Chaoli's Blog

Afghanistan

chaoli — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:22:18 +0000

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, as the U.S. military’s Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military’s Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States’ Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbor them.Two military operations in Afghanistan are fighting for control over the country. Operation Enduring Freedom an (OEF) is a United States combat operation involving some coalition partners and currently operating primarily in the eastern and southern parts of the country along the Pakistan border. Approximately 28,300 U.S. troops are in OEF.The second operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003. ByJuly 23, 2009, ISAF had around 64,500 troops from 42 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. The United States has approximately 29,950 troops in ISAF.The U.S. and the UK led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, American, British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations including Australia. Later, NATO troops were added.The initial attack removed the Taliban from power, but Taliban forces have since regained some strength. The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda’s movement than anticipated. Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, record-high levels of illegal drug production , and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.

Afghanistan

Clinton and Gates Join Forces in Debate on Afghanistan Buildup

chaoli — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:50:48 +0000

The last time the Obama administration arrived at a moment of truth in the debate over what to do about Afghanistan, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert M. Gates delivered a one-two punch in favor of a more ambitious approach.Now, as President Obama leads yet another debate on whether to deploy tens of thousands of additional troops there, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense will once again constitute a critical voting bloc, the likely leaders of an argument for a middle ground between a huge influx of soldiers and a narrow focus aimed at killing terrorists from Al Qaeda, according to several administration officials.That swing vote would put them at odds with the bare-bones approach still being pushed by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as the most aggressive military buildup recommended by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.

All of them have chosen to play their cards close to the vest, even holding back in the marathon meetings of recent weeks of the National Security Council, according to officials who attended the sessions.But as the Afghanistan assessment moves from a broad strategy review to a detailed and potentially contentious debate on how exactly to proceed, the two secretaries are expected to carry great weight as they begin to express specific advice.

Opinion:

Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. “This is not a war of choice,” he said. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”Obama could have gone further. Not only would the Taliban be restored, but the insurgency might consume Pakistan. If that happens, then a nuclear power could become a failed state — Pakistan’s pretty close to that now — and atomic weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. India, just next door and with mighty antipathy for Muslim terrorism, could well act on its own. The bloodbath the British tried to limit in 1947 when they partitioned the subcontinent might well resume — this time with nuclear weapons.The stakes in Afghanistan are great. But they are not ours alone. Russia is nearby. So are China and Iran. So why Americans have to shed most of the blood for a Taliban-free Afghanistan is just one of the questions Obama will have to answer. Another is why Americans have to die for a set of possibilities that seem remote to most people.America, after all, has little tolerance for loss of life. The killing of eight American soldiers in Afghanistan over the weekend was front-page news. Contrast that with the numbers from Vietnam — 61 dead from a single battalion in a single 1967 battle. As for the Taliban fighters, they not only don’t cherish life, they expend it freely in suicide bombings. It’s difficult to envisage an American suicide bomber.The war in Afghanistan is eminently more winnable than was Vietnam. The Taliban is far from universally liked or admired. Still, the war will require more than a significant commitment of troops and, of course, money. It will take presidential leadership, a consistent staying of the course — an implacable confidence that the right choice has been made despite what can be steep costs. I am thinking now of Lyndon Johnson spending nights in the Situation Room, a personal anguish that belied the happy belief of antiwar demonstrators that the president was a war-mongering ogre.Foreign policy realists question whether any effort in Afghanistan can succeed. Possibly they are right. The interventionists, if I may call them that, suggest the realists are being unrealistic — that Afghanistan matters and it matters much more than Iraq or, before that, Vietnam ever did and that we can prevail. Possibly they are right.But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough — so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Summery

chaoli — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:36:16 +0000

I would like to stress that I am presenting my views, not those of the other members of the Strategic Assessment Group, and definitely not those of Ambassador Eikenberry, General McChrystal, or any other US, NATO/ISAF, or other official or officer.

My comments also address a far wider range of issues than military strategy. They deal with a broad range of civil as well as military issues, and address the legacy of years of underresourcing, political correctness, dysfunctional behavior, and neglect.

NATO/ISAF and the US face challenges in Afghanistan that go far beyond the normal limits of counterinsurgency and military strategy. They are the equivalent of armed nation building at a time when Afghanistan must both meet major challenges from its own insurgents and international movements like Al Qa’ida, and restructure its government and economy after 30 years of nearly continuous conflict.

It is also a war that must be won after years in which member countries, particularly the Untied States, failed to react to the seriousness of the emerging insurgency. They failed to provide the proper level of resources and coordination, placed serious national caveats and limits on the use of their forces and resources, and let the enemy take the initiative for more than half a decade.

Seven years into the war, one of the most common impressions in Afghanistan is that the conflict is still being treated as if it was the first year of the war. There are far too many concepts and far too few resourced, coherent operations. Moreover, these problems are far worse and far more critical at the civil levels of the US, UNAMA, and Coalition – and within the Afghan government – than within the military.

There are outstanding people in every civil organization and military component. Many take serious risks in the field. However, the practical reality is a disorganized mess. The impact of years of inadequate resources, stovepipes rather than unity of effort, a lack of realistic goals and measures of effectiveness, a focus on post conflict reconstruction in mid-war, and a failure to come to grips with the limits and corruption of the Afghan government have taken their toll.

What should be an integrated civil-military effort focused on winning the war in the field is instead a dysfunctional, wasteful mess focused in Kabul and crippled by bureaucratic divisions, Afghan power brokering, national caveats and tensions, and a critical lack of resources at every level.

Health Care Reform Bill

chaoli — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:04:38 +0000

The Healthy Americans Act (HAA), also known as the Wyden-Bennett Act, is a Senate bill that proposes to improve health care in the United States by creating a universal health care system that would be paid for by both public and private contributions. It would establish Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans (HAPIs) and require those who do not already have health insurance coverage, and who do not oppose health insurance on religious grounds, to enroll themselves and their children in a HAPI.

Health Care Reform Bill

Health care reform Bill in the United States

chaoli — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:17:20 +0000

Sens. Grassley, Baucus hopeful for bipartisan health care bill

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said Monday he remains hopeful a limited health care reform measure can be negotiated, but that a small bipartisan group of senators working on the issue agrees a government-run public option won’t be part of the packageSenate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., meanwhile, said an overhaul measure will be presented this year with or without bipartisan support _ though he said a compromise would be far better than any bill pushed through solely by Democrats.The senators are among a group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the pivotal Finance Committee who are negotiating a proposal to overhaul the nation’s health care system. Both said Monday they were hopeful a bipartisan deal could be reached.

Opinion:

I think the chances are still good,” Baucus told The Associated Press. “I talked to (the Republicans) and they all want to do health care reform. But the sad part is a lot of politics have crept in.Grassley, the GOP’s key negotiator, expressed similar determination, but made clear he doesn’t expect a public health care option sought by President Barack Obama to be in a final deal.I’m still hopeful, but I’m hopeful based on I think you’re talking about something a little less sweeping than what we talked about before,” Grassley told the AP in a telephone interview.Grassley in the past has roundly criticized the public option, but went a step further Monday in saying the core group of senators agreed such a provision would not be in a bill.

Health care reform Bill in the United States

Summary

chaoli — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:55:34 +0000

Three separate committees — Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor — have come together on one bill. This is an incredible achievement. If you read histories of the 1994 health-care reform fight, all of them have a substantial section on the committee crack-up: One passed a version of single-payer, another a variant of Bill Clinton’s reform, another went further to the right. There was no unity. The public plan — which is really three, or maybe four, insurance plans — pays Medicare rates to hospitals (and Medicare rates plus five percent to physicians — thanks to Marci Wheeler for the correction) for the first three years and then begins negotiating on its own. It is open to anyone with access to the Health Insurance Exchange.

Health-Care Reform Bill

Government of the People’s Republic of China

chaoli — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:45 +0000

China Flag

The Republic of China (ROC) was formally established in 1912 in Nanjing under the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China but this government was moved to Beijing in the same year and continued as the internationally recognized government of China until 1928. In the history of the Republic of China, there have been several governments. The Nationalist Government led by the Kuomintang (KMT) was originally formed as a rival Military Government under Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou in 1917. After the completion of the Northern Expedition (1926–1928), this government (now in Nanjing) became the recognized government of China and functioned as a formal one party-state until the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of China in 1947. This new Constitutional government was transplanted to Taipei in 1949 due to the Chinese Civil War. Power within the government of the People’s Republic of China is divided among three bodies: the Communist Party of China, the state, and the People’s Liberation Army. This article is concerned with the formal structure of the state, its departments and their responsibilities. Most, but not all, positions of significant power in the state structure and in the army are occupied by members of the Communist Party of China which is controlled by the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, a group of 4 to 9 people, usually all men, who make all decisions of national significance. As the role of the Army is to enforce these decisions in times of crisis, support of the PLA is important.

Government of the People’s Republic of China

Government of the Republic of China—Nanjing

chaoli — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:24:52 +0000

Wang Jingwei regime

The Wang Jingwei Regime or Wang Jingwei Government, are informal names commonly given to a government led by Wang Jingwei in the Republic of China, and set up by the Empire of Japan in March 1940. The regime officially called itself the Republic of China . It is also sometimes called the Nanjing Nationalist Government , or the Republic of China-Nanjing. Other names are Nanjing regime or the New China.

Opinion:

The Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation is a state-owned enterprise with a history that dates back to 1947 and one of the oldest Chinese automobile manufacturers. At 2004, the group, with over 14,000 employees and 3,400,000 m² area, has total assets of RMB 12 billion and an annual production capacity of 200,000 vehicles. The group’s major products are cars, trucks, and coaches.

Article 2

chaoli — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:11:21 +0000

Beiyang Government

The Beiyang government or warlord government collectively refers to a series of military regimes that ruled from Beijing from 1912 to 1928 at Zhongnanhai. It was internationally recognized as the legitimate Government of the Republic of China. The name comes from the Beiyang Army which dominated its politics with the rise of Yuan Shikai who was a general of the Qing government. Though Yuan’s death fractured the army into competing factions, the government was always under the control of Beiyang generals with a “constitutional” or civilian facade. Whichever faction that controlled Beijing had the aura of legitimacy, diplomatic recognition, access to the customs revenue, and easier application to foreign loans.

Opinion:

The Beiyang Army () was a powerful and Western-appearing Chinese military force created by the Qing Dynasty government in the late 19th century. It was the centerpiece of a general reconstruction of China’s military system. The Beiyang Army played a major role in Chinese politics for at least three decades and arguably right up to 1949. It made the Xinhai Revolution possible, and by dividing into warlord factions () ushered in a period of regional division.

China’s leaders

chaoli — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:51:25 +0000

Mao ZeDong

Mao Zedongpronunciation (26 December 1893 – 9 September 1976) was a Chinese Communist leader. Mao led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War, and was the leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Commonly referred to as Chairman Mao, he has been regarded as one of the most important figures in modern world history, and named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

Mao Zedong remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. Critics blame many of Mao’s socio-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy, and foreign relations of China. Mao’s policies and political purges in the first decades of the People’s Republic are widely attributed to the deaths of between 40 to 70 million people. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao became the focus of a personality cult, and a number of the Chinese people regard Mao as the savior of the nation, who laid the military, political, economical, technological and cultural foundations of modern China.

Mao is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, and military mastermind who defeated Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and then through his policies transformed the country into a major world power. Additionally, Mao is viewed by many in China as a poet, philosopher, and visionary. However, attitudes towards Mao have changed since Deng Xiaoping took power and initiated market-economic reforms in 1978, but the official party line makes a distinction between Mao’s contributions to the Communist revolution and the “errors” he committed later in life. His portrait continues to be featured prominently on Tiananmen Gate and on all Renminbi bills.