U.S. Foreign Policy

Nu is a great Yiddish word that doesn't actually mean anything at all and therefore can mean almost anything you want it to mean. Even if I weren't Jewish, as a writer I would therefore love the word. It offers so much freedom without any of the limitations that actual definitions impose. In this respect it is kind of like modern art. 

Most of the time that I hear it used in conversation it means "so?" This can be what one on-line dictionary describes as the Yiddish equivalent of "whassup?" Or it can be more penetrating, not just a question about what's going on but one about what it all means, something covering all the territory between "huh?" and "WTF?"

Consequently, for most inquiring minds, it can play an absolutely key role, especially for those minds trying to make sense of what's going on in the world. Because the problem with most so-called journalistic coverage of what's happening on the international stage is that it covers the news without actually addressing the nus.

Fortunately however, you have me. At least once a week anyway, while I am writing my book. (Which you could pre-order just like you did Sarah Palin's book if a.) My book had a title and b.) You had actually ordered Sarah Palin's book which I am absolutely certain you did not. Because if you were so inclined I am sure I would have lost you up there at the top somewhere between the word "Yiddish" and the word "whassup?")

This week was particularly rich with nus. And therefore, I thought I would take a moment or two and review some of them with you. You know, to help you grok it all.

So, here goes:

• You've got to admire Eric Holder's intentions with regard to bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in New York City. We are a nation of laws and our system of laws ought to be up to any test, even one this onerous. Personally, I believe it is. That said, this decision could haunt not just Holder but the country. If defense attorneys argue, as they will, that Mohammed was tortured repeatedly, it could create a profound moral and legal conundrum. Because by some definitions (including my own) he actually was tortured. And if it is concluded that this constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of U.S. constitutional precepts and international law, how will a judge handle it? How will the nation handle it? What do we value more, the law or justice? This is troubling territory and I believe it is politically treacherous ... but it is an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we are once again committed to holding ourselves accountable to the highest standards in all circumstances. Were we to do this, for all his wrong-doing, Mohammed will be providing the United States with an opportunity of incalculable value.
• When we look back on this past week, there will be a temptation to say it's the week that Barack Obama's Afghan policy deliberations jumped the shark. The fact that he had what was billed as a final discussion regarding four policy options that then produced his apparent rejection of the four and his call for a new set of ideas based on new parameters is being described as proof that his national security decision-making process is flawed. The fact that shortly afterwards two cables from the U.S. envoy in Kabul were leaked indicating his discomfort with sending in more troops so long as the Afghan government remains so unreliable didn't help the picture. But let's go beneath the surface a little...
• Ok, the policy process is clearly flawed. But while we focus on what's broken now, it seems indisputable that the bigger breakdown was actually earlier this year when the administration originally defined its Afghan goals. While the process may be moving too slowly, fitfully and indecisively now, the greater problem is it moved too quickly with too little analysis back then. The Spring's policy was too based on campaign rhetoric and not sufficiently based on a careful assessment of the situation on the ground. It led McChrystal to his conclusions.  It put them in the box they are in now. 
• The reality is that the outcome of Wednesday's meeting was actually the best one we could hope for. Because the president saw the options he had as flawed and shifted the emphasis...underscored later by press secretary Robert Gibbs ... to the exit strategy. He moved the discussion from "what we should do in Afghanistan" to where it should be: "what we can do in Afghanistan." And the only goal we can unquestionably meet is leaving. Think about it: to succeed in transforming the political situation on the ground we would need a commitment of many years, tens of thousands of more troops, tens of billions more dollars, a strong and cooperative ally in Kabul, committed international partners and an enemy that wasn't willing to wait us out. Of those conditions, none are likely to be met.  So figuring out how to exit while remaining positioned to deal with acute regional threats makes great sense. 
• Which brings us to Washington's favorite parlor game of the week: figuring out who leaked the Eikenberry cables. The smart money is on the White House which sees these memos (which conveniently come from an ambassador who is a former on-the-ground commander in Afghanistan) as a way to justify its shift to new goals and to offset the orchestrated leaks from the McChrystal side. For those of you who bought in to the notion of the unprecedented discipline of the Obama team, sorry for the rude awakening.  While the focus should be on the ground war, Washington is once again engaged in a war of leaks.  This is not a weaknesses of the Obama Administration per se...it is more a fact of life given the culture of Washington.
• On other fronts, the White House responded to 10.2 percent unemployment by calling for a jobs summit in December. This is one of the classic responses of a government that doesn't yet have a substantive plan for what to do. It is troubling that another such classic response is to appoint a czar. In both cases the focus is on creating the illusion of action.  Even the president seemed to recognize this when he tried to temper expectations for outcomes from the summit he announced.
• The third in the great trinity of kabuki policy outcomes is to follow a meeting with the call for another meeting. According to recent statements from Secretary of State Clinton and Climate Negotiator Todd Stern, this seems to be where we are headed with the global climate talks despite their tireless efforts to the contrary. We'll try to hammer out something as a temporary face-saver for Copenhagen and then we'll resume doing what we're doing now ... trying to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing world with regard to setting emissions targets and figuring out who is going to pay for fixing what's broke.
• On that front, read the provocative piece in Rolling Stone by Naomi Klein about the issue of "climate debt." Here's my partial solution. The developed world really does have to foot a goodly part of the bill for changes in the developing world related to climate...since we created the problem they did not. We also have limited resources and need to create jobs. Why don't countries like the United States create Green Trade Banks that provide cheap, long-term financing for green energy and climate related projects in the developing world ... provided that the projects involve content from the United States. We generate jobs. They get the capital and the technology we need.
• Think the Chinese are going to lag the U.S. on adapting to climate? See this article on a new study from the government support CCICED arguing that China should cut its emissions 4 to 5 percent per year from now through 2050.
• While college football still can't get its act together for a playoff system to pick a national champion...even with President Obama's strong endorsement of a change...we here at FP hear what the people want. That's why I will soon unveil the brackets for the year 2009 Chutzpah Bowl, pairing off category champions to see who deserves the title of world chutzpah champion. Among the contenders this week: Lloyd Blankfein for his "doing God's work" comment, Eliot Spitzer for going to Harvard this week to give a speech on ethics, Harvard for producing graduates like Eliot Spitzer and then hosting a conference on ethics, and CNN's lost but unlamented Lou Dobbs ... another Harvard grad ... for his years of Mexican-bashing despite the well-known fact that his wife is Mexican-American.  Unlike Lou, we're not xenophobic though so don't worry, the complete brackets will include plenty of non-American contenders. 
• Finally, it tells you everything you need to know about American television that the guy Comcast is reportedly picking to head up NBC/Universal should its acquisition of the media company from GE go through is none other than Jeff Zucker, whose most recent stroke of genius was moving Jay Leno to prime time, a brainstorm that will rank right up with there with "New Coke" among the most bone-headed moves in American business history. 

Well, that's all the insight I can muster this week. Must get back to my book. If only I could figure out as Sarah Palin did how to sell hundreds of thousands of books to an audience primarily comprised of people who can't or won't read. It would take so much pressure off me...

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Foreign policy is a fast-paced business. Despite the fact that at least someone in the Obama Administration is actually celebrating the art of indecision, you can save the world with snap judgments if you know what you're doing.  I know what I'm doing. 

To demonstrate I will now solve some of the biggest foreign policy problems confronting some of the world's most important newsmakers in a matter of just a few seconds each. (I will also solve a few lower-grade domestic problems as well.) If you are an important figure on the international stage, just look for your name below. Next to it will be the advice you need in a couple of quick sentences. If you are not a world leader but know one, please feel free to forward this to them.

To Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of the Pakistani Muslim League: If you don't like the provisions of the U.S. aid package, keep it to yourself. Your complaints are precisely how we know the deal has been constructed properly. (Hint: Turn back the Americans who are offering aid and you'll end up with those who want to make all future deliveries by drone.)

To President Barack Obama: If you think that George's war (that'd be Iraq) is likely to look better than yours (Afghanistan) in five years -- and that'd be my bet right now -- then you really do need to listen to the people calling for a change in strategy.

To Manuel Zelaya: Fair or not, your five minutes are just about up...unless you choose to start dating Kate Gosselin. (And if that is Plan B, I have to say, I'd stay locked in the basement of the Brazilian Embassy, too.)

To Kim Jong-Il: You tell Wen Jiabao you want one-on-one talks with the United States to establish peaceful ties as a prelude to returning to the nuclear arms negotiating table? No problem. Two steps: First, ask for them. Second, realize Michael Jackson wrote "The Man(iac) in the Mirror" for you. As in the "how many shrinks does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke, the punchline is that it's you who've really got to want to change.

To Jon Corzine: You don't get re-elected governor of New Jersey by attacking fat people. I have a two word clue for you on this front: Tony Soprano.

To Silvio Berlusconi:  Are you the one that's tanned now or is that just a red face? The ruling by the Italian Supreme Court stripping you of immunity from prosecution just because you are Prime Minister certainly seems likely to put a hitch in your mambo Italiano. With three trials going on that involve you or your holdings, you might want to start planning your post government career. (I know your wife has some interesting ideas for what to do with you ... or parts of you.)

To Donald Tusk: As Poland's Prime Minister dealing with a corruption scandal, you have learned some important truths: gambling always produces losers (in your case, the three ministers who have been forced out of your government for corruption) and you can't beat the house (even if you try by suggesting you'll fire the anti-corruption official who blew the whistle on your cabinet) ... especially if the house is run by the two who stole that stole the moon and you don't fit in with their plans. 

To Robert Mugabe: You say you want better ties with the U.S.? Well, you're going to need a long rope... Kim Jong-Il has a better shot at restored relations with the United States ... by a lot. Frankly, so does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Frankly, so too does Rufus T. Firefly. Dictator, purge thyself.

To David Letterman: Ok, so far there's no rumors of foreign affairs in this story. But my advice to you is: continue doing just what you're doing. The openness is working...on the ratings...and on what's left of your image.  Silvio, you randy slimebag you, pay attention. Old men apparently can screw around with younger women if they are charmingly self-deprecating about it, not political leaders and not you. 

To Mazen Abdul Jawad:  You may have been condemned to 1,000 lashes in Saudi Arabia for discussing your (kinda gross) sex life on a tv talk show.   Here in America (see above), the same thing would actually get you your own talk show.  Time to consider relocating...almost anyplace else.  And speaking of Saudi outrages...

To Mohammed S. Al Sabban: If, as head of the Saudi delegation to the global climate talks, you are actually as reported going around saying if measures are taken to reduce world dependency on oil that the planet should offer aid to Saudi Arabia ... then get used to the idea that you are going to replace the woman who buried her husband in a rented suit as the living embodiment of laughable chutzpah.

To David Axelrod: Stay out of camera shot in photos about major foreign policy decisions. You're the president's right hand guy. He needs you: You have the "mind-meld" thing going, offer invaluable advice and by all reports are actually a good guy. Which is why what neither the president nor you need are the uncharitable whispers that you are out-Roving Rove in terms of day-to-day influence over administration operations. (Oh and to Karl Rove, re: your WSJ article that the GOP is winning the health care debate: There's a reason you guys are out. Wrong again. See the CBO report. The Obama-Baucus bill is getting closer and closer to being a done deal.)

AFP/Getty Images

In a thoughtful piece in today's Financial Times about how the anti-European impulses of David Cameron's Tories may lead to a chill with Washington, Philip Stephens writes that "[President] Obama is unsentimental about alliances." I think it goes further. I think that Obama is just plain unsentimental about most aspects of his professional life. (One senior administration who compared Obama's "synthetic intelligence" favorably with that of Bill Clinton, said Obama was one of the "coolest characters I have ever seen in that kind of job. He places an exceptional emphasis on rationality and calm analysis.")

Among those things impacted by Obama's cool rationality are all of America's international relationships ... and in particular the role of history in those relationships. While cognizant of historical context in an academic sense, Obama seems not to place much stock in old traditions be they of friendship or of enmity. The stirring shoulder to shoulder images of the Second World War, while rhetorically rolled out for suitable occasions, are not part of his life experience. This is a guy, after all, who entered high school after the Vietnam War was over and who did not begin his professional, post-law school life until after the Cold War was over. George W. Bush, by contrast, is fully 15 years older than Obama, son of a World War II veteran who was a traditional Atlanticist and cold warrior. Obama is a very different breed of cat from what we have seen before.

That's not to say he's indifferent to alliances. It's not to say he doesn't appreciate the importance of NATO or old friendships. But the impulse to engage former and current enemies, to sign on to the G20 as a replacement for the G8, to seek a different kind of relationship with Israel, to give the Cairo speech, to travel early to Africa-all these steps suggest a willingness not to be captive of the mold of his predecessors. Imagine ... right now the United States arguably has a better relationship with French leaders than with the leaders of the U.K. or Germany.

As Stephens rightly points out in the FT, as far as the U.K. goes, this trend is only likely to grow more pronounced once David Cameron takes office as he presumably will. Cameron and Obama got off to a bad start, they are from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, and to the degree Cameron and his colleagues undercut the Lisbon Treaty and push back from the table of Europe, they will be both making life more complicated for the United States and all their allies and pursuing a very different world view from the U.S. president.

When asked by other colleagues in the diplomatic community who has the U.K. brief in the U.S. government, the current U.K. ambassador to the United States, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, has jokingly replied that he hardly knows because it doesn't seem to be a top priority for anyone. This is no doubt due to the fact that the relationship works pretty well and there are few sore spots crying out for immediate attention. But should Cameron come to power and behave as he implies he will, Sheinwald's successor could feel even more neglected and the Cameron administration is likely to get a cold shoulder that makes Gordon Brown's need for five pleas for a meeting with Obama at the U.N. General Assembly before he got one seem positively warm and inviting.

U.S.-U.K. history and cultures are such that the relationship will always be different from that we have other countries. But it seems quite possible that with an unsentimental post-modern president in the White House who seems destined to have a chilly partnership with the odds-on favorite to be the next Prime Minister of the U.K. the special relationship will be considerably less special in the future than it has been at any time in recent memory. 

Mario Tama/Getty Images

The one blog I read every week is Peter King's "Monday Morning Quarterback" at Sports Illustrated. King aficionados might recognize my weak (if unattributed) shout-outs to him which come in the form of not really worrying so much about the length of any post, covering a variety of subjects, and liberally blending in the pop culture references. They will also recognize that I am not in his league and that the subject about which he writes, football, is significantly more interesting than most of the subjects about which I write.

One of the things he does frequently is offer lists of rapid fire opinions which often come under the rubric of "Ten Things I Think I Think." Consider the following yet another tribute to him ... because that is a much nicer way of thinking of it than concluding I simply stole his title and format. 

1. Jim Jones is coming into his own. He was just what Obama needed this weekend: Solid, thoughtful, and immune to Republican taunts that this administration doesn't get the military.
2. Good as Jones was, frankly, I am surprised General McChrystal has gotten off so easy for his comments last week about why narrowing our objectives in Afghanistan wasn't a good idea. It was totally out of bounds and bordering on insubordination. He is trying to play political hardball with his Commander-in-Chief ... a game he is always going to lose. Jones put it to rest elegantly however, with his pointed comment that gracefully reminded everyone where McChrystal sits in the chain of command.
3. As good and skeptical as the administration seems to be about the advice they are getting on Afghanistan, we seem to be on the verge of once again allowing ourselves to be played on Iran's nuclear program. Teheran creates the illusion of dialogue and simulated openness ... but they are proven liars who have every incentive to have a long-process and with each passing day, less to ultimately play by international rules. (They are Lucy with the football. We are Charlie Brown. When will we learn?)
4. This kerfuffle about Chicago is nonsense. The president went and promoted his home city for a few hours. It's not like he was out of touch. It's not like he didn't use the time to achieve other things.  Imagine the press if he hadn't gone and the results were what they were. A non-story.
5. I am from New Jersey. I hate the Washington Redskins. I love that they are condemned to wander aimlessly through the Swamps of Snyder testing the limits of their own mediocrity. But their lousiness only makes it a greater insult to Native Americans that the team continues to cling to a name that is a repulsive relic, an ethnic slur that would not be tolerated if the group being insulted were more politically powerful. Enough. Change the name.
6. Rumor has it the administration is -- at the highest levels -- trying to figure out a way to get the Panama and Colombia trade deals done. That's good news. To the extent it is the only trade liberalization that gets done on Ron Kirk's watch, that would be a bad thing. Remember folks, these are measly little deals.  Do them...but let's not buy into some twisted logic that argues that if you do them it will excuse a raft of protectionist measures (Chinese tires, anyone?) as counterpoint in a "balanced" policy.
7. Speaking of balance: The problem with U.S. foreign policy is that more often than not the true Secretary of State of the United States is yesterday's newspaper. That's what determines what today's policy will be. We achieve balance in complex relationships through cyclical inconsistency. Slam China on tires ... tiptoe around them on Tibet ... hope that gives you some room to make nice with Taiwan on arms transfers. Too often the countervailing measures are out of whack in terms of real importance to us or to them. 
8. The Times has a piece today headlined "The G.O.P. Campaign Message in a Word: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs." While it might be argued that's three words, it's right on point. This is what campaign 2010 will be about, especially with growing certainty that the unemployment rate will pass 10 percent. But I worry we are missing a bigger problem: the jobless recovery. Who's to say the six million jobs we lost come back or come back fast enough to keep up with demand for work? Look at the auto industry: rapid shift of well known brands to China, India and Korea. New brands rising. Same story elsewhere. I think we need to prepare for a future that is actually rather different from the past.
9. The Pew Research Center releases a study today saying that most of coverage of the economic downturn focused on problems on Wall Street and government issues and that how average folks were hit got short shrift. Hope they didn't spend too much money on the study ... because as worthy as the intent may be and as important as the message is, we already knew that, right?
10. I can't tell whether the picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohammed El Baradei on the cover of today's Wall Street Journal struck me because it reminded me of Wallace Shawn and Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride or because I think it may end up being used as a model for the little plastic statuettes to be used on wedding cakes for gay men of a certain age, but it brought welcome absurdity to the front page of the Wall Street Journal (as opposed to the editorial page where it is usually found).

Win McNamee/Getty Images

What is it about South Carolina's Latin loves? Or more precisely, what is it about their Latin passions that drives South Carolinian politicians insane?  First, we had Governor Mark Sanford falling head over heels for his sweet little alfajore from B.A.. Now, we've got South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint in a lovesick swoon for Honduras's de facto president Roberto Micheletti.

Despite the fact that Sanford lied to his constituents and betrayed his family, his saga was almost poignant. He clearly suffered acutely from that uniquely male disorder that involves the blood rushing from the brain and taking up residence in other parts of his anatomy. He went lovestupid. (It reminds of a true story told to me by a former Argentine ambassador. He ... who had five or six wives ... was having a conversation with his pal, then Argentine President Carlos Menem, himself a famous connoisseur of the opposite sex. Menem said, "you know, my friend, you and I are a just a couple of old putaneros." And the Ambassador responded, "No, Mr. President. You are a putanero. I am a romantic. Hence the five or six marriages.) Guys like that can't help themselves.

Then there is DeMint, who has fallen so hard for Micheletti that he decided to go visit him and whisper sweet nothings in his ear, despite the fact that his support for the interim president would run directly contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S. government. Apparently, the passion that draws DeMint down Tegucigalpa way is so strong and disorienting that he somehow thought no one would object. Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did and cancelled DeMint's trip. As of late Thursday, Senator Mitch McConnell then reinstated the trip under the aegis of a different committee. And no doubt there will be further chess moves on this front, with DeMint so goggle-eyed over the dubious appeals of the Micheletti government that he seems to think that this issue ought to be a top priority, taking precedence over say, everything else in U.S. foreign policy or policy in the region.

We know he thinks that the little telenovela that is playing out in Honduras is the most important thing happening in the hemisphere because -- apparently over this issue -- he has personally blocked the confirmation of the administration's two excellent, highly qualified nominees to be Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Brazil. This issue has driven him nuts and he is going to drive the rest of the government nuts too, by golly! That's patriotism. Them's priorities. That's a South Carolina man in (ideological) heat.

However, in behaving in such an over-the-top fashion (and he's certainly entitled to his opinion ... the problem starts when he starts compromising the ability of the United States to conduct its foreign policy to make his point), DeMint is actually doing a service. Because he is making the most compelling case possible against the dangerous current argument that the appropriate response to the Obama administration's czarism is demanding Senate approval of even more presidential appointments.

As readers of this blog know, I was out there early tallying up czars and objecting to how many there were. But I was objecting because I felt that often (but certainly not always) such positions were redundant and didn't make for effective executive branch management. I never suggested ... or dreamed ... that the answer would be a push to give the Congress even more authority over executive branch appointments.

This Senate has an appalling track record of blocking appointments to advance personal agenda issues, pursue vendettas completely unrelated to the confirmation process in question and otherwise impede the ability of the government to get its work done in the most demanding times imaginable.   Senator Demented is a prime example of the problem ... but he is just one example.

Look at the appalling case surrounding the Senate's foot-dragging in confirming Lael Brainard as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. It is not just frustrating or inappropriate ... it is a dereliction of duty for the Senate to have allowed the United States to go through its worst global economic crisis in our lifetimes without its senior-most international official. And according to several recent tallies I have seen, overall confirmations are lagging the slow pace of previous such processes, such as during the Bush transition, by a not inconsiderable margin. (Although some of the blame here admittedly must go to a White House vetting process that is responsible for its own share of self-inflicted wounds.)

Does anyone really believe that the U.S. Senate has somehow earned even more authority and power given its recent record of oversight failures, personal scandals and the inability to lead on the critical questions of the day? And don't reflexively roll out the constitutional argument. It has long been an established practice that only a modest fraction of executive branch appointments get Senate approval and many of those closest to the president, his direct White House staff including key posts like chief of staff, national security advisor, director of the national economic council, etc. do not. This is because it is recognized that the chief executive deserves autonomy in the selection of those who work directly for him-as many of these czars do. Frankly, given the way some senators abuse their power, I'm surprised the administration hasn't considered making the move to an all-czar government.

Frankly, what ought to be under review is the dangerous practice ... which is definitely not mentioned in the constitution ... which gives individual Senators the right to do such damage to the interests of the United States by blocking nominations. At the most there should be a time limit on their ability to delay confirmation processes ... although frankly, I think it is utterly inconsistent with the ideals of representative government that an individual should have the ability to abuse power the way DeMint has or his colleagues regularly do.

Through his actions, DeMint draws our attention to a crisis not in Honduran democracy but to one in the way democracy works right here at home.

Jose CABEZAS/AFP/Getty Images

I've got some real serious advice for my friends in the Obama administration: act quickly or the "dithering thing" is about to become this president's "vision thing."

For those of you who are too young to remember -- and I know this blog skews toward a younger, hipper crowd than the rest of FP's more staid, respectable, and credible offerings -- the "vision thing" became the brutal short-hand describing George H.W. Bush's supposed lack of vision. It was one of those terms that was so memorable that it slipped into those every day water cooler conversations and became an unshakable part of the conventional wisdom that helped make Bush 41 a one-term president.

We've seen the phenomenon many times before. Sometimes, the phrase is self-inflicted as was "vision thing" or "I am not a crook." Sometimes it is an image: John Kerry windsurfing, Michael Dukakis with silly helmet on. And as Gerald Ford and all these others discovered, the truth is not a defense. You can be, as Ford was, the best athlete ever to be president of the United States, a football All-American, and stumble down a flight of stairs or two and you are a clumsy doofus for the rest of your life.

Sticky phrases tied to potent concepts can undo a president or public figure as much as any action they take. Whether it's a reputation for micro-management or skirt-chasing, once one of these nutshell descriptions sticks, it never goes away.

The alarms started going off in my head regarding this when I saw Tom Ricks's post on the FP site earlier this week which was headlined "The Ditherer in Chief." In it, Ricks laid out with typical economy and insight, why Obama's "dithering" on settling on a strategy in Afghanistan or really moving forward in Iraq is a kind of unsettling counterpoint to George Bush's "panic" in the wake of 9/11. Ricks, who I believe readers should take very seriously on matters such as this, said that as a result of the president's seeming lack of decisiveness on these critical issues, he (Ricks) had become, for the first time, worried about Obama's foreign policy.

Ricks concluded by saying that if he were forced to choose, he'd take dithering over panic. But it was clear, he has become a member of an ever growing group, many of whom are extremely pro-Obama Democrats, that have grown impatient with the president's handling of those aspects of his presidency that have life and death implications for U.S. troops.

I should note, I am not personally of the same view. Provided the administration reaches a decision on its going forward strategy in Afghanistan in the next several weeks as Secretary Gates indicated this weekend that it would, I welcome the systematic assessment and reassessment of our situation, the reaching out for multiple views including those of our allies (as reflected in the comments of NATO Secretary General Rasmussen yesterday), and the recognition that it is worth the delay to come to the best possible solution. We've seen where impulse and dogma-driven reflex will get us. We should welcome the impulse to interject thought into the process as we should the apparent willingness to puncture groupthink by seeking divergent perspectives.

To me the issue is whether the decision is the right one or not. Which, as readers of this blog know, in my view is a much narrower mission in Afghanistan, a focus on getting a tolerable, semi-effective government in place in Kabul, and then moving more toward a counter-terror strategy that involves fewer locally-based forces and more over-the-horizon interventions be they drones or ship-based special forces operations as recently took place in Somalia.

But as mentioned above, the facts won't matter to opponents of the president or to the average voter who has bandwidth for little more than a twitter-length description of the president, a string of bits of conventional wisdom that constitute what passes for the total persona of the commander-in-chief.

Professor Obama and community-organizer-in-chief Obama are both compelling identities to many Democrats (and in many ways welcome ones). But they simply don't cut it on pressing national security issues.  The expectations of the public and the defense community which people like Tom Ricks knows so well may be conventional but they are unshakable. Leaders must lead. Decisions must be crisp. The human stakes are in fact undeniably high. Days and weeks do matter...and commanders need to show they "get it." And over all, you need to convey a sense that you have that "vision thing", a sense of where you want to go and that it doesn't take a seminar to reach every decision.

Part of the problem for Obama is that he started out headed in the wrong direction in Afghanistan and he needs to change course. There is no easy way to do it. And it may sting politically. But ultimately, courage carries a lot of weight and is one of the antidotes to the dithering argument.  Another potential antidote is offering up different, better stories and images. I am not sure why the Somalia operation did not get more play. It seems to have been a great example of good leadership and the U.S. military effectively doing their very tough job. Identifying the president more closely with the successes of the military will help (assuming they are real and he is truly behind them ... "Mission Accomplished" moments are precisely the kind this president ... and all presidents ... need to avoid.) And of course, the best potential antidote is more decisiveness whenever it is responsible.

It is not too late to keep this label from sticking. But it's getting there. 

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

World Bank President Bob Zoellick has done an important service with remarks he delivered Monday in which he said, "The United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar's place as the world's predominant reserve currency. Looking forward, there will increasingly be other options." In fact, the only issue I take with his statement, delivered at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is that it does not go far enough.

It has thus far been easy for most Americans to shrug off discussions of coming competition for the dollar as a reserve currency. First, of course, most Americans aren't even aware that the discussion is taking place and of those that are aware, most haven't the slightest clue how the international monetary system works -- which at least gives them something in common with most members of Congress and central bankers everywhere. (Zoellick is rightly pretty tough on the central banking community in his remarks, as well.)

Also, when Europeans or Russians starting talking about needing another currency so there is an alternative to the greenback, Americans tend to shrug it off as dollar-envy. It was not, of course, so easy to dismiss such suggestions when it came from the Chinese given their role as our principal creditor and the fact that they had more reserves than any other country in the history of mankind. But we put our hands over our ears and made "la, la" noises to drown out the discussion anyway.

Thus, whenever the issue arose, as it did again in discussions last week at the G-20 meeting, it has not had much resonance even among most members of the policy community in Washington. Many view the dollar as an immutable, unchanging fixture of the financial world ... even though recent experience has demonstrated that other than greed, there are few immutable, unchanging features of the financial world. This made it easy for the U.S. Treasury to simply mouth reassurances -- as Tim Geithner did last week -- that the dollar should remain the reserve currency without getting much questioning here at home. 

But Bob Zoellick is not a whacky, Gitane-smoking, eurocommunist with an anti-American agenda.    

He is a Republican, a Bush appointee, one of only a couple of dozen senior current or former U.S. government officials who can say they worked at Goldman Sachs, the true power center of international finance. So when he says don't take the dollar's place for granted, perhaps others in Washington will listen and start to focus more on the increasing likelihood that the growing chorus of those seeking change may well gain traction and as may the alternative currencies themselves -- be they Special Drawing Rights, the simulated money produced by the IMF for use with its members, or Chinese yuan.

Of course, Zoellick, whose remarks (which I read in "prepared for delivery" form) are typically thoughtful and also address the importance of the ascension of the G-20 and how this newly central group should take into consideration the broader rise of emerging economies, stops short of actually joining those calling for an alternative currency. It's easy to understand why, given his position.

But since none of the rest of us are president of the World Bank, we should not feel so constrained. There are plenty of good reasons why there should be one or more better alternatives to the dollar as a reserve currency than currently exist. Further, by not taking the discussion seriously we are less likely to play an effective role in the discussion about the future architecture of the system, consigning ourselves to a more reactive, sideline role.

First, there is no reason why one country should be given the responsibility or the right to play such a central role in determining international economic policies and outcomes. This is unlikely to be very persuasive here at home where most Americans first reaction is going to be, "Why the heck not? If not us, who? Don't we deserve it as the world's number one economy?" 

Given that the call for equity is not likely to be persuasive, what about basic American values like our belief in the benefits of competition. Look what has happened during this era in which we have not believed there was a real alternative to the dollar: We have behaved extraordinarily recklessly, piling on debt and practically taunting the world to find other options. It is clear, we don't have the discipline to manage the dollar properly as it is. We need the competition as much as anyone else.

Would a rapid selloff of dollars be potentially disastrous for America?  Absolutely. But, we are deluding ourselves if we don't think such alternatives already exist. Why is gold at such absurd heights and going higher? Further, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that oil and other commodities are regularly used as alternatives to currencies in what amount to forex trading strategies. In other words, markets demand such alternatives already. And any movement toward acceptance of new alternatives is likely to take a long time as investors cautiously adjust. So, we have to ask ourselves is the greater downside in embracing change or in clinging to a viewpoint that is both out of touch with emerging realities and promoting bad behaviors on our own part?

The international economic system will evolve with our cooperation or without it. Currently the biggest threat to the dollar is not those who seek alternatives but the U.S. policies that are pushing them in that direction.   It's time we engaged in this debate in a serious way, and Zoellick's remarks are a very constructive first step in that direction.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

In a world of self-help addicts who "just feel too much," the ultimate hero was Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Never mind that the guy was a few rounds short of a full clip of ammo. He is the man who held his hand over a flickering candle flame while his flesh appeared to roast and then, when asked how he did it, responded, "The trick is not caring."

I'm reminded of this because as we contemplate this week's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh and reflect back on the breathlessness with which the entire world viewed the last two such summits, it is clear that the trick they've seemed to accomplish is that this time around we all don't seem to care so much.

That could, of course, be partially due to the fact that this event is in Pittsburgh and that not that much really exciting has happened there since Franco Harris' "immaculate reception" during an AFC Playoff Game in 1972. At least for me, even recent Super Bowl victories have lacked the gritty drama of those by-gone days as the town has become spiffier and blander. (Have you been to Pittsburgh Airport recently? It's a shopping mall where they happen to land planes.) It's not that the city isn't grittier than say, Santa Monica. It's just that I feel some of that special Pittsburgh "let's have a beer and then punch each other in the faces until we fall down" kind of charm is gradually being lost. We're not too far from the day when a little kid asks, "Why do they call the team the Steelers, Daddy?" and the father then has to explain that once upon a time the steel that went into American cars and buildings was made right here in America. (More on this last point shortly.)

Of course, the reason the meeting is in Pittsburgh has to do with at least one respect in which the region is still seen as pretty exciting to certain types of folks -- like professional politicians, for example. Obama needed Pennsylvania to defeat John McCain. And the people of Pittsburgh like our current Ambassador to Ireland Dan Rooney helped deliver for the president and the president is therefore regularly looking for ways to deliver right back. (This is not to suggest that Rooney might possibly have gotten his job as a form of political payback. His years of experience as the principal owner of the Steelers made him an obvious choice for an important diplomatic position. After all, what riddles could dealing with the Irish pose that would be more complex or challenging than say, former Steeler quarterback Terry Bradshaw's break-up with ice-skater JoJo Starbuck back in 1983.)

Rooney wasn't the only one who helped Obama, however. Which, not surprisingly, brings us back to steel again ... and in particular to the United Steelworkers. Because it is clear that it is not an accident that Obama will be using this meeting to call for new initiatives against global trade imbalances in the hometown of one of his favorite unions. Just like it's not an accident that he primed the pump for his efforts with the recent decision to impose duties on Chinese tires, an issue that was pushed most vigorously by the steelworkers. Just like it's not an accident that Obama's new manufacturing czar is Ron Bloom, who was most recently the special assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers.

Which is all by way of saying, the G20 is not in Pittsburgh either because it's beautiful (and it has its charms) or because it's boring. The G20 is in Pittsburgh because of the domestic politics of U.S. international economics. Just as Marshall McLuhan once said "the medium is the message," in this case the location is the message.

And so we return to the "trick" of this meeting. It is no small feat that while last November's G20 meeting and the one that followed it in London in April were hot topics as the world careened through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, that this meeting is viewed in a more relaxed matter. There is an emerging consensus that things are slowly getting better, that we are probably even out of recession even you read this. (Feeling better yet?) No doubt this is largely due to the market working through its fears and repricing accordingly, but the speed and scope of interventions in the United States and China and even some parts of Europe undoubtedly had some positive effect. To the extent we are not still "falling off the table" in the words of Larry Summers, the G20 leaders deserve some of the credit.

And if this turns into a sustainable recovery, none of us should begrudge them the credit they get. But the problem with tricks is that they often involve some form of well, trickery. In the case of Liddy, the (not very well kept) secret was that he was bonkers. But in the case of most sleight of hand the secret is misdirection. We look in one direction while what is important is happening someplace else.

I hope that's not what is happening with the global economy. I hope we are moving toward both a sustainable recovery and toward enacting regulatory reforms that ensure we don't make the same mistakes that led to last year's market debacle. I hope we are not looking at one set of indicators while ignoring another. But there are warning signs.

One is that while the G20 will agree on an expanded role for the IMF, national governments including our own are moving too slowly to address root causes of the recent crisis from opaque, often-illiquid but massive global derivatives markets to effectively controlling the risk appetites and exposures of large financial institutions whose failures carry with them a large risk of damage to the public at large. That's not to say some measures aren't being considered or implemented. It's saying that many of the steps-like creating more transparent markets in some derivatives -- don't go far enough. The biggest banks are bigger. New risky behaviors are being embraced. Old ones are creeping back into vogue.

In fact, I can't help but wonder if the biggest problem with the recent crisis was that it wasn't painful enough. Or that perhaps it ended too quickly to deliver effectively the lessons we ought to have learned.

Further, on the macro level there's still plenty to worry about. First, recovery will be slow. Second, those who are depending on Asia to lead us out don't realize how limited their capability is to do that. Chinese consumers are many decades away from being able to make up for any substantial fall-off in demand from Americans. And there are risk factors out there ... relating to dollar or commercial real estate markets or simply a panic induced by an exogenous event ... that could lead to serious trouble...the dreaded "W."

And finally, there's Pittsburgh. Or rather the reason we are in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure the Obama team has irreversibly set a protectionist course. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the issue is still something of an open question. Summers and Geithner are certainly not protectionists by instinct and USTR Ron Kirk is still getting his legs under him. But many of these decisions are getting made on the political side. So it might be that we will add to the cocktail of inadequate reforms and questionable macro trends policies that can only make things worse: like getting a series of trade scrapes and scuffles that will impede recovery and make key relationships much more complicated.

Which is why, just as with Liddy's little trick, this one creeps me out a bit. The world is letting out a sigh of relief at a moment that has me holding my breath. 

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images