AFGHANISTAN IS NOT LIBYA

 (Image from the Huffington Post)

Rick Perry's screw up during the Republican presidential debate last week was bad. In case you forgot, Perry announced that he would do away with three government departments and then promptly forgot the third one (the department of energy).

As covered in Daily Maverick's First Thing:
"It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone – commerce, education and the um, what’s the third one there? Let’s see. Oh five – commerce, education and the um, um” It wasn’t five. It was three. Ron Paul suggested the environmental protection agency, which Perry agreed to, and then backtracked on it and fumbled around again. We discovered later that he meant the department of energy.

It was cringeworthy. We all laughed.

His mistake, though, is very different from Sunday's somewhat bizarre Herman Cain answer on Libya, while being interviewed by the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Start watching about 40 seconds in.

While Perry actually does know the name of the department of energy, Herman Cain's answer to this somewhat gentle question about a very recent high-profile issue was pathetic. Especially for someone who is looking to become commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful army showed a severe lack of understanding. In fact, Cain had no idea what he was talking about. Initially I was prepared to accept his reasoning that he would have tried to understand the opposition to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (whom he did not mention by name) more thoroughly until I realised he gave precisely the same answer relating to Afghanistan in an earlier Republican presidential debate.

In an answer to one question, Cain showed he didn't know what the US approach to Libya was, nor was he able to answer a foreign policy question differently to when he was last asked about US-involved conflict in an Arab nation. Quite simply, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT LIBYA.

This is different to people saying North Korea when they mean South Korea, which is a mere slip of the tongue, and far closer to people who think that Saddam Hussein flew planes into the World Trade Centre which is an unfounded claim.

While I still think Rick Perry would make a terrible candidate for president, his gaffe is nowhere near as significant as Herman Cain's.

Iraq-troops-withdrawal-gate

On Friday President Barack Obama announced that all US troops in Iraq would be withdrawn by the end of the year. As the Americans like to say, "home for the holidays". The end of 2011 was an "aspirational" deadline set by the Bush administration (which, if you remember, started the nonsensical war while hunting for non-existent weapons of mass destruction) in 2008 - Obama only took office at the beginning of 2009.

Obama has been accused once every 13 seconds (according to stats I projected from people whining on the plethora of news channels in the US) of this being a political decision rather than one which is militarily justified. Basically, Obama is ending the war to increase his popularity rather than because it is a justified decision. You know, because there is an election coming up.

Well, "analysts" are forgetting that there is actually quite a lot of time before the next election. It is only in November next year - that's over a year since Obama made the withdrawal announcement (which was 21 October 2011). These experts who are screaming that it is only in Obama's interest, and not in the national interest are missing a fairly sizeable point.

Firstly, it is worth remembering that the Obama has far more access to information and background than any mainstream and a lot of localised media. Basically, his decision is based on far more facts to which anyone sitting outside Baghdad, and many sitting within it, has access. While the senior commander in charge of the mission, General Lloyd J. Austin III (a rather large dissenter of the withdrawal),  would also have access to large amounts of information as well, by virtue of leading a mission, there is a bucket-load of diplomatic data which he, most likely, has not seen.

There would be huge risks in withdrawing troops to boost his poll ratings if the situation in Iraq goes tits-up. If the rate of violence in Baghdad begins to spike again (recent events have gone against more medium-term gains in stemming violence) or if US national security (which is what they call foreign policy a lot of the time here) is compromised in any way. In fact, if troops are withdrawn from one of the countries in which the US is responsible for security, and then something happens on US soil, Obama is finished. The US takes national security incredibly seriously - as would a nation who has faced attacks like 9-11 and chats about domestic safety with BFF Israel. If Obama makes a decision which weakens the US' defence of its borders, he will be collecting unemployment from November next year. No question.

And I highly doubt the president is only thinking up to this year's holidays. It is unlikely that anyone in Obama's administration, and yes, that includes defence secretary Leon Panetta, would allow the president to do so, in spite of Panetta's recommendation to maintain 3,000-4,000 troops in Iraq. Governments around the world think further than two months - everyone older than five years thinks further than two months. While I can't conclusively prove to you that Obama is thinking past Christmas, he is surrounded by seasoned politicians - think Joe Biden, Panetta and Hillary Clinton - who would mop up any basic mistakes like that. 

The other aspect of this whole deal that Obama is taking in the neck deals with the fact that the president was happy to allow a few thousand troops to remain but decided not to because the Iraqi government would not give them immunity. The Bachmanns and other political figures have claimed that Obama couldn't get them immunity because he was "not committed". I'd love to see them argue for keeping the armed forces, probably the most respected grouping of people in the US after the National Rifle Association, without diplomatic and legal protection. In this sense, if anyone is trying to score political points, it is those public figures lashing Obama's decision.

Dilma Rousseff’s anti-corruption struggles

The president of Brazil is having struggles; her cabinet members are dropping like flies as her anti-corruption drive is being manipulated by politicians pushing their own means. 

 Brazil president DIlma Rousseff. Image: http://nearshoreamericas.com

Anti-corruption drives are supposed to be a thing of beauty. But putting corruption above all else might not be the best way to run a state, and this is quite beautifully displayed by the political recession in which President Rousseff finds herself. Brazil’s wiliest, and, to be honest, some of its average, leaders have often used the media to one-up each other, but its complicated system of coalition governance (the current government majority in parliament is made up of ten parties, and the opposition, six) sports so many fingers in the pie that it is often quite hard to work out whose knife-handle happens to stick out of any particular back.

Rousseff happens to have made two honourable calls since taking the reins of the world’s seventh largest economy. The first being to weed out corruption (a huge problem – Transparency International’s corruption index places Brazil in 69^th position – South Africa is 54^th), and the second to slash $30 million from the state’s expenditure for the year in preparation for a turn in the roaring Brazilian economy’s fortunes. Most of these cuts came from discretionary spending enjoyed by politicians, including niche “pet” projects. This has caused severe strife amongst some leaders, and the procession of cabinet ministers leaving the side of Rousseff because of accusations, proven or otherwise, that have forced them out. The most recent under fire is Orlando Silva, the sports minister, accused of siphoning off funds from a ministry programme intended to bring recreational facilities in poor areas.

Brazil has lost four cabinet ministers during Rousseff’s seven-month presidency, and on Monday the procession began to excise a fifth. When Rousseff began her anti-corruption drive in July, she focussed it on the ministries of transport and tourism – both headed up by officials from outside the Workers Party (of which Rousseff is top member). The growing middle-class of Brazil, much like in South Africa, has far more of an issue with corruption than the poor who care more for things like housing and poverty alleviation schemes. Think Maslow. In fact, under Rousseff’s predecessor, the highly popular Lula da Silva, 36 million people moved into the lowest rung of the middle class (earning between $1,000 and $3,900 per month). Out of an electorate of 135 million, that’s a hefty number of votes. Rousseff therefore took a political opportunity, very publicly clamping down on corruption before the centre-right opposition, who are supposed to cater for middle-class concerns, did (simply, it’s like the ANC getting to a solution to Rondebosch and Randburg voters before Helen Zille wakes up). What looked like a smart political move has gone completely tits-up though, and threatens to spiral out of control. In fact, it looks nowadays as though the president isn’t even running it.

The Brazilian media, most notably the influential weekly, Veja, has whipped up allegations from a surging wave of anonymous sources who claim to be whistleblowers, which Rousseff now has to treat seriously as the drive is her own initiative – in spite of a heft portion of them having as much proof as the Yeti’s recipe for Loch Ness Monster soup.

Aside from the four members who have already left cabinet, Rousseff is due to lose a fifth, has seen 30 transport officials go, and 38 warrants of arrest have been issued for tourism ministry staff.  It’s probably also worth pointing out that her initiative has only initially examined two ministries. The Brazilian cabinet has 37. While the tourism chief has somehow kept his job, chief of staff, Antonio Palocci (who also served under Lula) resigned under a corruption cloud, the defence minister left after he told everyone he voted for the opposition, the transport minister, Alfredo Nascimento, also gave in, as did the agriculture minister, Wagner Rossi. In fact, both Nascimento and Rossi claim there is no truth to the allegations against them, but have walked anyway. Cities minister, Mario Negromonte has the same, oddly familiar noises. This last weekend has been ugly for her too: Glesi Hoffmann, who replaced Palocci as cabinet chief, has been accused of claiming unemployment benefits when she left the board of a giant power company to run for a senate seat.

The media’s willingness to air alleged/suspected/reported dirty laundry of just about anyone in cabinet has meant that political scores are being settled in the media. Allegation after allegation has been scribed and will now be processed, and obsessed over, and more people will fall. More pressure is weighing on Rousseff’s shoulders as five of the six cabinet minsters have been from other parties in her coalition – only Palocci came from the Workers Party. Whether their departures are justified or not, it is putting pressure on her governing alliance. In fact, when Nascimento was replaced by Paulo Sergio Passos (both from the Party of the Republic) as head of the transport portfolio, and intra-alliance spat ensued as members weren’t consulted in a fashion they thought appropriate. They are no longer part of the coalition although the effect of them leaving is negligible; they are a minor player.

The relationship Rousseff needs to look after is the one with the Brazil Democratic Movement Party – her vice-president, Michel Temer is the leader of the party, the second largest in Brazil. (Incidentally one of last momth’s smuttier news stories is that Temer’s sister-in-law earned the right to appear on the cover of Playboy Brazil). So don’t be surprised if the new agriculture minister gets an easy time of it, along with other PMDB-run ministries: Mines and Energy, Social Security and the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs (which oversees things like nuclear, space programmes, national intelligence). But naturally, dirt on anyone that could begin to affect the ruling alliance would be wonderful for the centre-right opposition.

Rousseff, in response to this crisis which is threatening to derail her presidency has offered meek responses so far, claiming that the “PT (Workers party) and the PMDB (Brazilian Democratic Movement) are the basis of the stability and trust of the government” while also maintaining she is not trying to force people out of cabinet. It’s not quite enough when senior politicians are falling like dominoes.  

Dilma Rousseff’s near future is going to be damn hard, and she would do well avoid making Brazil’s actual issues contest for attention.