"If you don't help out, we will"

There's a somewhat small debate going on in US policy circles over to what extent we should be funding the Lebanese military. I would think this news that Russia is selling Lebanon 10 Mig 29 Fighter jets won't make things easier.

Apparently the best the Pentagon was willing to do was a single engine Cessna, which would have been helpful in taking out small domestic targets, and not much else. The new MiG's would, according to the article, become a potential challenge to Israel as well.

I don't know how true that is. First of all, Lebanon is only getting 10 of them, which isn't enough fight a drawn out air battle. Furthermore, having planes is one thing, but an advanced system of trained pilots is another. It would take some time for Lebanon to train pilots in the new jets to a level that would make them capable of fighting an intense war. The MiG 29 has a mixed combat record, and I can't find any record of it going up against what it would face in a war with Israel. I think the Israeli airforce, with its far larger fleet of F-15 and F-16's would be more than able to handle something it shouldn't really be going to war with in the first place. It should also probably be noted that this is not kind of fleet you would be mounting an invasion with - so unless you have plans to invade Lebanon, you shouldn't really be upset. Now I understand that things don't work with that in real life, if Russia decided to supply Lebanaon with SAM batteries, that would probably raise a little bit more of an outcry, but they didn't.

This seems to me less legitimate concern over military capabilities, and more complaining that the Russians aren't going to let us sit around and do nothing. It seems rather natural that Lebanon would want a real, capable air force rather than the joke we were offering them.

Obama, Health Care

With all the talk about the auto industry bailout and the latest stimulus package, I've been somewhat worried about Obama's commitment to pushing for health care early on in the administration. (I would like universal coverage but sadly, Obama's plan technically falls short of that). I've heard the issue dismissed recently in the belief that with all the money required to save the economy from another depression, we simply don't have enough for comprehensive health care reform.

Not only do I think that this is not true, it misses the point. Almost everybody can agree that the way to get out of this crisis is through more spending, hence the stimulus plans. I can't think of a better way to put more money into the pockets of everybody than a real, functioning health care system.

Our current system has become an unquestioned burden on far too many Americans; one that strains our economy in countless ways. People are less likely to look for better jobs for fear of losing their employee health benefits during the process; this also discourages people from becoming self-employed or starting their own business. In addition, businesses of all sizes have become increasingly burdened by the costs of keeping their employees covered. One of the most expensive costs that the auto industry has to face is the health coverage for its workers, even after they retire.

I really don't see pushing for health care reform as being an impossible task, in fact I think now would be the best time to do it. Forget about not having 60 Senate seats to work with. Obama would face some opposition from Southern Democrats anyway, but there was always going to be enough Republicans he could pick off. Just off the top of my head, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez , Arlen Spector and Norm Coleman (presuming he holds on to his seat) come to mind.

The issue could be sold to the pro-business crowd in Congress as something that’s necessary for businesses to survive, for the reasons mentioned above. I would even think it would be possible for Democrats to cut a deal – agree to universal health care, and in exchange, Democrats won't push for Card Check. This might anger the unions, and it would be a broken campaign promise, but there are other ways to deal with them. The UAW isn't going to be in much position to argue, and Obama can placate them by saving the auto industry. (As mentioned above, saving the industry would be easier with health care reform). SEIU wouldn't be as easy, but universal health care would benefit its member so significantly that I think a deal could be brokered with them. Union's have typically been very good about fighting for government programs that would technically make them useless. While pushing for quality health benefits for their members is one of the main reasons for their existence today, past behavior indicates that they would be more than happy to abdicate that job if it brought its members health care. This could especially work if Democrats allowed the unions to take credit with its members for passing the plan.

I also see this as something that has the potential to really cement Obama's legacy as a President. It could even have a lasting effect on the political landscape, giving Democrats a loyal base in the same way the New Deal reforms did. (Just think of what the National Health Service did for the Labour Party in Britain). Contrast this with a stimulus package that nobody would ever really know for sure its actual effects.

The only issue left would be what would the plan look like. While I actually like Senator Ron Wyden's (which was pretty similar to Hillary's) I don't know if something like that would be feasible at the moment. It's also not what Obama pushed for in the primaries. I do think however that moving towards as system similar to France's would work in the States – as long as we don’t say were basing it off of the French. By creating a government run program that everybody can buy into – regardless of past medical conditions, we would be giving affordable access to millions who don't have it now. We would also be giving people currently paying too much health bills a more affordable option. The plan would be immune from those who warn of the pitfalls of socialized medicine, because individuals could still choose from any private plan they wish. It is true requiring companies to not deny coverage based on previous medical conditions would raise premiums for us healthy folks, but that pool of people is shrinking anyway. Besides, there would always be the government plan for us. Sure the powerful Health care lobby would put up a huge fight, as they would be bound to lose a lot of money in the event, but polls during the last election showed support for universal coverage at an all-time high. This isn't 1994, it’s a different environment and Obama needs to take advantage of the situation he's in.

More Cartoon Controversy

Photo Courtesy of Alex Segre via Flickr.

I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't had the opportunity to really find out the reaction amongst the Egyptian population about Obama's victory. The day following the election, I became horribly ill, and spent the next week and a half in an Egyptian hospital. The only Arabic I was practicing had to do with asking what drugs they were injecting me with at the time. (I never fully learned the vocab). I felt rather robbed of a special moment in my life because of this. Not just to see Egyptian's immediate reactions, but to bask in the glory myself. So now I've had to play a little bit of catch-up when it comes to observing what people think. One of the occurrences that I missed during my sojourn in the hospital was this cartoon printed in Al Ahram:

It seems like an appropriate enough cartoon. The depiction of the president elect Barack Obama with the US flag behind him and thebubble quoting Obama as saying the change has come to Washington. Looking up to the Obama depiction was an excited Egyptian woman congratulating the African American senator, reminding him not to forget that people around the world have been hoping and praying for his success. This was followed by the Arabic phrase: `uqbal inna' meaning may the same [change] happen to us.

According to the opposition weekly Sawt al Umma, the cartoon appearing in the leading Egyptian daily Al Ahram, caused a sense of an emergency among the Egyptian leadership. The independent weekly stated that150,000 copies of the paper's first edition were quickly removed from the streets and destroyed and the `troublesome' phrase disappearedfrom future prints that day. The before and after cartoon depictionappeared in Sawt al Umma.

The writer of the above, a Palestinian blogger named Daoud Kuttab, goes on to talk about how Obama's victory has given hope to many citizens of countries such as Jordan and Egypt, in the hope that they too can overturn their governments.

I don't question the analysis of the writer; I think he probably had his finger on the pulse of Arab youth much more so than I do. It does however somewhat fly in the face of my previous perceptions of what an Obama victory would mean.

My general understanding talking to people over the past year was that Egyptian's appreciation for Obama was very much based on his identity and what he represented to them, not policy. One thing that stood out fairly dramatically was that nobody I talked to seemed to be under any illusions about what would happen in an Obama administration. People defiantly believed that US policy would improve regarding the Middle East, but it seemed well understood that Obama was still going to maintain a policy generally supportive of Israel.

In this sense, Egyptians were far better informed than many Americans. While rumors spread in the US that Obama was a stealth Muslim, I don't think anybody in Egypt believed that Obama's first move as President would be to tell Livni to dismantle the Neve Manyak settlement. People knew he was against the Iraq war, but had tempered expectations about overall policy. His popularity seemed to rest more on the fact that his rise signified that Americans wanted something radically different, and that his win would be the beginning of at least a more evenhanded, respectful treatment of Arabs.

This type of acknowledgment of reality would make me question whether anybody could think that Obama's win could pose a threat to the Mubarak regime. Unless Obama wants to really shake things up, I don't see a real push towards democracy in Egypt being high on the US agenda. After all, Egypt is arguably the most important US ally in the region besides Israel. The Egyptian army (half of which is funded by the US) is the largest in the Arab World, and its cooperation with the US and Israel leaves the Jewish State with no conventional military threat. Egypt's position of influence in the Arab World, containing a quarter of its population, and playing host to the Arab League, makes its close friendship that much more important. Mubarak has also been cooperative with the US and Israel when it comes to the sealing of the Gaza border. On top of this, Cairo's rarely reported mediation between the West and Hamas is certainly a valuable asset. This isn't' all to say that only a President Mubarak could deliver all of this, but it's safe to say a more democratic leader probably wouldn't be on board so strongly with all of those issues. I hope President Obama looks to real democratic and human rights reform in the Middle East, but I suspect that nobody on his team is going to want to rock the boat too quickly, especially when it comes to our most important allies.

Kuttab continues with a story of imprisoned Egyptian opposition leader Ayman Nour, the man who received the second largest vote count in the last Egyptian Presidential election. Nour wrote to Obama:

"The writer of these lines is a human being, about your age, who was — and still is —dreaming like you of change and reform in his country. However, in our countries legitimate dreams turn into horrifying nightmares!!"

Nour is a secular politician, with high name recognition, but there is no way to tell if somebody like him would take charge in the even to a power vacuum in the country. Is Obama going to push for democratic reform in a county like Egypt when conventional US opinion seems to be that the Muslim Brotherhood could take over? (I'm not saying they actually would) From the list of foreign policy advisors he's collected so far, and from previous statements, I don't see any indication that democracy in the Middle East is goal number one. Joe Biden, for example, who is sure to play a major role in decision making, has stated he was against the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power.

Which leads me to the last point that Kuttab makes:

"Some of the same skeptics are now optimistic. After seeing America at its best, there is a renewed sense of confidence in American-style democracy throughout the world. However, this growing confidence aboutthe possibility of political reform can turn into a disaster if change does in fact stay limited to the American shores. If young reformers in the Arab region are again crushed after the change candidate takes power in Washington, their hopes for genuine reform in the Arab world will be set back for years, once again."

Pundits have talked about a similar set of expectations that Obama faces domestically, but I wonder how significant they are in the rest of the world. What do people really expect from President Obama? If after two years of an Obama administration, and the Middle East looks essentially like it does now, what will the opinion of Obama be?


To go slightly off topic, (but only slightly) I feel this is one of the worst legacies that the Bush administration has left us with. The idea of Democracy promotion has been so tainted with neo-conservatism and failed experiments in the Middle East that I think the American public and policy makers have soured on what should still be an important part of US policy. The answer for the last eight years isn't' isolationism (and I don't think Obama will resort to this) and just because democracy wasn't successfully forced down Iraqis throats doesn't' mean we still shouldn't push for those values. I agree that maybe a focus on human rights should come before elections, but both are important and shouldn't be ignored. It's not just that we're better off with more democracies in the world; I think people really may be looking at the US right now to show real leadership on this issue.

President Bush had made several small attempts to prod the Egyptian government into democratic reforms; unfortunately his reputation was so tarnished in this region that it was only interpreted as bullying. Meanwhile the actual reforms that Mubarak was pressured into taking only led to the elections in which Nour was arrested.

I hope President Obama makes continued efforts to gently push leaders like Mubarak into making real change. Of course part of this can come from Obama himself. Putting an end to extraordinary rendition and other policies where the US is complicate in the suffering of Arabs would demonstrate that Obama isn't going to go along with human rights abuses as long as it keeps the radicals out of power. It would also make any advocacy of real reform that much more credible. Either way, it seems like Obama finds himself in a position where he actually has a bit of soft power capital to use; at least among certain people.