However, reaction has been mixed, and the overall end goal of the operations remains unclear. Not surprisingly, US proponents of the use of force as a foreign policy strategy (such as Senator John McCain), complain that the passing of resolution 1973 is too little too late and that it would have been more useful back when the rebels controlled a larger part of the country. Likewise, Republican senator Lindsey Graham commented, “I don’t know what finally got the president to act, but I’m very worried that we’re taking the back seat rather than a leadership role.”

At the same time, war critics have spoken out against any military involvement in Libya. long-time critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Michael Moore expressed disappointment over the decision and poked fun at Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. And the New York Times pointed to the realities of the United States’ current overseas commitments: “The airstrikes against the Libyan government crystallized the complexities and risks of addressing the multifaceted uprisings in the Arab world and could leave the administration stretched thin as its heads toward a budget showdown with Republicans in Congress and a decision by summer about how quickly to reduce the American military presence in Afghanistan.”

Without dwelling on the retrospective (whether or not we should have authorized military force against Qaddafi in the first place), we need to solidify our objectives going forward and determine what end results would qualify as “success.” In a separate article, the New York Times lays out the problem as: “Is it merely to protect the Libyan population from the government, or is it intended to fulfill President Obama’s objective declared two weeks ago that Colonel Qaddafi ‘must leave’?” If Qaddafi cannot be dislodged with airpower alone, will the allied powers be willing to commit ground forces?

The bombing campaign against Qaddafi, appears to be drawing criticism from regional actors such as the Arab League, and I can’t help but wonder if we’re now sliding that slippery slope toward using force against other unsatisfactory leaders in the region.

American isolationism sprung from a reluctance to become entangled in European alliances and wars and dates back to the colonial period where many colonists [yes, immigrants] viewed the US as a sanctuary from religious persecution and poverty. However, the last strong bout of US isolationism came in the wake of WWI — so much so that the US refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations. Isolationist policy kept the US out of WWII until it was brought to us in the form of Pearl Harbor.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that immigration makes a country stronger (just look at the problems that Japan is currently facing with its aging population due to low birth rates and strict immigration policy) and isolationism makes more enemies than friends — The most isolationist countries today such as North Korea and Burma aren’t wining very many points on the popularity charts.

(1) Some Republicans in the House have claimed that programs such as Pell grants shouldn’t be part of the stimulus package because it’s unclear how such spending would immediately help our economy. My response to this argument is that as families fall on hard times, it’ll become more and more difficult for students to pay for tuition (or even get side jobs while they study). Without federal support, there’s a good chance that some of these students will end up dropping out of school and joining the ranks of the unemployed (7.2% in Dec 2008).

• Young people receiving unemployment compensation instead of attending college would further strain state governments in a time when some state, such as California, are in deep financial trouble.
• Regardless of whether continuing/increasing federal scholarships for higher education will have an immediate, direct effect on the US economy, it’s in the best interest of our nation for students to continue their schooling instead of being forced into the lousy job market.

(2) Another sore spot for some legislators in the House package is money to re-seed the National Mall. Perhaps I’m biased (being a former DC resident), but I’ve seen the Mall post-inauguration, and it’s essentially a frozen dust bowl — bereft of grass and looking pretty bad.

• On the one hand I’ll make the argument that redoing the lawn will be done with US labor using US supplies and that it’s essentially shovel-ready once the ground thaws in the spring.
• On the other hand I’ll also argue that regardless of whether re-doing grass or building a new road is more useful in the long run (no, that’s not a trick question; in most cases the answer here’s the road), the National Mall is part of our public face to the rest of the world.

In the same vein as how the NYCPD’s crack down on petty crime such as window-breaking and graffiti arguably helped decrease violent crime too, if our National Mall looks like a dump when visitors from overseas come to DC, isn’t it the same as just putting up a huge screen and broadcasting our economic weakness to the world? Of course, we shouldn’t seek to disguise the problems in our credit markets or mis-portray the value of of currency — global markets are build on trust, and deliberate lying won’t get us anywhere. But just as a taxi driver with peeling paint and no hubcaps might find it more difficult to pick up passengers, it’s my personal opinion that the US would find it harder to maintain its image as a global superpower if it can’t even keep up its national lawn.

After the Clinton years when people such as Richard Armitage (US Deputy Secretary of State from 2001-05) and Michael Green (Senior Director for Asian affairs at the NSC from 2004-05) came to power in Washington the concern of “Japan passing” receded from the minds of many Japanese politicians. The nomination of Obama and the return of the Democrats to power has rekindled the idea that America may again tilt more toward China. (Random Obama fact: He likes bulgogi and kimchi).

Interestingly, the fear in Japan of being passed (or ignored) doesn’t only apply to relations with the United States. In addition to the ongoing Australia-Japan disputes over whaling, current prime minister of Australia Kevin Rudd’s “widely celebrated Sinophile credentials” have also contributed to concerns that Australia will lean more toward China at the expense of relations with Japan.

So are Japan’s concerns about being “passed” (by the United States, Australia, or other bodies such as the UNSC) unfounded or warranted? Even if many of Obama’s advisers indeed turn out to be from the Clinton era, I think it’s unrealistic that Japan will cease to be an important US ally in Asia.

And to continue my rant against Alaska, I can’t believe that it looks like Ted Stevens will be re-elected. What a world.

So let me begin on the second part of my rant tonight. Alaska. I’ll admit that I didn’t know much about our northernmost state before the start of this election — just assumed that it was a cold yet beautiful, sparsely-populated yet geographically huge state.

I’m not that fond of winter, but I was definitely happy to continue in my naive bliss and assume that Alaskans felt as though they were part of the US despite their detached location. Now I have my doubts.

NPR tonight quoted one Alaskan woman who in response to the Ted Stevens conviction said, “Twelve outsiders trying to pass judgment on our United States senator? I won’t have any part of it,” she said. “That’s like in the days pre-statehood, when outsiders used to pass judgment on us.” Yes, I know this is hardly a significant sample size, but I found her comment utterly shocking. (1) She’s undermining the very basis of our judicial system — the jury system. (2) She’s saying that mainland USA is so completely different from Alaska that it’s impossible for people there to “pass judgment” on a legislator from Alaska (who has, by the way, probably spent more of his life in DC than Alaska). (3) Alaska became a state in 1959… I don’t think many people viewed the trial as a fight against Alaska or its sovereignty. This is about political corruption, not membership to the union.

• Foreign Policy/Gallup: Electoral Map of the World
• Economist: Global Electoral College
• CNN: How global viewers saw the McCain-Obama battle
• BBC: All countries in BBC poll prefer Obama to McCain

And personally, I’m a little tired of hearing about Alaska and its energy reserves. Because to compare Alaska’s reserves with those of Saudi Arabia is just ridiculous.

Second, are US voters so lazy or ill-informed that they’re willing to swallow campaign propaganda hook, line, and sinker? The internet makes fact-checking so easy these days — meaning that chances are, someone else has already done the work for you, and their results are posted somewhere online. But I suppose that charisma still counts for something as well, and people tend to be swayed more by emotionally-charged words than cold, hard facts. More’s the pity for the future of our country.

Third, party platforms and personal policies aside, I think what worries me the most about politics these days is the willingness of some campaigns to resort to fear tactics in order to increase their voter support. People can point fingers at each other and debate endlessly about who’s more “patriotic,” but personally, I can hardly think of anything less patriotic than undermining the very basis for our democratic system. We should vote because we support one ticket over the other, not because we’ve been cornered there out of fear.

In the midst of our current financial situation, my mind keeps returning to FDR who took office in the shadow of the Great Depression and whose New Deal reforms (though still controversial) brought the US back from the brink of fiscal ruin. In his now famous 1932 inaugural address, FDR reassured the American people that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” In his 1941 State of the Union FDR also the “four essential human freedoms,” which included “freedom from fear.”

Don’t we have a responsibility, as citizens of a democracy, to hold our leaders accountable to such democratic ideals? We should not put up with emotional statements that brandish the threat of “terrorism” to scare voters. And as voters we should be sophisticated enough to see through such statements.

An hour after the fact, mass media is all over the spectrum — let me point out first that I think it’s rather absurd say one or the other candidate “won” the debate. After all, it’s not a first-past-the-post kind of thing. The goal is to garner support for one’s ticket, and we won’t know who did the best at that until November. Overall, I think Biden walked out looking more intelligent, while Palin was the most animated and “normal.” Of course, that depends on how you define “normal.”

I could go on about foreign policy (which means a lot more to me than special education or even domestic drilling), but this commentary on Fox News’s online forum really resonates with me:

Gov. Palin was clearly prepared by sticking to her script and not answering direct questions. It will make her and Senator McCain’s base happy but I think that it will not move the middle. Most Americans are wise to avoiding answers. Senator Biden was smart, cool, very human and direct. Call me an elitist but her use of folksy English drove me crazy. I think a potential Vice President should be a model with their speech.

I’m not sure I’d agree with the commentator’s description of Biden as “very human,” but I do think that Palin’s “down-home” way of speaking would really start to get to me after awhile. On the other hand, when was the last time I heard Cheney speak to the media?

Oh, and NPR said they didn’t get the Obama lama song (their website links to the first one below). I guess their writers aren’t familiar with random YouTube culture. So if anyone from NPR stumbles across this, here’s a crash course in the lama song:

• Lama Song (this is the original song all the parodies are based on)
• Yoda Song
• Harry Potter Song
• Frodo Song
• Sammy Song