One of the first jobs of an American president is to redecorate the Oval Office. Each new president is expected to update the furniture, replace the carpet, repaint the walls and woodwork as well as add some new paintings. There are also the sculptures, usually three or four. So when he moves in today, President Barack Obama will have to decide what to do with a bronze bust of Winston Churchill.

The bust is on loan from the British government and was installed by his predecessor, President George W Bush in 2001. Bush explains it in an official White House tour video [my transcript]: "my friend the prime minister of Great Britain heard me say that I greatly admired Winston Churchill and so he saw to it that the government loaned me this and I am most honored to have this Jacob Epstein bust of Winston Churchill. I like Churchill because he was a great war leader. He was resolute, he was tough, he knew what he believed, and he had a fabulous sense of humor. And in this job, believe me, you've gotta have a sense of humor. Otherwise it makes for the days awfully long and for the nights awfully short." (Predictably, the video inspired a spoof.)

Officially, Her Majesty's government loaned the bust to Bush for the duration of his term. At the end of this month, the bust can therefore go back to the Government Art Collection on Cockspur Street. But there is little to prevent Obama from retaining the sculpture, just like there was little that prevented him from retaining Bush's Defense Secretary and several other "holdover" officials.

Downing Street, always ready to cultivate Britain's "special relationship" with America, would probably happily extend the loan to another four to eight years. After all, no figure in the world better symbolizes the "special relationship" than Churchill. In his last Lord Mayor's Banquet Speech, Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained it yet again: "Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom, and the rights of man - of what Barack Obama described in his election night speech as the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."

Will Obama keep his Churchill? Obama's speech writers would certainly appreciate it. In the United States, the signifier "Churchill" is as positively evaluated as "Obama" in the United Kingdom right now. As Christopher Hitchens observes, in America, Churchill "occupies an unrivaled place in the common stock of reference, ranging from the mock-heroic to the downright kitsch." The man voted the Greatest Briton in a 2002, argues Hitchens, "can be quoted even more safely than Lincoln in that he was never a member of any American faction."

Good politics is not the only reason for Obama to retain the bust. Last year, the New England Historic Genealogical Society discovered that Obama is in fact related to Churchill. (The researchers also found that Obama is a ninth cousin of Brad Pitt and a distant relative to five former U.S. presidents, including George W Bush.) So why not keep a bust of a distant family member which happens to be a great war leader that most Americans love?

As it is often the case, family history cuts both ways. In Kenya, the land of Obama's father, the signifier "Churchill" carries nothing but negative connotations. Several times in his long political career, Churchill was responsible for Britain's empire, which until 1963 included Kenya. It was his government which in 1952 declared the so-called Kenya Emergency - an attempt to quash a rebellion against colonial rule known as Mau Mau. For the next eight years, suspected rebels were routinely detained, tortured, hanged and shot. According to Caroline Elkins, the colonial soldiers killed between fifteen and twenty thousand Kenyans in combat, while up to one hundred thousand perished in the detention camps. One of those who endured torture in a British prison was Hussein Onyango Obama, US president's Kenyan grandfather. Traces of this story can be found in Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father as well as in a few interviews; much more is sure to come. For now, it behooves us to remember it when Obama sends his Churchill packing. The time for the Anglo-American "special relationship" to move beyond Churchill is long overdue.

Srdjan Vucetic is Dillard Fellow in International Studies at Pembroke College, Cambridge 

Un zapatazo en contra de todas la guerras, not just the ones overseas, pero also the ones within and against communities here in the U.S. For New Orleans, the fronteras, the barrios, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Un zapatazo con tacon for Oscar Grant, Marcelo Lucero, all of those raided by ICE, all the children separated from their parents, for those young men of color sent to the front lines, for all those without health insurance and papers. For all those behind walls: prison walls, border walls, walls of poverty.

Time to feel my feet on the ground and dig into the earth with my toes and walk and work.

Throw your shoe up on your site and link to the shoe throwing throwdown at My Ecdysis.

Dear Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,

We, members of the “Afghanistan’s Students Movement” congratulate you for your success in the Presidential elections of the United States of America, which we consider a sign for a better future. Your presence in the political arena of the world will rearrange many political equations and will create a different system that we hope can bring about the opportunity for global peace. We are optimistic that you, not only as an aware political organizer, but also as a charismatic and wise leader, will be the initiator of another generation of powerful leaders committed to human values that the world has been waiting for.

Let us admit this honestly: We have all lost hope. The flame of hope that had been lightened in our hearts after year 2001 in Afghanistan has been transformed to a blind knot of doubt and darkness due to the misleading policies and political disability in Afghanistan. The hope and will to live has decreased in last six years while terrorism and drug production has increased. The highest rates of mother and infant mortality are in Afghanistan, (MMR 6500 in Badakhshan). For every four kids, one dies before reaching age five. (Afghanistan Human Development report 2007 p.27).

Poverty, social disorder, kidnapping, violence against women and children and many of other problems have struck the heart of society in Afghanistan. We think that your attention and focus in Afghanistan should shift from the Taliban’s terrorism to Afghanistan’s society. Our society is in such a painful and deteriorating situation that it has inevitably become a cradle for terrorism and fundamentalism. We should not forget that Afghanistan has been a victim of the West’s struggle against communism, a struggle that continued for two decades with the resistance of people of Afghanistan and saved the countries in region and world, a resistance that left nothing for Afghanistan’s people but a malfunctioning social system, more than two million dead, five million emigrants, three illiterate generations, fundamentalism and wide poppy fields.

We have no doubt that the neglect by the international community and USA after the departure of Soviet forces, and the fall of the Communist state led to civil war and then emergence of Taliban in Afghanistan. This neglect provided an opportunity for development of the most dangerous and darkest fundamentalist regime on the globe in Afghanistan in less then seven years.

The attention of the international community and especially the United States should shift to Afghanistan’s society. A society that is sick and on the brink of death can only be saved by a well thought out and efficient method and a collaborative international effort. Fundraising and providing loans alone can not prevent a crisis; there is a need for coordinating the country’s political direction. We believe that if the future leader of the USA continues the mistakes of George W. Bush, and fights the world with the ideological simplification of good and evil, we will soon witness the fall of Afghanistan’s government which is a symbol of global governance and influence, and the sad result will be that an unforgivable and irreversible catastrophe will shadow the region
and the world.

You must know that although branches of terrorism are in Afghanistan, its roots are in the depths of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The free tribal regions in Pakistan can be a safe shelter for development of fundamentalist power equipped with nuclear armament in near future. The future US administration should also know that the Taliban had reasonable opportunities in the last seven years that, intentionally or not, were provided for them by the West and the Government of Afghanistan. The Taliban that the USA will be fighting in 2009 are not the Taliban of 2001. The empowered Taliban now have modern armaments, know the tactics of organized war, and have a budget, financial power, and more support in the region. The Taliban are now more organized and have attracted many local militia groups. Experience shows that negotiation and power-sharing with the Taliban will not change the situation, but will help the injured snake of Taliban fundamentalism become a seven headed dragon.

We believe that the contradiction between the structure and essence of government has led to political failure in Afghanistan. The structure of Afghanistan’s government contradicts its nature. The government has a modern and democratic structure, but a tribal and traditional essence. This hypocritical incompatibility has caused increasing political and economic corruption and has led to destruction of society. The tribal structure of government has led to rechanneling the American reconstruction aid to the Taliban’s terrorism. This structure has allowed for the presence of heads of political parties, members of Taliban, Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic Party), and ex-communists in parliament, government and smaller branches of power. In fact, these people are the main decision makers in the political process of country.

Most of the members of the parliament do not have the least legal literacy and have come to power through a process that has a legitimate cover (elections), but is in nature undemocratic. Decision makers in provincial councils, parliament and cabinet are representatives of ethnic and linguistic divisions and interests of leaders of various factions. The procedure for election and functions of Senate (Upper House) are similar to that of an ethnic Jirga. The members of provincial councils, Parliament and cabinet have come to power depending on support of ethnic and linguistic fractions and are not committed to formation of a stable, sustainable and encompassing national value system.

The concept and position of political parties is ambiguous and vague in Afghanistan’s power structure, and the leaders of parties in the government use the opportunities and public resources for strengthening their parties. The leaders of parties like the Afghan Millat Party, the Republican Party, the Wahdat (Unity) Party, and a few other parties have seats in important government branches from the ministries to the presidential office and this has created a conflict of interests and inefficiency within the power structure. Decision making and effective action at a national level requires cooperation between different government organs, but with the current state of power imbalance, coordination and cooperation is almost impossible. Each party tries to please its own supporters and its loyal sub-groups and this has led to increasing corruption and has created obstacles for reconstruction. Without an efficient and implementable reconstruction program, poverty and the reach of fundamentalism will expand and increase.

In addition, the modern state with a free market economy, which was a direct suggestion of President George W. Bush for Afghanistan, has led to poverty and increasing class disparity. The current economic model in Afghanistan has created a breeding ground for economic mafia. All the governmental (public) sectors and national mines and resources of Afghanistan have been handed over to private companies that are managed by a network of corrupt politicians and politically influential business owners. We believe that the information that is given to you from the official sources of Afghanistan’s government and even their partners in power (The National United Front) is usually incorrect and misleading and is packaged to create a vague and unreal optimism. In fact, the international community has not been able to create the most primary form of stable and influential government in Afghanistan despite a huge expenditure of aid. Each election carries the risk of a coup.

Complicating matters, a misleading image of the situation in order to justify the Western “war against terrorism” and the expenditure of billions of dollars. The military budget of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, derived from the taxes of American citizens, and which was supposed to bring security, health and prosperity for Afghanistan’s women and children has instead provided the Taliban with modern armaments that kill dozens of innocent people everyday. We are certain that Afghanistan’s problems will not be solved only with militarism and sending more troops. With the current state of affairs, this plan is far more certain to worsen the situation.

Our suggestions:

1 - Change in political structure: Ratification of the presidential system in constitutional Loya Jirga in 2003 prevented formation of a strong central government with the natural participation of all ethnic groups. By suggesting another convention of Loya Jirga, you can create an atmosphere of trust and ensure the presence of all ethnic groups in the Afghan government and a shift from a presidential system to a parliamentarian system. That will allow all Afghanistan’s citizens to feel equal belonging and responsibility to the political system of the country for the first time. This will also create the opportunity for abolition of ethnic quota that only benefits the former Jihad leaders. It will allow people from all different ethnicities to participate freely and equally.

2 - The parliamentarian government and federal system has proved efficient in Iraq. Participation of all ethnic groups and parties in the federal system has ensured the rights of minority groups and their participation in formation of a stable system. You should also suggest the federal system for Afghanistan. Five zones of Afghanistan can be five independent states which will help formation of strong local economies, and the non-concentrated political system can be more coordinated and efficient. In Afghanistan, formation of a concentrated powerful government system is very difficult due to its geography and limited resource. The almost homogenous
ethnic, linguistic and religious population of each state (zone) can prevent conflicts.

3 - Strengthening civil society: We believe the situation could be improved dramatically by decreasing the military budget and investing more in the social sector. There is no doubt that this shift will have a more positive influence, be an easier strategy, and will result in quick and long lasting outcomes for ensuring peace and stable society in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs social change and this is only possible by strengthening civil organizations, not by increasing the military force.

4 - Stabilizing the issues related to political geography of Afghanistan. The 2700 Kilometer southern border of Afghanistan with the free tribal regions of Pakistan has helped terrorism to have a continuous movement in the region.

5 - Be firm with the Taliban. The US and international community’s soft policies against Taliban has led to strengthening fundamentalism in the region, and especially in Pakistan, and will continue to do so. The possibility of terrorists’ access to nuclear armament does not seem far away anymore.

6 - The bureaucratic system in the country is still run in the communist style and is inflated. It needs to be reduced, and there needs to be a move towards more regulation and transparency.

7 - The economic system should shift from the uncontrolled free market economy. Formation of monitoring governmental bodies can prevent waste of national resources. A mixed economy system is the best option and economic model for a country that does not have anything. In the current situation, the government and ministries have given over their responsibility to private sector that has weakened public services’ ability to serve the poor.

8 - Any big aid package to Afghanistan’s government should be conditioned on lack of corruption. Corruption is one of the biggest reasons for discontent among Afghanistan’s population. Request transparency and just and equal distribution of aid. The unjust distribution of international aid has led to estrangement of different groups of Afghanistan’s population from government and the international community. This critical issue, if not remedied, could, in the long term, further encourage people of these regions to support armed opposition of government.

Mr. President, we have hope that you will not let humanity be disregarded in Afghanistan.

In Solidarity and Cooperation,
Afghanistan’s Students’ Movement - The overseas office

13.02.2009
Shaharzad Akbar
BA student (senior year)
Anthropology and Development
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusett
Email: shaharzadakbar[at]yahoo.com

Sayed Asef Hossaini
MA Student
Erfurt School of Public Policy
Germany
Email: s_asefhosaini[at]yahoo.com

February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

slideshowHey, America, I’m back! And I’m pleased to be here.” That’s what I wanted to shout when I arrived at Cincinnati airport on Thursday afternoon. Even the blast of icy air that hit me on disembarking the plane wasn’t going to dim my spirits and stop this next chapter in my Obama journey.

The officials at the airport had other ideas though. First was the frustration of having to fill out a paper immigration form, despite having filled out the exact same thing online before I left London. The new system just introduced is not yet fully in operation, at least not in Cincinnati. But that was minor compared to the succession of checks, questions, x-rays, searches and queues that I and my bags were then subjected to. And not all of them were conducted in an entirely friendly manner. I picked my suitcase up from the carousel only for it to be x-rayed, searched and then deposited on a conveyer belt to be transported to a different part of the airport for me to pick up all over again. The lack of signage only added to my confusion.

So it was with great relief that I saw the friendly faces of Randy and Jodi waiting for me. Last time I had seen them was on the evening before election day, hope mixed with nervous tension and the adrenaline of gearing up for one final big get-out-the-vote push.

Then the weather had been unseasonably warm. Now it was unusually cold. -12C when I landed and quickly plunging to -19C as night fell. I’ve never experienced a cold like that; which penetrates clothing within seconds. It was so cold that schools across the area were closed on Friday. On the flip side I was introduced to the great American tradition of making ’snow angels’ in the yard.

“Madame Clinton is a good friend of Afghanistan, a close friend of ours,” Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said. “But if somebody believes that our government, the government of President (Hamid) Karzai is involved as a government entity in the production of drugs, this is absolutely wrong.”

Clinton also descibed the Afghan government as highly “corrupt,” which did not charm her Afghan counterpart either.

The real problem, Spanta told the Associated Press, is that the Afghan government is not in control of Helmand province. This province is one of the most violent of the country. The Taliban are still strong in Helmand where they encourage farmers to produce opium. Part of the opium money is used by the Taliban to buy weapons and influence.

“The main production center of drugs is Helmand, and we are not in charge. Helmand (is) not under control of my government,” Spanta said. “If the international community is serious about fighting drug production and drug trafficking, they have to bring Helmand under our control.”

He added that Kabul only controls the province’s capital and some “islands” of territory around the rest of the region.

There are two sides to Clinton’s remarks; firstly, Afghanistan is a narco-state because the far majority of the world’s opium is produced in this war-torn country. Secondly, the other side of the story is that the Afghan government is no promoting opium production. It has in the past been willing to destroy opium farms but it simply lacks the strength and means to a sizeable part of the country’s opium farms.

Clinton and Spanta should both also keep in mind that opium is the only product farmers in Afghanistan can grow and make a profit. The country is nearly unfriendly to human life. Farmers are not growing poppy because they want to but because they have no alternative.

Rather than destroying these farms and taking their livelihood away from Afghan farmers, Kabul and Washington have to use Afghanistan’s opium for medical purposes. World opium and medicine organizations and businesses have long complained that they cannot get their hands on enough opium for medicinal purposes. Using Afghanistan’s opium for these purposes would help the world and Afghanistan itself.

Lastly, although Afghanistan is the world’s number one opium producing country, Clinton should express herself more carefully. She is no longer campaigning; she will be America’s secretary of state, which means that she will have to improve the country’s relationship with enemies and friends. Insulting them is not helpful.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

"I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word," Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

"If Obama as president of the United States does not obey the orders of the empire, they will kill him, like they killed Kennedy, like they killed Martin Luther King, or Lincoln, who freed the blacks and paid with his life."

If you remember, Chavez said in a speech at the UN in 2006 that Bush smelled like sulfur.

Post extendido - Leer más 'Chavez Says Obama Smells like Bush'...

I was interviewed by CBS’s London bureau (ooh, don’t you just love that? “London bureau”) last week, over a coffee in Soho. It was apparently for their Sunday morning show called, erm, Sunday Morning - and, well, I guess it just never really hit me that that’s a Proper Television Show. You know, like, beamed into people’s homes across America, and everything.

Anyway, turns out that it is - and I was just on it, part of a segment on how people around the world are feeling about Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Apparently.

Because I didn’t see it.

Partly because, as I say, it hadn’t really occurred to me that it would actually be on TV; and partly because I was too excited about the possibility of seeing both Chris Matthews and Meet The Press on a Real Actual Television that K and I have been sitting here watching MSNBC, not CBS, this morning.

Here’s the show’s main page on the CBS website; and here’s a link to this Sunday’s show, where presumably there will be a video of it posted at some point. I and my wonky British teeth will be in the ‘World Is Watching’ segment. *Gulp*.

*Update* Here’s a link to a piece about that segment. I am “Briton Andrea Mann”!

Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had “a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking” the group to Hamas and other radical groups.

There’s a twist, of course.  Mattson and her group have worked with the Bush administration, providing religious training to the FBI.  Wait a second.  Does this mean the Bush administration is responsible for aiding and abetting terrorists?

Despite the sensationalistic headline that I’m only helping to propogate, Haaretz notes that Mattson and her group, The Islamic Society of North America, have not actually charged with anything.  And from what it seems, Mattson been rather known throughout the community in actually denouncing terrorism.  The case is a complicated one:

All this was going on while officials in the law enforcement and intelligence community apparently had evidence that the Islamic Society of North America had ties to terrorists and to the Holy Land Foundation. That foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted at a retrial in November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.

Mark Pelavin, director of inter-religious affairs for the Union for Reform Judaism, another organization participating in the prayer service, called Mattson “a really important voice denouncing terrorism.”

“Clearly, Dr. Mattson has been welcome throughout the government,” he said. “I haven’t found anyone anywhere who’s found anything Dr. Mattson has said that’s anything other than clearly denouncing terrorism in quite explicit Islamic terms.”

The government may not even have a case at all:

According to e-mails filed in the court case, one of the prosecutors seemed willing to ask the judge to remove the group from the list.

Or if they do have a case, maybe they just don’t want nasty questions as to why they didn’t better vette the group first before working with them.  Take your pick.

Still, an investigation is just an investigation, so Obama probably doesn’t have much to worry about for Wednesday.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

…

The United States, Israel’s main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.

"I said ‘get me President Bush on the phone’. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now’. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

Now, this would be shocking in any other context. But, with the United States Congress offering unconditional support to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Ehud Olmert’s statements should not surprise anyone.

This is why the rest of the world does not consider the United States an "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. That executive order is expected during Obama’s first week on the job - and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers.”

Here was Olbermann’s take on this - and Obama’s ‘looking forward’ policy - last night, with great commentary from constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley:

…We are going to have to take a new approach. And I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran.

And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves…

…Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.

This is a blessing and a relief to so many Americans who voted for a decisive break with Bush’s disastrous policies of bellicosity and threats.

On a related matter, the AP has reported that Dennis Ross is likely to be named the special Mideast envoy possibly supervising Iran and Israel-Palestine matters.  There are many in the progressive community who are concerned with this development because Ross comes directly out of the Aipac environment.  During and after Camp David in the Clinton administration he placed full blame for its failure at Arafat’s feet and refused to blame either Clinton or Barak as other witnesses to the events did.

While I share concerns about Ross, I’m trying not to let them exercise me for two reasons: first the statement above.  Obama has given a clear view of his agenda and it will Ross’ job to implement his boss’ views.  It will NOT be Ross’ job to implement his own views.  Second, I heard Rob Malley interviewed on Friday on To the Point and he said that Ross’ appointment didn’t concern him because he didn’t see Ross as a freelancer, but as a team player.  I trust Rob Malley’s instincts on these matters.

So while I have no great love for Ross, as long as he pursues Obama’s policy of engagement and negotiation over saber-rattling, I have no problem with him.

The big disappointment in the interview concerns Gaza.  Obama insists on keeping his eyes on the prize, which is an overall settlement of the conflict.  All that’s to the good.  The only problem is that the Gaza disaster could wreck any chances of getting to a comprehensive agreement in the near to medium-term due to the bitterness not only of Palestinians, but of all Muslims and Arabs. Here’s how he addressed the subject beginning with a defense of Israel’s attack:

I think a basic principle of any country is that they’ve got to protect their citizens. And so what I’ve said is that given the delicacy of the situation, the one area where the principle of one president at a time has to hold is when it comes to foreign policy.

We cannot have two administrations at the same time simultaneously sending signals in a volatile situation. But what I am doing right now is putting together the team so that on January 20th, starting on day one, we have the best possible people who are going to be immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process as a whole.

That are going to be engaging with all of the actors there. That will work to create a strategic approach that ensures that both Israelis and Palestinians can meet their aspirations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, in much of the Arab world, your silence…has been interpreted as callousness. And we also had a viewer question on this, Marin Guerrero of Riverside, California, asks you: “Why is Obama remaining silent on the Gaza crisis when so many innocent people are being killed?”

OBAMA: Well, look, I have said — and I think I said this a couple of days back, that when you see civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli, harmed, under hardship, it’s heartbreaking. And obviously what that does is it makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But more broadly, will your policy in the Middle East, will it be building on the Bush policy or a clean break?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach.

And I think that players in the region understand the compromises that are going to need to be made. But the politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence, wants to see a fair and just outcome.

And I think that an Obama administration, if we do it right, can provide that…

So the best that Obama’s willing to give us is that the Israeli-Arab conflict will be a high priority from day one. But he refuses to tip his hand as to what even his most general philosophical outlook will be.  Personally, I think he’s rolling craps on this.  If his gamble pays off he can ride out the Gaza attack and get into the bigger picture of solving the Israel’s major conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.  But if the gamble fails and the well is poisoned in the Arab world for months or more to come because of the heinousness and barbarity of Israel’s actions, then he won’t look so smart.

I think he’s missing an opportunity.  A statement that reflects sympathy for both parties while calling on Israel to ratchet down the violence and embrace an immediate ceasefire might also be a gamble.  But isn’t a gamble worthwhile when 900 Gazans have already died and the Arab world is clamoring for Israeli and U.S. blood?

Well, the place has gone downhill ever since Kids In The Hall ended.

But wait! What’s this? There’s a good reason for it?

“[His trip will restore] a long-standing tradition abandoned eight years ago by George W. Bush…

New U.S. presidents, dating to Warren Harding in 1923 and Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933, have typically made Canada their first international visit following their election. But Bush deviated from that historical pattern after his inauguration in 2001, travelling to Mexico to meet with then-president Vicente Fox in a bid to improve ties and strike an immigration deal with America’s southern neighbour.”

So there you go. Incidentally, President Obama will be in Britain on April 2nd, for the G20 summit. Ooh! <Claps hands excitedly. Adjusts hair, looks in mirror>.