U.S. Navy ships like the USS Cole, train bombings like in London or Madrid, or something else equally henious. It's probably not a question of if, but more like when something like that happens, how will Obama respond? Time will tell.

Sarah Palin Speaks

Hmmmm...

That's my official reaction to hearing and reading what Sarah Palin said on ABC News this week, during her first unscripted appearance and interview on a major news network. As I said before, I believe that she deserves the opportunity to speak for herself and to prove to the country that she deserves to be John McCain's VP candidate. Now that she's had that opportunity to defend her own record in an interview with Charlie Gibson, I'm now scratching my head a little.

Let's start with Charlie's questioning about whether or not she's ever met a foreign head of state. She admitted she has not. Ever. She rightly pointed out that she is not the first VP candidate to be in that position, but she clearly does not have any experience negotiating tough deals with foreign heads of state. Since the VP position tends to be more ceremonial than functional (well, it did before Dick Cheney), that inexperience might not be a drawback for Palin.

Charlie moved on to discuss Sarah's perspective on specific national security situations, the first of which was dealing with a resurgent Russia and the recent events in Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Here are the direct quotes, straight from the ABC News website:

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Now, of course, I'm very happy to hear that Palin does not advocate a return to the Cold War. She's flat-out wrong about no shots fired during the Cold War, naturally. Francis Gary Powers springs to mind. The US also might not have much of a choice about a renewed Cold War with Russia. I'm not saying that Big Bad Vlad (Putin) wants to reinstate the Iron Curtain and rebuild the buffer zone of Eastern European countries in another USSR. However, he does seem to want to reassert Russia's zones of influence and return Russia to a resurgent role as superpower on the world stage.

This about this from Putin's perspective. Russia was bankrupt towards the end of the Cold War and simply couldn't keep up with Reagan's military buildup in the 1980s. (Then again, how well did the US afford that buildup?) First Gorby and then Yeltsin promoted the idea of Glasnost and Perestroika, encouraging more transparency within the government and warmer ties with the West. In exchange, Russia was shown to have significant issues within its military, and while they always maintained their importance in the UN Security Council, The West learned we didn't have quite as much to fear from Russia as we thought during the Cold War.

Which meant the US was then free to act much more unilaterally and with some impunity when it came to matters of national security. What did Russia get in return? Some free market reforms that made the oligarchs and Russian mafia rich, but certainly a diminished role and very little opposition to US objectives. War in the Balkans? The US stepped in during the Dayton Peace Accords and still maintains boots on the ground there. War in the Middle East? The US has conducted not one, but three different wars since the early '90s with very little to no consideration for Russian goals or objectives in the region. Of course, the Russians might have the last laugh if the US also has to leave the mountains of Afghanistan without a long-lasting solution against the Islamic fundamentalists there. But the Russians aren't providing the remnants of the Taliban with guns and Stingers the way we did during their occupation of the country in the '80s.

So, for Palin and, I assume McCain also, to suggest that we need to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO against Russian opposition to such a move is dangerous and reckless at the very least. I understand that leaders in Ukraine and Georgia are asking for membership in NATO and the European Union. They have much more to gain by aligning themselves with Western Europe than with Russia. However, I would not be surprised in the least for Russia to invent another provocation against ethnic Russians living in Sevastopol, their long-time warm weather port and home to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Any excuse they can use to send in troops and control the necessary land of Ukraine, I believe they will do. Putin has shown he is willing to commit troops on such a cause, and they are looking for ways of provoking a fight with the US as this WSJ article shows (subscription req'd). Why else would Russia claim a stolen US passport was evidence of US meddling or mercenaries in Georgia? Russia is itching for a fight, and we don't need to provoke them by trying to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

Let's get back to Palin. She also discussed the Bush Doctrine* with Gibson. (Watch the video on ABC News/Yahoo here.) More appropriately, it seemed as though Gibson had to tell Palin what the Bush Doctrine was, and then she had to react to being caught off-guard. She certainly supports Bush's ability to strike at Islamic extremists at will, pre-emptively if needed, but then she wanted to resume the McCain-Palin ticket's claim to being agents of change.

*As perhaps one of the most significant foreign policy shifts since the Truman Doctrine stated the U.S. would do everything in its power to prevent Greece and Turkey from falling under Soviet influence after WWII, the Bush Doctrine is certainly worth knowing cold for any future Presidential candidate. It's also certainly worth contrasting with the Powell Doctrine, used so effectively by Bush 41 in the First Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Frankly, it can be quite confusing. Would a McCain Administration continue prosecuting unpopular military actions in Afghanistan and, increasingly, Pakistan, with the prospects of expanding the war on terror? Pakistan poses its own high wire diplomatic drama, with factions taking hard line stances against having US troops conducting offensive actions in western Pakistan. The official government line, for now, is resorting to diplomacy, but how long will that last?

So, all of this once again makes me think, "Hmmmm..." How much could we trust a McCain-Palin administration to keep us safe in the new world order? How much should we trust them with foreign affairs? How well do they understand all the issues? And would an Obama-Biden administration do any better?