Slate - The Blob Ate Donald Trump

Joshua Keating at Slate ("a daily magazine on the web") reassured the unsettled.

Money quote(s):

"Rex Tillerson’s ongoing reorganization of the State Department, seemingly purposely designed to sideline and scale back the work of career diplomats, is definitely a concerning shift that could have lasting impacts on U.S. diplomacy around the world. But in the absence of leadership, it appears American foreign policy can just kind of run itself for a while. I don’t know how long that can continue before it slips off the rails."

re: "South Sudan offers peacekeepers"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog by the Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") shows how a new country steps up.

Money quote(s):

"Though still dealing with unresolved border disputes and internal rebelions, the newly indpendent government of South Sudan has offered to help the peace in another country"

Nothing like "giving back."

"Since South Sudan is likely to continue to requre quite a bit of international assistance for its development and security in the coming years, the government consider this a wise investment meant at building up international good will. It can also be a sound economic move.

International peacekeeping missions, including the AU's force in Somalia, are generally funded by Western nations and manned by developing ones. Peacekeeping is often a valuable source of revenue for cash-starved governments."

It's a good way for emerging powers to get operational experience in the multinational military environment.

8/16

re: "Trying to beat Palestine on a technicality"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") makes a crucial distinction that, in our overly legalistic and litigious society, is lost on many.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he impending U.N. General Assembly vote recognizing the Palestinian state will be illegitimate, as Palestine doesn't meet international law's minimum standards for nationhood"

That's not Mr. Keating's position, by the way; he's just re-stating another's argument.

"I don't think this is a particularly strong case for supporters of Israel to make. Montevideo is a rather quaint set of criteria with little actual relevance in the Calvinball world of contemporary sovereignty disputes. This is doubly true when it comes to U.N. recognition."

Calvinball? Rather fizbin.

"U.N. member states come into being not because they meet an objective standard for nationhood. As I've written before, if that were true, the Palestinian state would probably have been admitted long before South Sudan. Countries become member states after two-thirds of the General Assembly votes for them and the Security Council approves. It's a political process, not a legal one, and wishing it away with a technicality is unlikely to be effective." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Bear in mind also that, UN membership aside, what makes a nation-state is being a nation-state; nothing more, nothing less. Recognition by others, even the UN, is nice and all, but only dispositive if you thing the UN is some sort of world authority or something.

re: "Why Republicans really want a louder Obama"

Joshua Keating at PASSPORT ("A Blog By The Editors Of Foreign Policy") is usually smarter than this.

Quote(s):

"This doesn't really make any sense. Bachman (sic) thinks the Libya intervention is a disastrously misguided mission, but America should be taking a more prominent role in it? ("We may be going straight to hell but damned if we're going to let the French get there first!")"

Actually, that's not what she said, as Mr. Keating's excerpt makes clear:

"Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya."

What Mr. Keating missed here is the decision-making aspect of leadership. France has taken the lead with respect to what can laughingly be referred to as NATO's "Libya policy." Not the U.S. Rep. Bachmann said nothing about the U.S. taking a more prominent role in the Libyan intervention. In fact, she seems to be implying that that U.S. leadership might have headed off there being any intervention there at all.

Sadly, this sort of thing was predicted by diploblogging legend Diplomad just yesterday:

"(T)he liberal elite attacks on her will be unrelenting; any minor flub, slip, or inconsistency will be headline news and fodder for the dopey late night "comics." The libs will go through her life with a microscope. This will get ugly. She is going to be abused, maligned, and "Palined" because she does not fit the mould the liberal elite and their MSM pets have decreed for politically savvy and smart women politicians. She is a conservative, a real one, and that's something the libs just cannot abide. To make matters worse, she fights back, and doesn't apologize for being conservative. Women, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews are supposed to be liberal, if they're not, it's OK to call them anything you want: Misogyny or racism in the service of liberalism is just free speech or funny."

re: "P.J. Crowley: I stand by what I said about Bradley Manning"

Joshua Keating at Wikileaked ("Inside the State Department's Secret Cables") observes life after government employment.

Money quote(s):

"(R)ecently fired State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley is making a transition to media pundit in record time."

It's kind of an obvious next move for former A/S Crowley. It's not like he's microphone shy.

"Crowley starts by arguing that Manning is" rightly facing prosecution" and "if convicted, should spend a long, long time in prison." But, perhaps since he's already been fired for them, doesn't walk back his previous comments at all"

&

"(I)f your own previously reliable spokesman is calling a government policy "stupid" in public, you probably have a policy in need of urgent review."

re: "Don't look for foreign leaders at the inauguration"

Joshua Keating at Passport ("A blog by the editors of FOREIGN POLICY") explains a traditional aspect of U.S. presidential inaugurations.

Money quote(s):

"While U.S. ambassadors and their spouses are invited to attend the event, foreign leaders have been asked to stay home."

This is not something new. This is still an American event; foreign ambassadors who are accredited to the U.S. (there's kind of a difference between them and "U.S. ambassadors") are welcome to attend (and will get fairly good seats, plus lunch at Blair House, IIRC) but every head of state who's hoping to scrape up air fare and a winter coat is expected to stay home.