Communism, has it ever built a good car?

The confluence of two of my favorite subjects, international politics and cars, remains rare.  So today I was excited to see the parade of limos in the DPRK carrying Kim Jong-Il to his burial.  Anticipating that these were rare and well preserved Soviet-era limos, I set out to identify them, but a more astute car observer had already determined that these were in fact 1975 Lincoln Continentals!  More here:  http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2011/12/kim-jong-il-funeral-limos-epitome-of.html

I'm annoyed by this, and hold out hope that these were knock-offs produced along-side supernotes in a bunker buried high in the mountains.  The hardcore DPRK watchers can read some kind of symbolism into this, but for me it's an excuse to post a classic clip of Top Gear where Jeremy and James ask the question; 'communism, has it ever built a good car?'
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/communist-cars-1

Hezbollah's Dilemma

I have been meaning to post this article for a few weeks.  It covers a lot of ground, but provides a particularly good perspective on the dilemma facing Hezbollah as it manages its response to the uprising in Syria. 

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136709/mona-yacoubian/hezbollah-after-assad

To summarize, Hezbollah’s dilemma is as follows.  Aggressively supporting its critical ally would bring significant political costs.  Defending the Assad regime’s violent crackdown would align Hezbollah against the popular revolts across the Middle East, and would undermine their claim to the mantle of defending the oppressed and the weak. 

This is yet another strong reason in favor of more decisive action and leadership by the US to hasten Assad’s exit.  Focusing greater attention on regime violence would ratchet pressure on Syria and further threaten the regime’s existence.  This, in turn, would press Hezbollah further onto the horns of their dilemma.  The outcome may not prove decisive for Hezbollah, but if it emerges from this ordeal weakened (either politically or militarily), all the better for Lebanese and regional stability.  This would be a good outcome for US interests. 

Unfortunately, after yesterday’s suicide bombing in Damascus, Western governments’ already tepid enthusiasm for regime change in Syria may cool further.  Attribution of the attack will help determine how their diplomatic efforts evolve.  In the great tradition of the Middle East, each of the significant players in this drama has already detailed a conspiracy to cast blame on different perpetrators.  The Syrians blamed Al-Qaeda in order to frighten the West and the Arab League as to what awaits them in a post-Assad Syria, the Lebanese claim the Assad regime conducted the blast for the express purpose of blaming Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah blamed the US because that’s what they do.  I’ll be watching to see what the Israelis have to say.

Obama's Strategic Failure

Effective national strategy aligns military, diplomatic, political and economic capabilities to achieving clearly articulated security objectives.  This week President Obama toured Asia and reiterated the United States’ commitment to Asia.  He also expanded critical security alliances, most notably agreeing to station US Marines in Australia.  Meanwhile, at home, the clock is expiring on the super committee process which would all but guarantee an additional round of cuts to the Pentagon of up to $600 billion.  This would bring the total cuts for 10 year at the Pentagon to more than a trillion dollars.  To put these cuts into perspective, Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has repeatedly and unreservedly declared that they would ‘hollow out’ the US military.  A major disconnect between this Administration’s military and diplomatic commitments and its economic priorities has emerged.  Clearly national strategy escapes this President and his Administration.  

Expanding US security commitments while simultaneously allowing massive reductions to our military’s capability and effectiveness represents the beginning of a strategic disaster for the United States.  This failure is made starker by the fact that the Obama Administration played almost no role in the super committee process.  It would be one thing if they engaged in the committee process to help find ways to maintain funding for the Pentagon, but they have done the opposite and essentially stayed out of the process.  This dearth of leadership has emerged as a pattern for this Administration, and the eventual GOP nominee would do well in the general election articulating an alternative approach of robust leadership both domestically and globally.  

I support an enhanced US presence and commitment in Asia, but this requires the funding of a military that can provide the backbone to those commitments.  Expanding security alliances with Australia and Japan is central to defending US interests in the region, and developing our security relationships with other states in Southeast Asia will all help shape a peaceful rise of China.  However, to make these commitments while allowing unsustainable cuts to our military budgets is short sighted and dangerous.  

Welcome

I hope to use this space to shed light on the political dynamics driving decision and policy making on issues critical to US national security. This primarily means examining the relationship between US domestic politics and our foreign and defense policies.  I plan to also explore international politics and institutions. 
I started this blog as I believe that my career experience and education will contribute another informed voice to these important debates. I don't plan to parrot what I read elsewhere, but genuinely provide another informative and insightful point of view.  I welcome your comments!