The worst and best of 2007

Mr. Montgomery, in regards to your "reflections”:

1. Russia continued its march towards becoming a traditional 19th century authoritarian power, devoid of ideology other than a determination to once again be "great."

Whether any of us like it or not, and whether any of us have any plan for dealing with it or not, the truth of the matter is that Russian power has returned and it is here for the foreseeable future. You and your Cold War-era talking heads can spend all the time you want attaching labels to Putin: Czar, dictator, autocrat, oil baron, neo-Stalin, whatever. But rather than wasting time stroking your own supposedly moralistic egos, try to realize that Putin is more popular in his country than Bush ever will be, and probably more than whoever wins the 2008 election. Also, please tell me how you can consider calling Russia "devoid of ideology" when our own mismanaged policies in the Middle East went from findings WMDs, to spreading democracy, to now the more humbled "stabilizing Iraq". Please tell me why I shouldn't listen to the rest of the planet when they say we are the new empire, gobbling up land and forcing the hand of other regimes.

2. Pakistan slid towards anarchy.

And we didn't do a damn thing about it. We're more interested in propping up Musharraf's highly unpopular government than supporting true democracy because Musharraf is a US ally, and also because Pakistan has nukes. If one is forced to choose, a pro-American regime is more important than a democratic one. Something also tells me that if the ISI is implicated in Bhutto’s assassination, we will continue to support Musharraf. Cold War politics at its best.

3. Stability in the Balkans has decreased.

Thanks in major part to our behind the scenes efforts at basically promising Pristina everything they wanted regardless of talks or negotiations. When you already promise one side their demands, the Troika, became little more than a sideshow at a carnival. Stating you would recognize a UDI, is the biggest instigator of stability decreasing in the Balkans. But I'm sure you're more than willing to follow the policies of your master Holbrook and blame it on the Russians and Serbs. You say "the outlook for stability in Bosnia, Serbia proper, Macedonia, and Kosovo is very bleak", yet you offer no suggestions on what can be done to remedy such situations. Historically, the Balkans was fought over between the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians. Today, Washington has replaced Vienna. Are you content to let an entire region fester simply for Washington gaining an allegedly strategic foothold in the Balkans? If so, who's the 19th century authoritarian power now?

4. The "surge" in Iraq has confounded skeptics (including myself) and significantly reduced violence there.

This "surge" would not have been necessary if the idiots in the White House, State Department, and Pentagon, actually listened to their generals in the first place and provided the needed manpower and supplies to pacify the country. Nearly 5 years, 3000+ deaths, tens of thousands of wounded, and nearly a trillion dollars in fruitless funding this disastrous war, we are now seeking Pyrrhic victories that don't so much bring stability to Iraq but just minimize the mess we created a month earlier. The image of the United States military has been severely tarnished due to our mismanaged actions in Iraq and shown me that we are not up for the task of any serious nation-building. If we can't do this in Iraq, a country that actually important to the Bush Administration, what makes anyone think we have a clue the Balkans?

Whether your writings are your opinions alone, or more generally a realistic assessment of just what IS in the present world, you cannot avoid considering that as one of the most powerful, richest, and most influential countries in the world, global issues and crises have been largely shaped and influenced by US actions. To note these developments with a sense of collective responsibility and personal reflection is one thing. To wag your finger and bemoan the intractability of large portions of the world because they won't march to the tune of the American Pied Piper only reinforces the unfortunate reality that the United States has been one of the greatest contributors to your "best and worst" of 2007 and will most likely contribute to the most noteworthy screw-ups of 2008.

Dear Ambassador, I want to react to a few of your points:

Six negative developments

1. Russia had become thoroughly destabilised (mostly by US policies) in the early 1990s. Putin is the natural reaction to that. And he did restore order.

But that doesn't mean I am a fan of him. He could do much more for his country: building roads, preparing the infrastructure so that Russia can become a major agricultural exporter again, establishing free trade zone's, etc. It is a pity that Putin doesn't seem to understand economics.

2. Pakistan: and what about Afghanistan? It seems to go the wrong way too.

3. Stability in the Balkans has decreased: in my opinion this is the clear result of a US policy that stays focussed on helping "friends" and damaging "fiends" instead of looking for compromises that bring the best for all.

5. The United Nations once again has had its credibility and even legitimacy diminished: I doubt it. The failure of US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have rather discredited those "coalitions of the willing".


Eight positive developments

4. The "surge" in Iraq has confounded skeptics: the surge was part of a complex of new policies that included a new commander. I think the cooperation with Sunnite leaders in restoring security in the Sunnite areas contributed most to the success of those policies.

The question is whether the US will maintain this policy. It might very well happen that the next commander succumbs to the pressure of Iraq's government and resumes the anti-Sunnite policies.

5. The election of French President Sarkozy has brought new vigor to France: I see a lot of smoke and mirrors and servility towards Bush. He hasn't convinced me yet.

6. Carla del Ponte finally is departing the ICTY: Wow, a critical view of the ICTY! Can you write your next blog about that?

7. After years of backsliding, the European Union seems to have gotten its act together with regard to the Western Balkans: if I just could see it...

8. The EU ... tightening up the requirements on countries outside of the zone: I have advocated in my blog (http://nation-building.blogspot.com/2006/02/last-25-million-eu-should-find-better.html) to treat the Western Balkans as a whole. Maybe you can give your vision on that.

With his most recent columns, it sounds like Mr. Montogomery is making a push for John Bolton's old job at the UN with George Bush II is still President.

Another fine example of US diplomacy and respect for international law, norms and standards.

Mr Montgomery,

An interesting look-back/forward... So a little feedback if I may.

1. Russia's rise (and Putin's personal ascendence) seems to be a direct consequence of Bush's failed foreign policy initiatives; the Whitehouse has provided him with the platform, a ready audiance and the tools (high energy prices). But, of course, Washington doesn't see it like that, does it?

2. Another failure in Pakistan is looming. But - apart from the legions of paid and unpaid Bush/Blair apologists - the disaster in Iraq has long been understood as the start point for instability and violence elsewhere. Surely you managed to reach that conclusion some years back, didn't you?

3. If instability is so inevitable after a UDI in Pristina and a US recognition, why is the US so keen to encourage these actions?

Like Iraq, the consequences of a recognised UDI in Kosovo will reverberate far further afield.

4. Didn't you recently wonder why the US is seen as an unreliable partner?

5. The UN is an unreformed and inefficient 'talking shop' all the time that 5 members of the SC hold veto powers. When they are removed, the UN will have far greater freedom to act as a 'force for good.' As you well know, that will never happen.

6. Globalism comes back to bite the US in ways it never thought possible when it started exporting its 'free trade' model.

Sorry to be so anti-US Mr Montgomery, but if you start scratching below the clever rhetoric, so much of the world's ills seem to stem from the US's determination to play neo-colonialist adventures.

Although I too fear the bear, baring personal scars of the very hot wars created by the Cold War, a tri-polar world (Russia, China and US) of relative equals would serve world stability far better than the US's uni-polar 'might is right' model.

Yours,
Willie Garvin

Montgomery is a typical American, who believes the world should behave according to America's grand vision. Had he bothered to critically evaluate his own country's record recently he might do all of us a favour and show a bit of humility. But that is probably imposssible because like most former US state functionaries they continue to earn income by engaging in propaganda.

“try to realize that Putin is more popular in his country than Bush ever will be, and probably more than whoever wins the 2008 election.”

It’s easy to be popular when you get all the television stations of your country under your command

“try to realize that Putin is more popular in his country than Bush ever will be, and probably more than whoever wins the 2008 election.”

It’s easy to be popular when you get all the television stations of your country under your command

With his most recent columns, it sounds like Mr. Montogomery is making a push for John Bolton's old job at the UN with George Bush II is still President.

Another fine example of US diplomacy and respect for international law, norms and standards.

Mr. Montgomery, in regards to your "reflections”:

1. Russia continued its march towards becoming a traditional 19th century authoritarian power, devoid of ideology other than a determination to once again be "great."

Whether any of us like it or not, and whether any of us have any plan for dealing with it or not, the truth of the matter is that Russian power has returned and it is here for the foreseeable future. You and your Cold War-era talking heads can spend all the time you want attaching labels to Putin: Czar, dictator, autocrat, oil baron, neo-Stalin, whatever. But rather than wasting time stroking your own supposedly moralistic egos, try to realize that Putin is more popular in his country than Bush ever will be, and probably more than whoever wins the 2008 election. Also, please tell me how you can consider calling Russia "devoid of ideology" when our own mismanaged policies in the Middle East went from findings WMDs, to spreading democracy, to now the more humbled "stabilizing Iraq". Please tell me why I shouldn't listen to the rest of the planet when they say we are the new empire, gobbling up land and forcing the hand of other regimes.

2. Pakistan slid towards anarchy.

And we didn't do a damn thing about it. We're more interested in propping up Musharraf's highly unpopular government than supporting true democracy because Musharraf is a US ally, and also because Pakistan has nukes. If one is forced to choose, a pro-American regime is more important than a democratic one. Something also tells me that if the ISI is implicated in Bhutto’s assassination, we will continue to support Musharraf. Cold War politics at its best.

3. Stability in the Balkans has decreased.

Thanks in major part to our behind the scenes efforts at basically promising Pristina everything they wanted regardless of talks or negotiations. When you already promise one side their demands, the Troika, became little more than a sideshow at a carnival. Stating you would recognize a UDI, is the biggest instigator of stability decreasing in the Balkans. But I'm sure you're more than willing to follow the policies of your master Holbrook and blame it on the Russians and Serbs. You say "the outlook for stability in Bosnia, Serbia proper, Macedonia, and Kosovo is very bleak", yet you offer no suggestions on what can be done to remedy such situations. Historically, the Balkans was fought over between the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians. Today, Washington has replaced Vienna. Are you content to let an entire region fester simply for Washington gaining an allegedly strategic foothold in the Balkans? If so, who's the 19th century authoritarian power now?

4. The "surge" in Iraq has confounded skeptics (including myself) and significantly reduced violence there.

This "surge" would not have been necessary if the idiots in the White House, State Department, and Pentagon, actually listened to their generals in the first place and provided the needed manpower and supplies to pacify the country. Nearly 5 years, 3000+ deaths, tens of thousands of wounded, and nearly a trillion dollars in fruitless funding this disastrous war, we are now seeking Pyrrhic victories that don't so much bring stability to Iraq but just minimize the mess we created a month earlier. The image of the United States military has been severely tarnished due to our mismanaged actions in Iraq and shown me that we are not up for the task of any serious nation-building. If we can't do this in Iraq, a country that actually important to the Bush Administration, what makes anyone think we have a clue the Balkans?

Whether your writings are your opinions alone, or more generally a realistic assessment of just what IS in the present world, you cannot avoid considering that as one of the most powerful, richest, and most influential countries in the world, global issues and crises have been largely shaped and influenced by US actions. To note these developments with a sense of collective responsibility and personal reflection is one thing. To wag your finger and bemoan the intractability of large portions of the world because they won't march to the tune of the American Pied Piper only reinforces the unfortunate reality that the United States has been one of the greatest contributors to your "best and worst" of 2007 and will most likely contribute to the most noteworthy screw-ups of 2008.

Dear Ambassador, I want to react to a few of your points:

Six negative developments

1. Russia had become thoroughly destabilised (mostly by US policies) in the early 1990s. Putin is the natural reaction to that. And he did restore order.

But that doesn't mean I am a fan of him. He could do much more for his country: building roads, preparing the infrastructure so that Russia can become a major agricultural exporter again, establishing free trade zone's, etc. It is a pity that Putin doesn't seem to understand economics.

2. Pakistan: and what about Afghanistan? It seems to go the wrong way too.

3. Stability in the Balkans has decreased: in my opinion this is the clear result of a US policy that stays focussed on helping "friends" and damaging "fiends" instead of looking for compromises that bring the best for all.

5. The United Nations once again has had its credibility and even legitimacy diminished: I doubt it. The failure of US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have rather discredited those "coalitions of the willing".


Eight positive developments

4. The "surge" in Iraq has confounded skeptics: the surge was part of a complex of new policies that included a new commander. I think the cooperation with Sunnite leaders in restoring security in the Sunnite areas contributed most to the success of those policies.

The question is whether the US will maintain this policy. It might very well happen that the next commander succumbs to the pressure of Iraq's government and resumes the anti-Sunnite policies.

5. The election of French President Sarkozy has brought new vigor to France: I see a lot of smoke and mirrors and servility towards Bush. He hasn't convinced me yet.

6. Carla del Ponte finally is departing the ICTY: Wow, a critical view of the ICTY! Can you write your next blog about that?

7. After years of backsliding, the European Union seems to have gotten its act together with regard to the Western Balkans: if I just could see it...

8. The EU ... tightening up the requirements on countries outside of the zone: I have advocated in my blog (http://nation-building.blogspot.com/2006/02/last-25-million-eu-should-find-better.html) to treat the Western Balkans as a whole. Maybe you can give your vision on that.

Mr Montgomery,

An interesting look-back/forward... So a little feedback if I may.

1. Russia's rise (and Putin's personal ascendence) seems to be a direct consequence of Bush's failed foreign policy initiatives; the Whitehouse has provided him with the platform, a ready audiance and the tools (high energy prices). But, of course, Washington doesn't see it like that, does it?

2. Another failure in Pakistan is looming. But - apart from the legions of paid and unpaid Bush/Blair apologists - the disaster in Iraq has long been understood as the start point for instability and violence elsewhere. Surely you managed to reach that conclusion some years back, didn't you?

3. If instability is so inevitable after a UDI in Pristina and a US recognition, why is the US so keen to encourage these actions?

Like Iraq, the consequences of a recognised UDI in Kosovo will reverberate far further afield.

4. Didn't you recently wonder why the US is seen as an unreliable partner?

5. The UN is an unreformed and inefficient 'talking shop' all the time that 5 members of the SC hold veto powers. When they are removed, the UN will have far greater freedom to act as a 'force for good.' As you well know, that will never happen.

6. Globalism comes back to bite the US in ways it never thought possible when it started exporting its 'free trade' model.

Sorry to be so anti-US Mr Montgomery, but if you start scratching below the clever rhetoric, so much of the world's ills seem to stem from the US's determination to play neo-colonialist adventures.

Although I too fear the bear, baring personal scars of the very hot wars created by the Cold War, a tri-polar world (Russia, China and US) of relative equals would serve world stability far better than the US's uni-polar 'might is right' model.

Yours,
Willie Garvin

Montgomery is a typical American, who believes the world should behave according to America's grand vision. Had he bothered to critically evaluate his own country's record recently he might do all of us a favour and show a bit of humility. But that is probably imposssible because like most former US state functionaries they continue to earn income by engaging in propaganda.