What’s Really Going on In Pyongyang

Gabriel Rom

North Korea’s recent nuclear tests as well as their repudiation of their long standing armistice with South Korea signals a radical change in the way North Korea’s leadership would like the country to be perceived by the rest of the world. Blatant, aggressive, volatile…North Korea can no longer be put on the backburner. Nations across the world have condemned the tests with varying degrees of intensity, but North Korea has got what it wanted: Attention.

Do these actions make strategic sense? The short answer is no. “The suddenness of the  nuclear test shows North Korea following military, not diplomatic logic,” Hideshi Takesada, a Korea expert at Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies, told Bloomberg News.

The Koreans have completely put diplomacy out of their minds, and are acting with military goals in mind, not diplomatic ones. Whether this change in attitude is an act to try and make diplomacy easier for the NoKos, or if it truly is the beginning of a military conflict in the area, is something no westerner and probably no one else besides Kim Jong-il and his closest advisers can know.

What we can deduce is this though: “During the past 40 years North Korean leaders have been blustery but fundamentally risk averse. They have done nothing that would risk the total destruction of their state…until now.”

The way Pyongyang has been acting in the past week demonstrates that they are willing to accept much larger and destructive risks than they were before. The question for Barack Obama and the rest of the world is this: Are the North Koreans posturing?

Consider this analogy (this will take a cursory understanding of Texas Hold Em’ poker): We’re at a poker table, and it’s North Korea’s turn to act. They raise big (the nuclear tests). Sitting across from NK is America and effectively all of the  Western powers.  Now it’s our turn to act. We have three options. Fold (Take no diplomatic, economic, or military action, basically keeping the situation static. Call (Some combination of economic and diplomatic response. Basically acknowledging that North Korea is a serious threat and that our response, whatever it is, must keep them in check. The risk level would be higher if we choose to call as we must remember exactly what we’re calling: A nuclear detonation from a rogue regime with a potentially mentally unstable leader. Finally, we can Reraise. This course of action would most likely include massive economic restrictions and likely be accompanied with a military campaign in the region. This response would obviously entail the most risk, but potentially the most reward.

Note: This analogy is simply meant to give context to an extremely complex situation. The Fold, Call, Re raise terminology is not hard and fast. For example one word, “call”, entails an indeterminable amount of strategies, contingency plans, and diplomatic philosophies of which any combination could be used. The only thing that unifies these responses under the word “call”, is that they maintain a certain level of restraint and risk aversion, as this is what philosophically defines a call in the poker world as well.  The world of geopolitics does not have to follow all the rules of the poker table. Additionally, remember that there are many other actors in this conflict (South Korea, Japan, China, etc)

These are Barack Obama’s options. Our next article will delve deeper into these options, discussing which action or combination of actions are the most rational and effective.

To our loyal (and extremely patient) readers,

Why have we waited over five months to start up again with TPY? Why, after such comprehensive and popular election coverage did we decide to hang up the towel (for the time being)? Well,to be brief: We got into college, we celebrated… we kept celebrating…  and we continued to celebrate even when our bodies told us we really shouldn’t be celebrating anymore. What you may or may not take ‘celebrating’ to be is something we, as highly responsible and intelligent teenagers, cannot comment on. Shame on you.

We’ll now that our three month hangover (figurative) is finally receding, and more importantly that the world is just as confusing, screwed up, and interesting as when we left it, we’ve decided to get back into the swing of things with both feet.

There are a few changes and improvements we’d like to inform you of.

Firstly: We didn’t completely waste the past quarter of a year. In our downtime we’ve given TPY a foothold on a few social networking sites. This shouldn’t be too surprising as basically any website or blog that wants to be viable in terms of viability needs to have a presence that extends past just one URL. Without further ado:

Facebook fan page:
Twitter page:

Secondly: TPY has a new writer: Tyler Holmes, a rising freshman at the University of Kansas. Look for Tyler to be writing about energy, education, and foreign policy.

Thirdly: Within the next week or so a ‘writer biography’ page will be set up giving our readers a more personal view of the TPY writing staff.

Finally, we’d like to reiterate TPY’s level of seriousness and journalistic commitment to the issues facing our world today. We put the time and effort into this site because the topics we cover, out of necessity, must be argued, supported, and criticized at the highest level of discussion and dialogue possible. Expect articles in the very immediate future on Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, The current GOP identity crisis, North Korea’s increasing nuclear volatilty, Pakistan’s growing instability, and the current state of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Stay tuned, and get ready. We’re back and we’re here to stay.

- Gabriel Rom

Why Israel Attacked and What It Means

Gabriel Rom

“We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 – on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force – were indeed well learned.”

In retaliation to unyielding rocket attacks into Southern Israel, numbering recently to almost 200 a day, Israel launched a series of Airstrikes on Hamas positions, killing over 200 people. Hamas military installations, police stations, and residences of officials were all targeted. What we are seeing is possibly the most intense military action taken by Israel since the June 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Some sort of Israeli military action was to be expected, but the intensity and haste in which these strikes were carried out made today’s events a sign of radical reshifting in Israeli military policy. Today’s attacks were a refutation of what many Israelis see as pointless diplomacy as well as ambivalent military incursions lasting for short periods of time, with usually minimal or negative results. As one analyst put it: “Israel’s policy of restraint is over”.

The rationale behind these strikes is a simple one: Pressure. The game is all about pressure. Israel, since the election of Hamas, has been trying to force Hamas to cease all their military operations, suicide recruitment, and on a basic level at least start to entertain the option that Israel will not be wiped of the face of the earth. All such things are relatively tough to achieve diplomatically when the group Israel trying to convince through talks and sanctions will not even recognize their existence, or right to exist. Diplomacy doesn’t work when political entities put religious ideals over the well being of their fellow citizens.

Today’s strikes are the beginning of an Israeli plan to dismantle the infrastructure of Hamas. What we are witnessing is monumental, it is the beginning of a plan to completely eliminate Hamas from the political and diplomatic landscape. Many Israelis see Hamas as the chief impediment to peace talks, and after Western support of Fatah, Hamas’s rival faction, resulted in nothing but heightened Gaza tension and even more Hamas sway, Israel has decided to do what it does best, take matters into their own hands.

Many parallels can be made to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which was considered by many a stalemate or even a defeat for Israel. The geopolitical context in which Israel has attacked Hamas is immensely complex: Will Egypt who has taken the always risky route of mediation between Hamas and Israel, be forced to abandon talks due to these attacks? Will Iran supply Hamas with weapons, and intelligence to retaliate against Israel? In a conflict with so many actors, any small event sends of a wave of political, economic, and military shocks and aftershocks – and it is quite clear that today’s events were by no means “small”.

Israel has put herself back into the fire, the fire of international scrutiny, the fire of Arab retaliation, the fire of possible failure. Yet I strongly believe that this is a necessary fire. With the looming specter of a nuclear Iran, and no cessation of aggression for over 60 years from her neighbors, the nation of Israel has said enough is enough.

How To Be A Waitress

Emma Johnson

Guest Contributor

Jessica Rasinski is 21 years old and a hostess at one of the most popular restaurants in Manhattan, the Waverly Inn and Garden. She went to a prestigious all-girls school on the Upper East Side and, never went to college. People then and even now, continue to ask her, “How did a girl with so much potential end up a hostess?” When they ask, as they commonly do, Jessica calmly replies, “a series of fortunate events.” This response, as intended, “Usually creates even more curiosity and alleviates any potential tension.” She proudly explained. “Important people walk through that door every night so consumed with the other so-called VIP’s and what they think that they usually don’t even look up to say hello or acknowledge my existence. When one of these “important people” happens to be the father or mother of one of my close friends from high school it usually takes them more than a minute to make the connection.”

As she continues a smile widens across her face, “Mr. Bronfman? I’ll say and he will look up at me as though he were looking at a sign and not a person until I make clear, “Its me, Jessica, I went to school with your daughter Hannah”, and then the light bulb goes off.” She says as she makes the hand motion of turning on a light with her hand. “Its like he suddenly realizes I’m one of them and instantly wants to help me across the divide. Like he was looking at a countryman in a foreign prison camp. Its so weird.” She explained what she meant by “across the divide” she seemed ready for the question, or at least my ignorance. “Like eager to sugar-coat the situation – my situation. And make it seem like it fits into their standardized track to success. They will say, ‘Oh – wow! I didn’t know you were working here… how cool!’ or ‘So are you an actress?’, fishing for a way to put the pieces together now that I have aligned myself with their children and therefore them – its suddenly in their interest to posh-up my position and place in life… especially in front of their friends.”  Jessica seems confidant, especially in regard to her understanding of values based on wealth and their often inverse relationship with moral fiber.

In a world that is rapidly changing, with the fist black president about to take office and, the financial back lash of generations of Americans dependent on easy money about to take its toll; the life of Jessica Rasinski seem not only reasonable but almost desirable. “I like what I do and I’m really good at it. I love the people I work with and we don’t all have our heads up our asses. We are reminded constantly that we are all serving somebody, that humility is the only way to live this life gracefully, and with the most friends. I look at what’s happening with Wall Street and our relative inability to undo the misguided choices made by guys like Alan Greenspan and I feel terrible but at the same time kinda validated. I know it sounds bad, but I think this country needs a reality check.” And boy doesn’t that seem to be the consensus.

“My job is to help people feel comfortable. I greet them as they come in and, show them that its ok. I show them where their table is and, how to sit at it. If there is no table available for them, I show them where to stand and how to feel good about the wait. In many ways, I feel like President Obama and I would have a lot in common if, we ever sat down and went through it.” Jessica said in a joking yet, challenging tone. “I mean, I work at a restaurant that is always overbooked, that doesn’t have a phone line, that only takes reservations two days in advance and almost always – even if you do go all the way to Waverly Place to make one – will only have tables available for you at six o’clock or ten thirty pm because the space is so limited and the demand is so high.” Sound familiar?

Both Jessica’s mother and father went to college and, although she is not following in their path she feels confident in her decision. “I am deeply grateful to be able to work at a place like Waverly. At times the job is demanding and stressful but it has been entirely worth it. Since working here my eyes have been opened to how many possibilities there are in life.”

Our RSS Feed has just gone live. Subscribing to our feed will give you automatic E-Mail updates whenever new content is posted on TPY. Simply enter your email where it says “Subscribe” on the top right side of the webpage.

To subscribe to TPY

1) Enter your email in the top right-hand corner of this page.

2) Click subscribe

3) Enter verification information (just a link)

4) You’re set!

The Limits of Pragmatism

Peter Wehner

&

Gabriel Rom

As taken from commentary magazine

We live in an age in which pragmatism is hot and ideology is not.

Barack Obama is being praised for the centrists he is appointing to his Administration. It is said that the Obama team includes “the best and the brightest,” individuals driven by empirical evidence rather than political philosophy. “They [the American people] don’t want ideology,” according to Obama. “They want action and they want effectiveness.” Mr. Obama speaks about his appointments sharing his bent for “pragmatism.” Technocrats and Socratic dialogue are in, while conviction politicians and an adherence to political philosophy seem passé.

As it happens, I’m delighted that the (very early) indications are that President-elect Obama is exhibiting a centrism that was well-disguised during his days as an Illinois state legislator and U.S. Senator, when he amassed a very liberal voting record. His liberalism will undoubtedly reassert itself at various points along the way, and it can’t be stated often enough that we are only at the dawn of the Obama era. It may be that the man named by National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate governs that way as President. Nevertheless, the selections Obama has made so far are an encouraging sign. In addition, Obama’s cautions about ideology are worth taking into account. It can indeed lead people to ignore facts that challenge their worldview (for example, denying progress of the so-called surge in Iraq long after it was clear it was succeeding).

At the same time, with pragmatism all the rage, it is worth considering its limitations.

When pragmatism–an approach to politics that is characterized by centrist, moderate, deal-cutting instincts rather than a commitment to core political principles–becomes a defining political identity, it often leads to ad hoc policies. Decisions are made discretely, in an unrelated fashion, and are not put within a larger philosophical framework. Pragmatism tends to be process-oriented, reactive, and crisis-driven. And it assumes politics is above all about management.

Politics is of course about the day-to-day management of affairs. But at its best it is about the pursuit of ideals like justice and liberty, partnership for the common good, and fostering the conditions that allow for human flourishing and excellence.

Competence is crucial in the implementation of policies, and success is impossible without it. Bad execution can discredit good ideas. But competence is not a sufficient end in itself. It needs to advance a larger human purpose.

In addition, competence is not courage. When gale-force political winds hit, pragmatists, because they do not have deep-seated convictions, rarely hold shape. Our finest politicians are those who withstand the pressure of the moment to pursue policies precisely because those policies are part of an overarching governing philosophy. A pragmatist avoids hard choices. A great leader makes them.

In the early years of his presidency, for example, Ronald Reagan pursued a tight monetary policy and provided unyielding support for Paul Volcker, then head of the Federal Reserve, despite a nasty recession which saw the unemployment rate exceed 10 percent, Reagan’s approval rating stuck in the mid-30s, and substantial mid-term election losses in 1982. But these policies were vital to wringing inflation out of the system, and they began what was then the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. A politician less committed to a set of economic principles would have given up in the face of the ferocious criticism President Reagan received.

Mr. Obama’s victory has been compared to Reagan’s, but Obama may turn out to be the anti-Reagan. When he found himself in Hyde Park, he easily adjusted to his surroundings, and when he ran in the Democratic primary, Obama became the hope of the Left. But once he secured the nomination, he transformed himself into a centrist. That trend is continuing in the transition.

Obama’s victory, then, was based largely on his (appealing) personality and ethereal promises of “change,” not on a set of ideas. After having run for President for 21 months, and having been elected four weeks ago, no one can yet articulate what Obama-ism as a political philosophy is. He appears to believe he should be president because of who he is, rather than what he believes. Mr. Obama’s self-assurance seems to derive from his enormously high confidence in himself, rather than confidence anchored in a coherent worldview.

President-elect Obama’s apparent pragmatism is certainly preferable to liberalism; no worldview at all beats a misguided one. But we should bear in mind that a philosophical embrace of pragmatism has a cost as well. It inevitably robs politics of its higher, ennobling aims.

Those touting pragmatism as a balm and downplaying the role of political philosophy in our politics should also recall that the greatest figures in our history–including Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Reagan–believed in a fighting faith. They cared deeply about political ideas, and it was their fidelity to those (good) ideas, rather than an attachment to pragmatism or a captivating personality, which left a deep, lasting imprint on our nation.

Pragmatism surely has an important place in our politics. But for some of us, it is still conviction politicians who create the great appeal and great drama of American politics.

Links

- India’s suspicion of Pakistan grows

- Behind The Scenes of The Mumbai Attacks

- Troops battle to end seige in Taj

- Oberio, Nariman Secure…Taj Not

- FBI Agents ordered to India to investigate attacks

- Pakistan’s Intel. chief heads to India

- Flickr Photos of Attacks

- Streaming coverage on attacks from Indian TV

- US, UK, Israel aid India with Intel

- Map of Mumbai Attacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27971837/  (Time Line)

Gabriel Rom

On Wednesday, a group of heavily armed assailants carried out a series of coordinated strikes in Mumbai—killing at least 80, wounding hundreds more, and claiming an indeterminate number of hostages. A group calling themselves the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the mayhem, but their identity could not be immediately confirmed, and many terrorism specialists said they were unfamiliar with the name.

India has been long been mentioned in the same breath as other emerging economic superpowers such as China and Brazil…that all changed yesterday. It is speculated that over twenty well armed, highly trained guerrillas entered the city of Mumbai via waterway. Yes India is no stranger to terrorism, but an attack of this scale is simply unprecedented. This attack signifies the new brazen lengths terrorists within are willing to go to further their message.

What this message is, what grander ideologies it represents, and who or what is behind these attacks are all questions that are going to be addressed in the coming days, weeks, and years. The answers will be complex, but after the events of the past 24 hours, already some clues and patterns have begun to crystallize.

1) While many experts have noted the fact that the terrorists singled out British and American foreigners in the hotels that were attacked, one should note that both hotels that are currently under siege, The Taj Mahal and the Oberoid, are both Indian run hotels. The Marriott, Four Seasons, and Hyatt all have locations in Mumbai, and are all foreign owned…yet they were not attacked. Take this with a grain of salt, but it seems as if the terrorists’ primary goal was to strike the Indian economic and political infrastructure, and attempting to take down a few Westerners while doing it.

2) The brazen run and gun attack style of the terrorists was not indicative of any Al-Qaeda link. Rather, as Fareed Zakaria says:

This seems more like a Kashmiri, Lashkar kind of thing. They have the organization, they have the recruits, they have a cause they care about.

3) Watch Pakistan’s reaction to the incident. Recently some Pakistani intelligence officers have been accused of taking part in prior attacks within India.

Ultimately, these attacks were not aimed at Westerners, but at Indians. As the global economic downturn continues to steep to new lows, investment in India will surely be stemmed, maybe even completely ceased, after these attacks. India will reel, politically, and economically, from these attacks – and it is this author’s opinion, that tumult in India, not the world, was the attackers primary goal.

Rahm Emanuel is not a weaselly liberal, he is not soft-spoken. Rahm Emanuel is quite the opposite, he is a bipartisan workhorse, who, when en tasked with getting something done, most always does it. Emanuel is the first choice in what many think to be a very pragmatic, bipartisan, “get-things-done” type of administration Barack Obama will employ.

As John Lapp, a former top Emanuel aide at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, puts it:

“He’s from the Lombardi wing of the party — he’s a guy who wants to win at any cost and will do whatever it takes.”

Another characteristic of Rahm that is becoming ubiquitous in Obama’s administration selections, is the fact that the two are close, “brotherly” close in fact. The two are said to have a deep understanding of eachothers’ personality, as well as political ideologies.

Yet this does not mean Rahm will blindly follow President Obama’s lead:

If so, he’s a sibling who long ago showed he knows how to talk back in the family. As a longtime aide to Bill Clinton, Emanuel was known for his willingness to talk bluntly to colleagues from the president on down.

Rahm Emanuel is a symbol of what is to come. A symbol of a dynamic, tight-knit, cohesive administration that will have all the necessary checks and balances to make rational and effective decisions.

One of the smartest most accomplished Jews in America will now be at the forefront of our new adminstration. Additionally, Rahm Emanuel is not a Jew divored from his roots. His father fought for the Irgun, and Rahm has been to Israel serveral times, and has a very deep and intimate love for his country and all that it represents. I have never been more proud than I am today in saying I am a Jewish American.

Emanuel, a hard nosed political insider has a reputation of playing hardball to get things done. One senior Obama aid explained the potential choice: “Obama wants a bad cop, so he can be good cop 90 percent of the time.”

Emanuel is considered a political centrist, and has went on numerous occasions against liberal othrodoxy with center right positions on anti-crime measures, and welfare reforms.

Emanuel also has a good relationship with many republican representatives.

Obama, with a strong democratic majority in the Senate and House, and now a cutthroat “get-things-done” political insider as his chief of staff, looks to be in the catbird seat for getting things he wants done quickly, efficiently, and without much objection.

Whether this is a good or bad thing will be seen in the coming months.

One final note: I recently found out that Rahm Emanuel served in the Israeli Defense Force and even knows a little bit of hebrew. Should be a welcome bit of news for all the zionists out there (me included).