Decline is a Choice...That Hasn't Been Chosen
Charles Krauthammer has disgorged a magnum opussy sort of rant on the cover of the week's Weekly Standard, based on a lecture he gave to the Manhattan Institute, a neoconservative think tank that has actually done some creative thinking about urban issues over the years. Nothing creative about Krauthammer's thinking, though, which stands as an anti-Nobel exegesis, blaming Barack Obama for choosing a foreign policy that will lead, inexorably, to American decline. It's actually the same old 'hammer hegemonizing--unipolar, unilateral, unidimensional, uninflected and unsubtle.
There are one or two sort of true sentences in it. The most important is this one:
[T]he ultimate purpose of [the New Liberalism's] foreign policy is to make America less hegemonic, less arrogant, less dominant.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. Barack Obama would probably argue--as would most foreign policy centrists--that the goal of his foreign policy would be to make the United States dominant in a more effective way: at the center of multilateral efforts to bring international miscreants under control. This can happen militarily, as it is being done on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It can also happen through a US-led international sanctions regime, as has been very effective in sending a tough message to North Korea (with the strong support from China and Russia)--which may well bear fruit before long. Or it can happen through US-led efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and a strong multilateral deterrence posture, including many regional players, to counteract Iran's possible nuclear ambitions.
You don't achieve this sort of dominance by marching into Baghdad in three weeks. It takes patience, a pattern of good faith behavior, the acknowledgment that the U.S. hasn't always acted in good faith in the past. Indeed, part of the reason why Obama's Nobel Peace Prize seems so foolish is that diplomatic success can't be judged in nine months--those of us who believe that Obama is trying to do the right things overseas have no idea if he's any good at it yet (as Nixon and Kissinger were in their long-gestating opening to China).
Krauthammer's take--and that's all it is, a journalistic take puffed into doctrinal pretense--is based on several demonstrably wrong premises: The first is that George W. Bush's foreign policy was a success. (It was, in some ways--like fighting AIDs in Africa--but Krauthammer doesn't care so much about that sort of stuff.) The second is that by going around the world, acknowledging that the U.S. has not always behaved well in the past--while always, always, taking our friends and enemies to task for their failures in the same paragraphs--Obama is somehow damaging America's moral standing or "exceptionalism," as Krauthammer would have it:
In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.
Well, that's one limited, literal way of looking at it. Another way is this: Great countries don't have to go around proclaiming their greatness. An American President who pronounced America's "exceptionalism" would be obnoxious. An American President who admits our imperfections--while proclaiming our enormous strengths as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial bastion of freedom and equality--is demonstrating our "exceptionalism" in a far more sophisticated and effective way. We are a country willing to admit mistakes. That's pretty exceptional.
Krauthammer loves inflammatory, We're-Number-One!!! sort of locutions. He loves the word "hegemon," mostly because moderates and liberals find it muscle-bound. But his sentiment here in his most prescriptive paragraph is, I believe, unimpeachable:
First, accept our role as hegemon. And reject those who deny its essential benignity. There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in modern history to have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive counter-hegemonic alliance--as occurred, for example, against Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. There is a reason so many countries of the Pacific Rim and the Middle East and Eastern Europe and Latin America welcome our presence as balancer of power and guarantor of their freedom.
And that reason is simple: We are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen.
That is true mostly because three of the four Presidents since we achieved our undeniable pre-eminence with the collapse of the Soviet Union--George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama--thoroughly rejected the sort of bullying that Krauthammer advocates. The disastrous exception was George W. Bush. Our reputation in the world, now being regained after the Bush debacle, is a result of the fact that we've always been half-hearted imperialists, pathetic in our occasional attempts at oppression--and, more often, from the Bosnian accord to the Indonesian p0st-Tsunami airlift, willing to act selflessly to benefit humanity. All you need to do is compare the Russians' utter brutality in Afghanistan with our real, if ineffective so far, attempts to bring education and economic development to the people so that we can leave a more stable country. (General McChrystal's refusal to continue offensive aerial strikes, which caused some terrible civilian casualties, is an example of our continuing efforts to do as little damage as possible.)
In the end, the real problem with Krauthammer's rant is this: he really doesn't want us to be exceptional. He wants us to be more brutal, more like other historically powerful countries, more like the Russians in Afghanistan or the British in Mesopotamia. His position on Iraq tips his hand, as he excoriates Obama for having
...almost no interest in garnering the fruits of a very costly and very bloody success--namely, using our Strategic Framework Agreement to turn the new Iraq into a strategic partner and anchor for U.S. influence in the most volatile area of the world. Iraq is a prize--we can debate endlessly whether it was worth the cost--of great strategic significance that the administration seems to have no intention of exploiting in its determination to execute a full and final exit.
A prize! Sounds sort of like Churchill in his most demented colonial moments: India, the jewel in the crown! (The fact that a duly elected Iraqi government wants us to leave is ignored.)
Krauthammer's sort of imperialism--a brutal and patronizing neo-colonialism--has never sat well with the American people. And it doesn't work in the world. It was, in fact, the cause of the marked decline in American moral authority and power over the past eight years--including the near-destruction of our Army--that people like Krauthammer refuse to acknowledge. That disaster is being rectified now, from Robert Gates's various decisions to scuttle unnecessary weapons systems and use those resources to bolster our troops in the field, to Hillary Clinton's efforts to transform our hidebound and ineffective foreign aid disbursements, to Barack Obama's more judicious decision-making about when to use force, when to sanction, when to negotiate. Those decisions may not prove wise in every instance, but they are being made with an intelligence and consideration that never attended the sledgehammer fecklessness of the last President, whose policies Krauthammer so admired.
On A Related Matter: Glenn Greenwald recently suggested that I proposed Bush for a Nobel Peace Prize because of this 2005 column. Those who actually read the column--which was about the dangerous naivete of Bush's "Freedom" Agenda--will see that my suggestion was ironic in the extreme (and the editor who slapped that silly headline on the piece should have understood that, too). It is interesting that the irony-deprived Pete Wehner also used this column as an example of me praising Bush. The fact is, as I've written more than once, Bush's support for premature Palestinian elections brought on the Hamas disaster in Gaza.
-
1
Are you trying to get more people to pay heed to this Kraut guy?
When we want to read that Kraut, we know where to find that Mr. hammer - without your filter, JK.
-
1.1
Yeah, that's been my take, too, cfukara, but Joe did write a fine response to the policy-averse poser David Broder recently, so why deny him his fun? He likes to shoot fish in a barrel sometimes, I like to waste time on the Internet. We all have our vices.
-
Hafta say, Joe, while your old column certainly leaned toward the view that Bush's policies weren't going to be successful, it doesn't read as unequivocal. If the irony escaped the headline writer, it probably escaped a number of other people too.
-
-
2
You gotta love how right-wing Foreign Policy in America essentially boils down to 'Screw the World, we do what we want', without any sense of irony to it. They honestly believe that the only way for the US to deal with the world is to be a bully, a scold, and a menace all at once.
-
2.1
I would rather we "do what we want" than wait for a global consensus to emerge. Sheesh, we can't even get a global consensus enough to stop the atrocities in Rawanda.
-
2.2
As a resident of a western democracy that isn't the US, I see the US needing to perform a strong international role, of the type Obama is.
The simple truth is that the UN fails so many of the world's citizens, that a strong US leadership is often necessary. If it is truly benevolent, then to US is capable of leading the world to a much better place.
Mick
-
-
3
I've always said that one of the best ways to guarantee that we are a force for good in the world is to consider the possibility that we might not be. ( the same holds for individuals as well)
Perhaps one of the reasons Obama won the Nobel was because he pulled us back from the course where the world uniting against us was an actual possibility.....
-
3.1
"Perhaps one of the reasons Obama won the Nobel"
Perhaps? Perhaps they could have given it to Jon and Kate plus Eight. They had done as much to earn it as Obama. Consider that Iran and N. Korea are testing missiles at will no doubt in fear of their lives that Obama will send them a stern letter. The courage of other nations to consider aggressive acts will grow as long as we continue to try to be mommy;s favorite.
To quote an old sports axiom. "when you are not #1 your view never changes". Or more to the point, you always have your head up someone's backside and Perhaps that is one of the reasons Obama got the Nobel.
-
3.2
Freep seems to think that 'stern letters' are something to be made light of. He apparently won't be satisfied unless someone is actually being incinerated.
-
-
4
The problem with Krauthammar is that he is neutered. He can rant and rave, and the Washington Post and Faux News can give him space and time to purvey his baloney. We lost that most precious commodity which informed our foreign policy: out moral authority.
So let the right wing rant. Europe doesn't give a fig anymore because they know that the neocons are cons first and last.
I am not sure Pres Obama can deliver on all his promises. But he is going in the right direction. The agitated rw types merely confirm the fact they they are held in contempt abroad. And they can do nothing about it.
-
5
Krauthammer is a moral monster, an emotional defective and a mental midget. He is arrogant, vain, foolish, violent, aggressive, mean, spiritually twisted and so convinced of his imaginary superiority he is unaware of the utter disdain in which so many rightly hold him.
Sort of like what he would have the country be, if he could.
Like most divorced from reality or goodness, he is best treated by a calculated mixture of being ignored and being ridiculed. Taking him seriously, except insofar as he sets a fine example of how not to think or act, is a huge mistake.
-
5.1
"He is arrogant, vain, foolish, violent, aggressive, mean, spiritually twisted and so convinced of his imaginary superiority he is unaware of the utter disdain in which so many rightly hold him."
That is an apt description of Obama with the chief difference actual damage to our country can be done by Obama while Krauthammer is merely a journalist.
-
5.2
Just let it be. Some hate is beyond all reason.
I don't understand the point of this article. JK, did you want to remind us that there are stupid, ugly people in the world? Because we experience that on a day-to-day basis..
-
-
6
Krauthammer has become increasingly pinched. reduced to a grumble. At one time it seemed clear he was bright, and maybe he still is, but he's used his intellect in the service of polemics for so long he's lost whatever suppleness he might have had. very satisfying post you've written.
Also, most on the right have a constitutional inability to acknowledge anybody else's irony.
-
6.1
Joe's rebuff was
.
stout, and were
.
it not, he'd be like
.
Krauthammer.
.
Burma Shave.
-
-
7
Why should anyone care what a ridiculous dinosaur like Krauthammer thinks? Joe, you have an unhealthy obsession with that man and his outrageous columns, as they have taken up a good chunk of your own columns lately.
-
8
I have a question. Is there any conservative that the fine upstanding intellectual bright lights here believes has anything of consequence to offer?
I am curious how far and deep the insanity and delusions on the left run
-
8.1
OK, fellow libs/progressives, what conservative intellectuals do we respect?
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of David Frum and Bruce Bartlett (or have they been drummed out of the party by now? Maybe that's the problem!)
Enjoy the comments from the regulars on this blog. Keep it up!
-
8.2
70northsulliva…
Nah they are still in the party. We don't drum them out, the weak and confused leave voluntarily (Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, David Brooks) As Ann Coulter said when they do the IQ of both parties increases.
-
8.3
Daniel Larison, Andrew Bacevich.
-
I don't agree with much of what they say, but at least it's well-reasoned and based on reality. -
8.4
Bingo on Larison and Bacevich. I just wish I could find ANY other contemporary conservative writers half as intellectually honest and interesting as those two. Not that I won't keep looking...
-
8.5
freeinpa,
There are a few conservatives columnists who are excellent writers, even if I don't agree with them. George Will is a prominent columnist who also appears on TV. Robert Samuelson, though he writes mostly about economics, but he is always a voice of reason.
I know you have written off David Brooks, but he is the closest thing conservatives have to William Buckley (Brooks' mentor). I know that Mr. Buckley is turning in his grave that his son, Chris supported Barack Obama. The problem is that the elder Mr. Buckley would have understood why.
-
-
9
George W. Bush should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize. By leaving office he did more to achieve world peace than any other man alive.
-
9.1
-
9.2
abdullah69 for the win.
-
-
11
Joe Klein, have you see this yet?
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
I mean, if refuting knuckledraggers is part of your job description, as relief for your centrist position, why shouldn't you spend an equal amt. of time refuting the left?
And no, I don't mean the personal spats you and GG engage in, ignoring substance.
-
12
Jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, conservative intellectual...
-
12.1
Good eatin', safeguards our country and smarter than 1000 liberals
-
-
13
Unnecessary rhetorics:
It seem to me, that Obama is a victim of his own campaign rhetorics.
Early on, Obama advocated for engagement as opposite to isolationism towards America's decades long enemies - such as Fidel Castro of Cuba and Ahmedinejad of Iran.
which have galvanized his political opponents and tried to construed it as an exercise of political naiveté and weak foreign policies.In the light of Hilary Clinton's ferocious attacks on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience - and so called "3 am call" ads etc, as if she were in better position to pass a judgement on a fellow Democrat for his lack of "foreign policy credentials". She tried her best to distorts his vision and called into questions of his mettle resolute. And there was John McCain, who made every effort to inject his Vietnam past the centre of his campaign.
As Obama tried to shake off his early pacific views on foreign policy and strengthens his position in an effort to shore up his perceived weakness. As their efforts intensified to make him perceived a weak and inexperienced young condidate in the public opine. Defiant Obama embarked rather a hawkish and conservative approach on Afghanstan to compensates on his political wisdom - If only for electoral reasons.
Obama's war:
Not surprisingly, When Obama won the election - Afghanstan is labelled as a Obama's war by the media. As often media quote "If Iraq was a war of choice by George W Bush - then Afghanistan is a war of necessity by Barack Obama - and therefore must be fought until the Taliban are defeated".
The trouble with this premise is that - it is unrealistic. Because there's no military solution in Afghanistan.
the US forces, however powerful and unmatched, cannot defeat the Taliban militarily alone realistically.Unparallel universe:
Unlike Iraq, where population are fairly educated and has its military and civil societies are untouched after the invasion, along with security apparatus and semblance of law and order have been restored after Saddam's departure.
Afghanistan, by contrast - the level of illiteracy among the population is considerably high. The security forces are poorily trained. The Afghan officials are needless to say beyond corrupt, lawlessness is prevalent everywhere. The country's infrastructures are mostly in ruin . Food and shelters for refugees are woefully inadequate, The Aids agency cannot operate beyond Kabul for security reasons. In the countryside, warlords who are appointed by the Taliban enjoys de facto fiefdom - where opuim grow vigorously - In the meantime , Karzai's government whose writ barely extends over a few square blocks of Kabul is deadlocked with his former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah over a fraudulent election and with which the UN both assistance and blessing.
In fact, nothing seem to function in Afghanstan - their civil and military societies is almost non-existence.Afghanistan as failed state:
If Obama once embraced Afghanstan war for elecrote reasons, His insistence could only be described his tragedy. One of Obama's trait flaw and lamentably unnecessaray one too, Is that Obama is very likable person who tries to please both side of political spectrum. instead of having a vision and coherent strategy to pursue for his own . If someone tries to please everyone at the same time, he ends up displeasing everyone equally. Sooner or later Obama will learn that being a popular does not govern.
Unjust war:
In this world, there are only just war and unjust war - The unjust wars invariably will lose irrespective of waging sides power's , convinction, alliance they may have aligns with. the Afghan war has never been a just war, given the fact that Taliban has never attacked on American's interests in the region, nor on their soil.
the Taliban are indigenous group, which explains why the Nato forces are increasingly questioning the wisdom of waging a war based on flimsy reasons inherited from previous adminstration.I don't honestly think it would make much of difference for the Taliban which adversary they might have to face in a battle, as long as they are fighting.
The Afghans are fragmented society - and subjected to tribal warfare. There have been infightings among themselves before U.S intervened and there'd be endless turmoil long after US troops are gone.
US troops are the forces that stating in the way of Afghan renewing civil war. Once the Nato troops leave - Afghan civil war is almost inevitable.If Obama was campaigning for wider U.S. engagement in Afghanistan as a candidate - Now that seems to haunt him even more than anything else in his full plate as a president.
kade
-
14
Krauthammer's sentiment here is divorced from reality:
.
"First, accept our role as hegemon. And reject those who deny its essential benignity. There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in modern history to have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive counter-hegemonic alliance--as occurred, for example, against Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. There is a reason so many countries of the Pacific Rim and the Middle East and Eastern Europe and Latin America welcome our presence as balancer of power and guarantor of their freedom.
And that reason is simple: We are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen."
.
The man who thinks the above is true is the man who is delusional and divorced from basic facts:
.
In the past 20 years we have seen the emergence of the European Union and the Euro which was, among other things, an effort to create a counter-balance to US dominance.
.
In the past 2 weeks we have heard reports that OPEC will begin pricing oil in a basket of currencies.
.
I don't know if Krauthammer has ever been to Latin America, but I have. They are more than happy for us to get out of their business.
.
As far as being benign, it is easy for him to think we are benign because he isn't on the receiving end of our smart bombs. I know he is in a wheelchair, but that still doesn't mean he shouldn't try talking to people who HAVE been on the receiving end of our weapons.
.
His last point, that many countries welcome us a balancer of power and a guarantor of freedom, is the most insidious and the most wrong. The developed and developing countries are more than capable of guaranteeing their own freedoms. This list would include countries like Columbia and Venezuela, as well as Thailand and the Philippines, who face no true external threats. They DO face internal threats to their freedoms, but we don't "guarantee" those freedoms.
.
As for the developing, truly third world countries, in Africa and Asia, there are only two where we have guaranteed their freedoms and taken the military steps (which Krauthammer believes are the ONLY steps) required to enforce that guarantee. And those military steps have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Also, enforcing that guarantee has cost us our reputation for being benign. I'd call that ironic.
.
It seems like the neo-cons, including Frum and Thomas Friedman, are more than just victims of illogic. They actually seem unaware of the facts of the world.Of course, Friedman has turned his ignorance into best selling books where he explains his profound surprise at learning that they have the Internet in places like India. And not only do they have the Internet, but they have people there who are educated enough to write code.
-
15
The chimera that is Iraq, the Durand Line, the ham-handed partition of India and Pakistan, and of course, the Israel-Palestine conflict -- all of these are the direct result of British imperialism, and all of them have become our problems.
Not only would Krauthammer have us assume the role of imperialist, but he would have us play according to the same rules and definitions by which the British lost their empire. And here we are, bogged down in unsolvable conflicts with little or no benefit for ourselves.
If Barack Obama is saying "To hell with the British and all they have wrought!", he might go down as one of the smartest presidents of the last 50 years.
-
16
If America isn't #1, who should be?
I'm serious, who wants to be loved by European socialists?-
16.1
America can be #1, be prosperous, and not occupy Afghanistan all at the same time!
-
If you're old enough, think back to the Clinton years. Economic growth, and we weren't fighting two or three decade-long wars! Wow! Who would have thought that was possible. -
16.2
Obama
-
-
17
Every empire that has ever existed has collapsed because ultimately the cost and commitment to dictating how remote peoples determine their lives outweigh the economic or strategic benefits. The British, along with most of the other colonialist European powers, learnt that the hard way. The US would do well to learn the lessons of history. Trying to tell other people how to live their lives only ends in tears for all concerned.
-
18
And please, stop this "benign" bulls**t. What is benign about nuclear weapons, or phosphorus in Gaza, or napalm? Are Predators benign when they wipe out wedding parties? Is it benign to flagrantly violate a human's rights in Abu Ghraib, or flaunt international conventions in the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo?
Is it benign when Hilary Clinton lectures the Cuban government on holding political prisoners in Cuba when the US is doing essentially the same thing? I don't think so.
-
19
I think Joe is doing an essential service with this post. It is hard to catch one of these neocons in an overtly colonial statement. They are pretty slippery, and they know how to keep playing the "freedom and democracy" card to cover their desire to override the freedom and sovereignty of hundreds of millions of people.
So Joe nails K-hammer with "Iraq is a Prize." Perfectly. Krauthammer reveals that *ownership* was the real goal of the Iraq Adventure. And Joe doing it means this takedown was completely within the confines of the Village. This is a good thing, because K-Hammer has more credibility than Kristol and Will on this warmongering, and Joe just plain called his number.
Now, if Joe could just tie in this imperial viewpoint with the bankruptcy of England in 1940-41, and the Spanish Empire in the 17th century, he could have put his finger right on the Big Problem, and Why the Neocons Can Never gain power again. These guys will bankrupt us - if they haven't already.
Nice work, Joe!
-
20
Magnum oWHATsy?
.
Thank you, Joe Klein, you have restored my faith in America. -
21
Krauthammer and his PNAC cohort should know that this does not "sit well with the American people", either:
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/new-yorks-bravest/
-
22
Krauthammer: "...we are the only hegemon in modern history to have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive counter-hegemonic alliance..."
Pray tell then, who are our enemies in this obsessive "War on Terror" and, if it be not a "massive counter-hegemonic alliance", why are we spending massive amounts of treasure and human life fighting against it?
-
22.1
eh
good point.
-
-
23
Is it just me or does Magnum O'Pussy sound like the name of a Bond girl?
-
23.1
I spent the better part of my late teens and 20s searching for a "Magnum opussy." In fact, I'd call it one of my main activities during that period, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.
-
-
24
"opussy?"
Really, Joe?
-
24.1
magnum opus? Is that what he was trying to write? I've never heard of a magnum opussy. Now, "magnum o'pussy let me drink from thine cup" has a certain ring to it that combines softcore porn and a poetic flavor.
-
24.2
I wonder if an ode to penisbutter and jelly sandwiches is on the horizon?
-
-
25
Extreme "American exceptionalism" irony considering Krauthammer is a Canadian.
As a fellow Canadian all I have to say is, "glad he's your guy's problem."
-
25.1
Krauthammer - loud, hateful, vindictive, bellicose, supremacist, a Canadian. A foreigner.
Then there was the case of the other foreign subversive Orly Taitz, the birther, trying to influence significant events in American history.
A foreigner denigrating a good American - in America!
Behold! The loves of the American wingnuts!
These foreigners cause us grief.
Are we witnessing the phenomenon of our rightwing, unpatriotic crazies ganging up with foreign scoundrels to derail and subvert America?
[Does this Kraut guy have a current work permit? A valid visa? ... H-B1 visa? Hey, we raise our own genuine crazies!]
-
25.2
[Yea? So Mr Kraut was born in USA and spent his formative years in Canada. But didn't the birthers swear that, per his real certificate, he was born in, eh, Montreal, Canada?]
-
- TIME The scoop on Google Buzz from @techland | http://su.pr/1zDlZ6 - 1 hour ago
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 2 hours ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 3 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS