Iraqis Warn Libyans Saying, "Don't Do What We Had Imposed On Us"

It's through a tangled web of non-linear thought that Republicans and their candidates are able to to question the productivity and ability of the Obama administration. The big question during the campaign many moons back was "Who do you want picking up the phone at 3 A.M.?" Since then we have seen Obama implicated in any number of things having nothing to do with the answer to that question. Foreign policy has been eclipsed by our little economic hurricane, and what is out of sight is best left that way as far as Republicans are concerned, and especially when the reality defies your prophecy of events.

 The faint praise for our victory in Libya is thus expected. The approach there was the complete opposite of what was undertaken under Bush with our invasion of Iraq. In Bush's Gulf War we mustered every ounce of our strength (except the diplomatic State Department cerebral portion), and thought to remake Iraq in our image. I don't fault Bush that goal or doubt that Iraq's disregard of U.N. resolutions resulting from our first war could be ignored. Nevertheless the undertaking was badly staged and managed, and we were not welcomed in the manner we expected. It was a long-term mess, with a lot of unnecessary chaos and dying.

 With Libya, Obama took the prudent approach. He let our allies be allies, loaning our expertise in the background, but not needing to take the credit for "the win". That's probably a good thing. In this complicated world, there is no such thing as a "win", or an easy win. Often what looks like an obvious win--tanks rolling into the capital--turns out to be more complicated as time goes on.

 The New York Times includes a piece today where Iraqi citizens are interviewed and asked to give advice to their Libyan neighbors. What is notable is that much of the advice runs opposite what was actually done in Iraq, including this major, major gem: "And do not ostracize members of the former regime, as happened in Iraq under the so-called de-Baathification policy."

 While conservatives here lean on Iraq as an example of what Bush did right (and we do believe he gets credit for the act but criticism for the method), it is interesting to contrast that full blown war with what Obama accomplished. The result of Obama's Libyan policy--the creation of a moment in time where people can choose to be free--was accomplished without putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line.

 Obama is smart enough to realize that a revolution does not necessarily bring democracy. It brings a moment where democracy can be born. Where Bush tried to guarantee an outcome and impose a result, it seems Obama is much more inclined to let the Libyans find their own way and learn as they go. And without the ongoing loss of American lives as they muddle through. They will muddle. We are not obligated to unmuddle them, since we didn't light the fire.

 The handling of the Libyan Revolution defies the story-line that both Republicans and Hillary Clinton presented about Obama. They projected that he would be weak, unaccomplished, naive, and not quite ready to handle situations. And yet, internationally, he is handling it. We managed to kill Osama. We managed to flip a government away from a dictator. We've killed any number of Al Queda operatives, while remaining aware that foreign commitments must end soon. We've NOT created new points of damage or friction. Mostly, we've not been hit with the type of terrorism that happened to us under Bush. Indeed it's ironic that Bush almost gets absolved for responsibility for the September 11th situation, as though it didn't happen on his watch. But nevermind all of this.

The political class is focused on the domestic problems, which is why all the candidates are pontificating over the economy and jobs, without offering confidence that they have the answers to shock a collapsed economy back to responsiveness.

Pawlenty Out, Perry In, Romney Likely OK With That

Romney Counts Remaining Candidates

Obama can breath a bit easier today, given the recent news of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty dropping out of the race.  Pawlenty failed to reach his own target level of support during the shenanigustic Iowa straw poll this weekend, and the announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry to enter the race probably did not help the calculus.

This is not good news for Republicans, generally, while it works for Romney specifically. While Pawlenty had no real shot at the presidency given his decided lack of flair, he still represented a sensible wing of the Republican Party, and that sensible group has dropped from three to two, leaving Romney and Huntsman.

This weekend the sensible (and dull) was replaced by the more flamboyant Governor Perry. Perry is not your middle of the road Republican; he duplicates a lot of the qualities that can be found in Michelle Bachmann, but with a touch more experience in getting things done. We imagine that Romney is quite okay with candidates to his right, and the more extreme the better, so long as they don't drift to the middle. You don't want guys like Pawlenty around siphoning off that voter who is unhappy with Obama but still wants a reasonable, mainstream candidate.

To the extent that any candidate is hard core Christian on social issues, and without a substantive record of achievement (Palin, Bachmann), we see a palpable advantage for people like Obama or Romney in running against them.

Volatility

Don't let the volatility in the market spoil your game!

U.S. Gets Bad Report Card From Teacher: AAA to AA+, Spankings to Follow

S&P notices US debt yesterday for 1st time

It looks like fiscal and monetary policy are dead, almost worldwide, but especially here in the U.S. now that the rating agency S&P has stepped in to wipe away the Triple-A credit rating of the Federal government. This would be the same Standard and Poors that missed a pre-2008 opportunity  to accurately assess the risk of numerous asset classes, putting a positive imprimatur on some very shaky financial products and thus playing a massive part in the world's 2008 financial meltdown.

I guess better late than never when it comes to doing your homework. This downgrade comes on Obama's watch and his enemies will use it to baste him like a turkey in dubious sauces. We can see more clearly that this would in fact be primarily or mostly Obama's fault if, A) the entire world was not now struggling with the same issues (Hello Italy, Greece and Spain) and B) so much of the economic policy limitations of today were not the direct product of slutticatory policy during times predating Obama.

We fully expect people to draw the wrong conclusions from all of this. Or, we expect that the people with the power to make things worse to in fact draw the wrong conclusions and... make things worse. It's like those people who hate Obama's bailing out the banks, failing to realize that it was Bush's TARP policy and further, that financial firms like Bank of America are still struggling with residue from the mortgage crisis (lending credence to the idea that bailing out the banks was necessary despite the seeming populist position that killing your bankers is the first step toward greater capitalism and financial solidity).  There are a lot of folks who cannot properly locate the problem or define the solution.

Monday should be a blizzard of a day, with some people making a ton of money going forward, and the majority of average persons (with money managed in pension funds and retirement plans) taking a huge hammering that will probably continue for several months. It's not just us. Europe has to get its junk together before there is enough room for people to relax and breath and imagine that things can improve.

Until then, we can thank S&P for picking exactly the wrong moment to get all hyper about due diligence and accurate debt ratings.