


Reporting for one last duty

Derided by foes as a flip-flopping grandee, the new secretary of state may yet do vital service

See article

Readers' comments



The same Neocons, like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Dick Cheney, have urged the US to be aggressive and have favored wars. Notably, hey have never served themselves. They convinced G W Bush to mount the disastrously planned and executed war in Iraq, they misjudged the Afghanistan problem and never learned from the history of that place, repeating the errors of previous conflicts there.
America's economy needs fixing and foreign entanglements need to come second.
The US public is divorced from the wars except by paying for them. And the backers of aggressive foreign affairs don't want to pay taxes for those efforts either - they have an internal conflict in their goals and politics..


I'm disappointed that Obama doesn't appoint someone who could win the presidency in 2012. Get them some face time with the public.


Let's keep this in perspective. The position of Sec of State is a great public platform, but what exactly did Clinton accomplish in the last few years? Really? Peace in Palestine? No? Peace in Egypt? No? Peace in Afghanistan? No? Make the world's bad people love us? Ha! Just exactly what did she accomplish aside from burn a $billion dollars of tax payers' jet fuel? 90% of the position is partisan politics from what I can tell and 10% carrying messages from the President which in today's world could be done with Skype. The media is all a buzz with stories of Clinton running for President . . .

What do you expect from Kerry? Will his patrician manners and slick double-talk achieve any useful goals? No? Then why all the fan-fare? But the media love him and will keep the camera on him when in reality they should be holding the President accountable for Foreign Policy efforts, and not the Secretary of State.

Diplomacy works when a particular outcome meets the goals of the participants. It does NOT succeed because a diplomat uses magic words or flys-in on a 747 or sports sa $200 haircut. (If good intentions were the measure of success, then Chamberlain would be revered.) It may look impressive to the TV-viewing public and it is presented that way for a reason. Political credit, unfortunately, trumps everything. This is not to say that face-to-face is not useful, but exactly what is being accomplished aside from footage for the nightly news?

Remember when Kerry said on tv that he would release his complete military record as soon as he edits-out the part he wants to keep secret? Well, we are still waiting. This is the guy who will be meeting behind closed-doors with shady characters and cutting deals and offering "leaders" your tax money. I hope it works-out in your best interests. I doubt that any substantive issues will be solved by Kerry any more than they were by Clinton. Just keep things in perspective.

kcdavid in reply to MySetDancer

The BBC news section contributed a long long feature extolling Ms Clinton as being just tremendous.

She worked and worked using her personal charm which offset P. Obama's lack of wanting to glad hand or become buddies with world leaders.

It said basically she was a breath of fresh air in her dealings in all situations. This includes her handling of Pakistans large anger from our killing 20+ soldiers of Pakistans military, accidentally.

The author describes her "rock star" charisma drawing leaders willingly to engage with her.

Read the article, perhaps. (It must be 3 times as long as this one article)

no offense to the writer of the column above.

NickyGoodtimes in reply to MySetDancer

Ok- lets indeed keep things in perspective-

Peace in Palestine or Afghanistan? No combination of Clinton, Benjamin Franklin, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa could have been expected to solve those in four years, even if they were the sole focus of the SecState. Your argument is akin to saying "youre a doctor, but because you havent cured AIDS or cancer, youre a failure".

Felipe Coelho

Senator Kerry must have the wisdom to see the difference between global problems - uppermost among these the consolidation of so many nations as stable, democratic and prosperous societies, and the eventual fragmentation or merger of nations, and also the lack of reliable global mechanisms to deal with the many global problems, from the lack of a monetary standard to the global warming - and the so-called USA Foreign Policy problems - Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, the Arab nations in general, North Korea, Russia, Taiwan, China, and dictators and terrorisn here and there.
America (as any nation) must have a Foreign Policy dealing with the real global issues, as seem from her perspective, not with such ill-assorted bunch of issues.


The US lost it credibility , as a world power , long time ago . Will John Kelly restore that credibility ; I doubt it ?!!! .

emmafinney in reply to ramesesone

And you think you can speak on behalf of the world?

So let me guess you have some magical powers to read the minds of billions of people around the world about what they think of US credibility as a world power? LOL

MySetDancer in reply to ramesesone

I don't know what you mean by credibility, but I suspect most governments understand the position the U.S. government has on most issues and what, if anything, the U.S. will do to pursue interests. They may not like it, and they may oppose it, but so what? Our goal is not to please everyone or make them like us.

ZA Observor

The very last thing the rest of the world wants, is another Bush-style hawk peddling the US war industry in the name of colonialist peace - from abroad, the perspective is clearly that Obama is on track and that situational leadership requires 'flip-flops' in policy when adapting to changing circumstances.

John Kerry can continue Bill Clinton’s revival of US foreign relations fortunes, by being a better host and facilitator than his predecessor – bringing world leaders to the US and Obama, instead of foisting foreign policy on unwilling recipients.

The appalling economic and human cost of Republican war-mongering is in sharp contrast to the post war outcome of the Arab Spring and every other recent entanglement - it's the economy that needs attention, stupid, and we'd like to see Kerry promote trade pacts and dialogues, while staying the hell out of the domestic politics of Syria and the Middle East.

Despite the political menstruations of the far right (it seems TE plays to the Tea Party, nowadays, which questions the merit of supporting it by subscription), the world wants more Bill Clinton style focus on fair trade, quiet diplomacy and a thawing of relationships with BRICs - Hillary was ineffective and has a far greater probability of another cerebrovascular event than of becoming President. Limiting the expansion of rogue Russia’s expedient facilitation of regional instability, calls for more media exposure and an economic response, rather than throwing more munitions on international fires of discontent.

As others have observed, both the Department of Defence and the secretary of State need to revise the drone program - better intelligence mission planning, far greater accuracy required of the manufacturers, and smaller, more selective use is called for. Bombing by remote control has polarised and almost imploded Pakistan's fragile economy and democracy - there is no escaping the mounting civilian toll, and while Mr Kerry may be able to patch relationships at political level, the reality is that Pakistanis will not trust the USA for decades to come. Hatred, is a more accurate description of sentiment and both Obama and Kerry need to defuse that by withdrawing.

At best, Mr Kerry can accept US failure, patch over it, and refocus on growing trade relations with neighbouring India quietly and discreetly. It is time that economists within the administration recognize that Sharia law makes trade with and within Muslim economies almost impossible - the best that can be done, is to promote the emergence of progressive Islamic banking - and even then, an infidel in the bed could not be less welcome.

The 'war on terror’ will not be won by expanding military response nor GOP ideology - it will be won by a revival in the US economy driving world economic trade and growth, while quietly promoting the reformulation of Islamic banking to accommodate interest and profit so that their nations, too, share in the economic benefits.

MySetDancer in reply to ZA Observor

May I remind you that the Democrats voted in favor of the war in Iraq? May I remind you that the Democrats repeatedly vote funding for the wars? May I remind you that Democratic President Obama promised to get the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately upon being elected, and that here we still are? Gee! This is a lot of reminding!

As for Pakistan being "imploded" by drones: what a line of reasoning! The Karachi government gets to have it both ways. Its enemies are being attacked and destroyed while at the same time they can claim they are not involved!

As for the 'war on terrorism' I think we can all see who is at war with whom. The terrorists and their supporters come from a certain demographic seeking world domination in the name of, well, you know. And they will kill you and your children in the name of, well, you know whom. 1,400 years of warfare is a long time.

The U.S. economy has transfered, through world trade, $100's of billions of dollars to foreign countries during the last couple of decades. It is the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and it is during this period that terrorism from you-know-who has expanded and gained strength. So your comment about the US economy winning the 'war on terror' is hard to understand. And I sincerely doubt that reformulating Islamaic Banking will successful any more than Sharia Law (boo!) Both need to be flushed.

Kerry will fly around in a big 747 and burn billions of gallons of aviation fuel and generate miles of camera footage for the evenig news. But I think little will change as a direct result of his actual efforts. But he will take the camera off of President Obama when politically necessary.


How about shoring up relations with India?

RaptorNXT in reply to MySetDancer

Relations with India can be shored up on a number of fronts:
- Intelligence: Instead of consorting with the ISI, and spending finance which is utilized by ISI to fund its home-grown, export quality terrorists, actual intelligence sharing with Indian law-enforcement will help fight actual wars on terror
- Economic: Easing visa restrictions will enable US firms to get bright minds for US work, generating increased revenue
- Military: Joint US-India ops will help increase the presence in Asia, which it desires

Backwardness? Perhaps - but not as much as that of Pakistan, with whom US is looking to shore up its relations with.


The Economist is a great place for being on the ground ("grounding" one) I always feel that it is not biased but is pragmatic.

But, lately, has anyone thought that maybe the make up of conservatives could change with differences in the future regarding Skin Colors, "Gay friendliness", and Heritage (Latin America)?

These above minorities Are American and are not necessarily happy voting for Democrats *always (the non-Republican candidate) This last election was won easily by Obama IN A NEAR RECESSION!

Cconservative demographics could be changing. Women, Gays, Blacks and Other Minorities may see Bobby Jindal's notorious remarks about St___d R___ns and observe that...

there Could Be "new conservatives" for obvious vacancies available in the Republicans Party-. Conservatism still needs to thrive as well as to survive.

The point is, President Obama is FAR more able to cope with the upcoming and current foreign issues in the world than can be anticipated by intelligent Congressional Republicans--now awaiting" new blood AND ideas.

In other political chat rooms, Ive encountered young Gay males and Gay females positioning themselves as Conservative Republicans because America is still teetering towards financial bankruptcy.

Family values issues are a distraction from looming insolvency and we, Gays Dont want to go down with the Ship and neither do women, Blacks or Other Minorities.

The USA may not be obliging our "worldwide well wishers" desire for our discontinuing our "Indespensible Nation" role.

SoS Kerry can perform his duties well and be as successful as SoS Clinton was with her policy on China (using Vietnam as a "ally,") as well as using trade with reassurances to China about its importance to the world.

Also, he can continue her policy of Cementing the USA's Relationship With the United Kingdom, while trying to keep the European Union intact and allied by trade agreements to the USA.

There is no need for deriding nor doubting Senator Kerry's competence and loyalty to President Obama's Foreign Policy on the Cheap.

MySetDancer in reply to kcdavid

"won easily by Obama?" It was a very close election, and if certain demographics (we are not allowed to identify) did not vote for him based on racism (rather than the issues), he would have lost. Go look at the numbers.

I do not doubt "Kerry's . . .loyalty to President Obama". I think that is his single biggest loyalty. Really.

Rob Roberts in reply to MySetDancer

It wasn't a very close election by Presidential standards. Obama won eleven of twelve swing states and the popular vote by 4% and more than four and a half million votes.

For a recent example of a 'very close election' look at 2000, it was decided by one vote. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.


The Chinese people seem to think Kerry is "pro-Chinese". They think Kerry is at least not so hostile to China as Hilary Clinton had been. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

MySetDancer in reply to Liang1A

Hostile? You mean because Hillary will not support the latest island-grab from its neighbors, Hillary is hostile? Why is it that the Chinese government is so paranoid? Or perhaps so selfish?

Liang1A in reply to MySetDancer

Chinese think Hillary is hostile because she IS supporting land grab by aggressive neighbors OF CHINA such as Vietnam and Philippines and Japan. She is even trying to incite India to increase its aggression. China owns the S. China Sea within its sovereign territories as defined by the 9-Dotted Line which had been based on thousands of years of historical evidence. China had discovered the SCS islands since the time of Han Dynasty some 2,000 years ago when they were uninhabited. By the Tang Dynasty since 987 AD, China had incorporated them within China's territorial maps. Vietnam claimed it "discovered" these same islands around 1650 when they were inhabited by Chinese fishermen. Philippines claimed these islands were discovered in 1955 long after China had published the 9-Dotted Line. The Diaoyu Islands are a part of Taiwan and clearly demarcated and acknowledged by the Ryukyu Kingdom before 1400 and long before Japan invaded the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879.

Therefore, it is indisputable that China owns all the islands and territorial waters illegally claimed by aggressive neighbors. The problem has been aggravated by Deng Xiaoping by not defending these sovereign territories vigorously. Chinese leaders for the last 30 years have been trying to settle the problem "peacefully" by unnecessarily offering "joint development" which allowed these aggressors to gain credence for dispute. It is time for China to implement a new policy of defending sovereign territories without hesitation and with force. China has done well in Huangyan Island by shutting Philippines out and thus removed contention and restoring peace. China should do the same in Diaoyu Islands. There is no need to negotiate with Japan because there is no ground for Japan to dispute with China. China is the sole sovereign owner of these islands. It is only necessary for China to defend it and expel all foreign aggressors who are illegally grabbing Chinese sovereign islands.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up... Every dog can bark...

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Every dog can bark. The Chinese people have heard enough barking from its aggressors. It is obviously time for China to stop pleading for peace and act in defense of its sovereignty. Dogs can only understand a swift kick to their behinds.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

So, bite already. Too much barking coming from that end; nothing but barking... Too much talking about what is going to be done, whenever. Well, do it now. What prevents you if you are so sure of your cause and your abilities? I'll tell you what. The people who actually could start a war are not stupid enough to start a war everyone full well knows they cannot win. There is not going to be a war over those silly islands. Everyone with two properly functioning brain cells knows that. This is a falsifiable statement, but only a full-fledged war will prove it wrong. No howling and baying will prove it wrong by a long shot. So, to prove me wrong, you would have to start a proper, full-fledged war. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Gara wrote:

With respect to the S. China Sea, China has done several things last year. In Hwangyan Island, China had deployed a cable that blocks the entrance into the atoll. That stopped the Philippines and nonplussed them no end. The Filipinos don't dare to break the cable because they know China would shoot them if they did. China has also changed the political administrative status of the S. China Sea upgrading it to the shi status. China has issued new maps and passports showing the 9-Dotted Line demarcation. China has instituted new laws to allow relevant authorities to arrest illegal activities in the Chinese sovereign waters and islands. China has also begun to expand military facilities in several islands building runways for fighters and docks for naval vessels. There is also plans to dredge and build land on several atolls to create military bases armed with advanced missiles.

In the Diaoyu Islands, China has built a new air base with some 100 new J-10C fighters and J-6 fighters upgraded to be unmanned fighters carrying advanced missiles. China has deployed many hundreds of fighters and more missiles to the region near the Diaoyu Islands and stepped up naval and aerial patrols in the area.

But the most obvious thing is that the emphasis of national policy has now changed from peace at all cost to allow economic development to defend sovereignty at all cost and develop the economy after sovereignty has been defended. This is why Abe has backed down. So China has already done much and is still making solid preparations for war and is expanding its activities.

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Gara wrote:

If it were up to me I'd stop asking these aggressors to "jointly develop" the disputed islands and territories and shoot down a few fighters and sink a few naval ships and kick all the invaders out of China's sovereign territories. In the end China can still trade because these aggressors need to trade with China even more than China needs to trade with them. And even without trade China can do even better by turning to the development of its internal economy which is the only way China can get out of the "middle class trap" and earn wages higher than the Americans. But even with minimal actions, China has deterred Philippines in the S. China Sea and Japan in the E. China Sea. I wouldn't be surprised to see a limited war in 2013. But even without war China can still increase its control of the disputed waters and territories because the aggressors will simply back down in the face of China's increased activities. As it is, all the howling and baying are being made by the Philippines and Japan. And in the end, all you're saying is you don't dare to fight China.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

You can be forgiven to imagine that all that you have listed counts for anything serious. You are, after all, new both to and at this game. All you have listed haven't even merited a second look by serious thinkers; although it might impress some home audiences in your neck of the woods. We haven't even started to bump navy vessels into each other yet - which we did every so often with the Russian navy not that long ago without any serious after affects - and you think that we take all your huffing and puffing seriously? You must be joking. Seriously. We'll see what's what, once we will really challenge your blustering; and we will call your bluff every time you imagine you have a winning hand. So, you will really have to go all in, and see what kinds of hands we have. When (and if) that day comes, we will be neither unprepared, nor unwilling, nor unable to answer any challenge that might threaten our way of life on an existential level. When (and if) that day comes, a lot of existing problems of the world will be solved in a very short time; and a whole lot of new ones will have been created... I wonder what will come after us? You know, like mammals came after the dinosaurs...

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

You say "we". So who are you? By we are you referring to the US? Do you know that the US is now begging China to firm up the mutual economic relationship and reduce military tensions? It is obvious tha the US has no wish to immediately "bump ship" with China now or any time soon. At least not until you Americans have elected a more belligerent president. As I said before, Kerry is expected to be a much more peaceful secretary of state than Clinton. But if the US navy wants to bump ship then let's bump. Do you have big enough ships to bump with the Chinese navy? If all you can do is bump ships then you're not being serious. Incidentally, who build more ships? China or the US? Think about it! And while you're thinking about that, think about who has the more advanced anti-missile defense?

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Gara wrote:

And what kind of life will you be protecting? As far as I can see, your way of life is discriminating against the minorities.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

Again, talk is cheap. Don't talk about what you are going to do, but go ahead and do it. All you have been doing is talking. We are still where we are and who we are. You want us to do otherwise? Make us - if you can... Once you understand the difference between talking and doing, you'll be half way there. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride... You need to live a little more in the real world; and not in the wishful one... Again, put up or shut up.

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Gara wrote:
The Filipinos can no longer go into Huangyan Island atoll. Looks like we Chinese have already made you do otherwise.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

I have no idea what makes you think that I am Filipino, really. If you think bullying some little country is a great achievement , you have bigger problems than those silly islands. You Chinese cannot even control Taiwan. The real world is not some video game you kids play in your free time... Please, ask a professional military person in the Chinese military whether China is anywhere near ready to even entertain the idea of challenging the existing setup; let alone actually challenging it. This person should be at least a major, not some hot headed little captain. Oh, please, spare me your puerile theorizing. Thank you. Have a nice day, and good luck to you.

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

And why are you so eager to make the Chinese admit you are militarily superior? You talk lies about everything. China has been very accommodating to the aggressions of its aggressive neighbors. China's policy has been to keep a low profile and concentrate on economic development based on trade and FDI. But all China got back is nothing but demonizations that accuse China of being aggressive. Now the Chinese are fed up with all these lies. The Chinese military are confident that it can deny access to the Americans. And American military obviously knows this. This is why the American government has adopted a low profile. It just does not want to get beaten by the Chinese military. Whatever you are, you obviously want to use China as a punching bag to inflate your ego to feel big and powerful. Therefore, you desperately want to belittle China. This is why you demonize China and upset with people like me when I point out the truth to you. Open your eyes and know you are what you accused China of being. You are the aggressor. And you are no longer all powerful and getting weaker by the day relative to China's rising wealth and power.

Garaboncias in reply to Liang1A

Once and for all. China, as such, is not the present ruling elite and their lackeys. In your mind (or what passes for it) the demented little gnomes of the CCP, and their lackeys, suffering from acute inferiority complex are the problem of and for the future; and not those who merely want to make a living and a better future for themselves and their families. As long as you are just barking, which is all that you have been doing so far, go ahead and bark. It is the prerogative of every dog, and should not be denied to them. Once you understand the difference between talking and doing, you will have gained wisdom. I am done listening to your barking. Bite or shut up... Oh, and have a nice day and good luck to you.

Liang1A in reply to Garaboncias

Anti-Chinese aggressors need to have China as a punching bag to vent their venom. Now that they can no longer satiate their daily fix they are frustrated just like this Gaba guy. They cannot provide any rational reasons to substantiate their demonization of China. So they simply gnash their teeth and roll their eyes. But who cares!? China will get rich and powerful and that is the best way "to do". As a Western saying goes, "the best revenge is to live well." Chinese people will live well today and even better tomorrow while the Westerners and the Japnese just keep getting poorer. Obviously, you people are not "doing" the right things. So have a nice day and watch your blood pressure. You are funnier than a performing flea on the behind of a dog!


Why is Lexington continuously peddling this "Obama's an isolationist" nonsense? Repeatedly making articles about it doesn't make it true.



I am starting to think that TE is a hawkish publication. Whatever its intentions, America has not been a global force for good precisely because it has not recognzed the limits of military power. President Obama is rectifying that (Hagel is an excellent choice for SECDEF), and Kerry would do well to follow that lead.

I hope TE writes another article about how great the Scandinavian countries are in terms of quality of life, effectiveness of government, etc. Maybe one reason they rank so highly is that they don't go into debt prosecuting unecessary foreign entanglements?

MySetDancer in reply to quiet_american

Interesting post. Your comments about Scandinavian countries is a bit misguided. None of the countries in the region have faced any real threat for decades, are not threatened by their neighbors, avoid the hard issues, and are, for the most part, mostly homogeneous populations which bicker about exactly how much socialism is the correct amount. Since they do not lead anything, they do not become a target for any opposition. If only the U.S. had avoided the wars in the Gulf and left the invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to someone else . . . The U.S. could have focused on its internal challenges.


Lexington's leading paragraph is unreasonably hagiographic.

Omitted are Kerry's mendacious Senate testimony, his involvement with the far-left 'Winter Soldier' organization, and his illegal consultations with the North Vietnamese delegation while still a serving US Navy officer.

We'd like to see the essay extended to include all the information necessary for the public to properly judge Senator Kerry's qualifications for high office.

Justin Samson

Just to play devils advocate here, and don't get me wrong, Obama is a good president, better than any politician the Republican party has. This coming from an independent. However, not everything is all bright and positive in regards to Obama's foreign policy. And all these comments touting how great Obama's policies are has some truth to it. But we must recognize that foreign policy is elaborate and contains many clauses that do not get a lot of media attention.
A key question facing President Obama as he begins his second term is whether to continue the U.S. drone campaign against Islamic militants. Since 2004 the United States has launched more than 400 covert drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Almost 90 percent of these strikes have occurred under President Obama. According to data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Obama has signed off on roughly 350 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, killing between 2,600 and 3,400 people.
Drone strikes are mostly killing low-level Pakistani militants, not al Qaeda leaders. This strategy is unlikely to cause the collapse of al Qaeda or even the Pakistani Taliban and may have counterproductive effects. Even if drones targeted leaders exclusively, it is unclear whether this strategy would destroy these groups. A new term may therefore require new thinking on drones.
So, if you're talking about not getting into foreign entanglements, make sure you are acknowledging the fact that not everything is true about foreign policy.

forjustice in reply to Justin Samson

Hearts and minds are not won by drone strikes that kill ten times more innocent people. The relatives of those innocent killed by drone strikes join the ranks of the terrorists, there by lending credibility to evil ideology of the terrorists. A problem which is political in nature cannot be solved by military terror raining from the sky.

xxmmyy in reply to Justin Samson

Good commentary ....
Wondering if Nobel Prize Committee will reconsider his Nobel Peace Prize ...

MySetDancer in reply to forjustice

First came the terrorists, then the murdering of innocent civilians by those terrorists, and then the drones. Killing the terrorists is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. Closing the evil madras' and changing the thinking of a certain "demographic" is the ultimate solution, and please, post here exactly how you propose we do it. I can't wait to read it!

kcdavid in reply to Justin Samson

Pakistanis, actually."hate" America, because they think that our killing of Bin Laden w/o percieved Pakistan permission was hugely humiliating.

Rage plus 5 billion American dollars in Aid, every yr or every few yrs, probably opens minds of Pakistans elite. There ia an agency called "AidAmerica" [sic?] that operates in Pakistan--

with (for example) an American-built "top of the line" hotel that provides jobs for lucky wealthier parents' sons. Maybe, there are other "investments" there in Pakistan that matter greatly to powerful Pakastanis unknown to average Americans. ...sigh..(my source is a facebook friend)

Sadly,(?) more American money may go to Pakistan in future than to Israel (sniff sniff, sob) to create stability in that very Pakistan/Afghanistan region.

What policy there may be there--with the leaving Afghanistan, so soon--is to show China just exactly that Their money loaned to our USA govt budget *meant stability* for Chinas western frontier and economy. .

Reality will come crashing down on to China leadership heads after our military departure, IMO--

Russia is not happy about our early exit--thatss been reported in print, so... China will have to directly provide monetary aid For a Stable aftermath, or lose huge power and face to Russia, NO?

After WW2, the British ceded responsibility for Middle East stability, resulting in the UK failure of their famous Suez crisis response. Our options could be limited by Chinese willpower after Our own withdrawal--oh well...

China will then not feel So very free to display "power" in the Pacific--if Their "Core Iinterests" Shift towards their western frontiers. (Tibet and that other 'pacified' western province)

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Justin Samson

Good comments about the negative aspects of drones. However, the biggest problem with drones is the "concept of undeclared war".

Let me amplify:

- Drones are sent by the USA into targets located in 3rd countries without any notice or warning.
- Drone technology is cheap and easy to copy.
- It is estimated that in a few years at least a dozen countries will have this technology.
- Will the USA be able to protest when drones are used by others to attack US military and commercial interests in Asia??
- I do not think so.
- Overall, the use of drones has created a bad precedent.

Steven M Solomon

Today is a monumental day for America as we welcome John Kerry as our next Secretary of State. May God entrust in him everything that was severely lacking in that of Hillary Clinton's term of appointment.

Steven M Solomon in reply to MySetDancer

I would claim that the Secretary of State is a more important figure than even the Vice President himself. They are the brand ambassador for all US interests emphasizing diplomacy. Diplomacy allows us to engage in preventive warfare instead of preemptive warfare and the difference is American lives and taxpayer dollars.

Ed the Ed

I am not convinced by Kerry but he can't be worse than Hillary Clinton. We all know Clinton got the job after cutting a deal with candidate Obama back in 2008. She proved to be the inept, vicious, liar we all knew she was.
Now let's see how flipper-floppy Kerry does, if he goes around praising the MB leader Mosri , if he goes around "preparing the post Assad" like it was Yalta , to cite a few amidst the blunder collection of Hillary.
In the meanwhile maybe the eurozone busts for good ...


The Economist writes:

"Success in the job will involve a reversal, and turn on persuading ... Mr Obama—to engage with the world and resist the urge to withdraw from foreign entanglements of all sorts."
... American foreign policy can only be delegated so far, and crises only wished away for so long. ... Now, he has one man to convince: a president deeply wary of foreign entanglements. It may be the hardest task of his career."

- - - - -

What tripe.

President Obama has re-engaged America with the world in a way almost unimaginable in the depths of the "my-way-or-the-highway" GW Bush era. The Obama administration has had success on every continent except Antarctica.
The defining characteristic of Obama foreign policy, though, is that it is done quietly and persistently, with realistic, incremental objectives, with an understanding of the power of being patient, and with an emphasis on results rather than headlines.

(cf. GW Bush: generated lots of headlines, almost all of them disastrous for America.)

Like Charles the Wise, President Obama has restored his nation's stature in the world, and he has done it very frugally in both lives and dollars. He has re-energized relationships with allies.

When you look at the overall arc of these incremental results, Obama's foreign policy is as ambitious as FDR. Undoubtedly the best foreign policy President since the war.

- - - - -

The Economist writes of Secretary of State Clinton:


- - - - -

More tripe.

The signal achievement of the Obama administration has been to keep America out of trouble. They have advanced America's interests while husbanding America's resources. That is a huge achievement.

The policy of careful, incremental advance has required diplomatic pressure to be applied in a multitude of places, in a wide variety of ways, all at once.

Secretary of State Clinton has been the indispensable, indefatigable, indomitable (and now illustrious)* mainspring of that policy. It would not have gone anywhere without her.
* - sounds like an aircraft carrier, or a battle cruiser - perhaps not an inappropriate image for Secretary of State Clinton, after all. Like the RN in the good old days, you don't stand in her way. She means business. Everybody knows it.

Micropotamus in reply to kxbxo

Is the increase of America's national debt by six trillion dollars in four years considered husbanding resources? I thought it was blatant squandering.

MySetDancer in reply to kxbxo

Every major foreign policy challenge which existed in 2008 is still with us and several more have appeared. To expect a Secretary of State to "solve" these issues is rather juvenile. Issues solve themselves when each participant sees a way to gain some kind of objective for themselves. Then and only then can the involvement of an outsider be of use. The rest of the time, use Skype.

I do hold Obama responsible for encouraging the rebels in Syria to revolt and then pulling-back and hanging-them-out-to-dry. He really did, you know. Like Bush did to the Kurds. A President needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut.


Obama will almost certainly overcome any wariness he may have of foreign entanglements after 2014, when he becomes a lame duck and finds he has little power outside the realm of foreign policy.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The week explained: March 14th 2014: Fuelling tensions
The Economist explains March 14th, 0:00
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18


Products & events