I am pretty psyched about Eben's "Statement on Interim Grades" because (1) I haven't finished any of my rewrites and (2) I am the only extern in my office and I will finally have someone to talk to now that people will be rocking the TWiki for at least the next month.

Anyway, that brings me to President Obama, who is confusing me, because I thought he was pretty brilliant. I think Senator Obama was a way more capable dude.

1. McChrystal.

I could say a lot about the article's content (with respect to both command and strategy), but either way, this kerfuffle should have been a way for the Obama administration to figure out a way to up and leave, because this whole thing is certainly crazy. John Kerry's voice is loud in my head. Really, how can we ask a man to be the last man to die for the sake of creating civil society in Afghanistan? Unlike Eben, I am more inclined to tend towards supporting a mostly virtual drone war and beefing up our borders and spying (on civilians too, I say).

Now, all we have is Obama putting Petraeus back in charge? Does he do this while still commanding CentCom? ? Maybe Obama has no choice (by which I mean the choice to remain politically viable), since it is almost November, 2010 and there is this nagging problem. I guess the first hope for any sort of draw down is next summer.

2. I am shocked, dismayed, horrified, and let-down by the administration's response to said nagging problem. I did not vote for Obama out of deeply-felt liberal ideology, but because I believe he is a smart and capable person. I was always disappointed that President Bush did not use 9/11 as a way to motivate reduced consumption of oil and to increase resources towards developing renewable energy. At that time, everyone was willing to make efforts that would hurt and handicap the tragedy's perpetrators. The obvious way to do so was to reduce our oil consumption and eventually, the very importance of oil itself. Unfortunately, Bush didn't see it that way, and neither did his chief deputy, the former CEO of the company with contractors on the Deepwater Horizon.

So, I thought, the epic disaster of the Deepwater Horizon might allow practical, prudential, non-oil related Obama with a similarly transitional moment to lead America towards a greater focus on renewable energy. A Renewable Horizon, I might say. Besides for causing incalculable damage to resources whose histories exponentially dwarf our existence, oil props up the regimes, terrorist networks, and geopolitical powers who are our most direct enemies. How is it that foreign policy and environmentalism have not coalesced in a broader movement? How is it that now that the President has the leverage to propose comprehensive funding and action towards renewable energy predicated on those two rationales that he hasn't done anything meaningful? And Eben, perhaps you can elucidate why environmental groups aren't holding his feet to the fire?

Surely, the 20 billion dollars for economic loss related claims is something, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OCEAN? I am not very inclined to look at my property materials at the moment but what happened to the public trust doctrine?

-- NonaFarahnik - 23 Jun 2010

You are not the only one who wants to bring back the the Public Trust Doctrine.

As for Afghanistan, I don't have a satisfactory solution (nor does anyone else), but I do think that the continued use of drone bombings will only cause more problems. As Eben mentioned in class, one emotion is common among terrorists, humiliation. I cannot think of anything that causes more humiliation than mechanically dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians. If our goal in Afghanistan is to prevent terrorism, then drones are not a good tactic to use.

-- JohnAlbanese - 29 Jun 2010

The considerations for the long-term v. short-term fight against terrorism are difficult to balance. If we are pursuing a military strategy in any capacity, it will be humiliating.

-- NonaFarahnik - 30 Jun 2010