Pakistan, a country of 165 million people, is composed of six major ethnic groups, one of them the Pashtuns of the northwest. The Pakistani Taliban are largely drawn from this group. The more settled Pashtun population is centered in the North-West Frontier province, with its capital at Peshawar. Between the NWFP and Afghanistan are badlands administered rather as Native American reservations are in the U.S., called the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, with a population of some 3 million. These areas abut Pashtun provinces of Afghanistan, also a multiethnic society, but one in which Pashtuns are a plurality.

[snip]

Nor is it at all clear that sending more U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan can resolve the problem of the resurgence of the Taliban there. American and NATO search-and-destroy missions alienate the local population and fuel, rather than quench, the insurgency. Resentment over U.S. airstrikes on innocent civilians and wedding parties is growing. Brazen attacks on U.S. forward bases and on institutions such as the prison in the southern city of Kandahar are becoming more frequent.

Before he jumps into Afghanistan with both feet, Obama would be well advised to consult with another group of officers. They are the veterans of the Russian campaign in Afghanistan. Russian officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. now have in the country, and with three times the number of Afghan troops as Karzai can deploy.

Secondly, right now, the concern of the voters is very much with down to earth, economic, domestic issues. So a candidate giving some speech in a country across the ocean, talking about bigger world issues, isn't going to be a vote-getter.

That doesn't mean that I believe that we should engage in constant search and destroy missions.  IMO, we should establish a base of protection in the south and rebuild it and then branch forward.

However this mission MUST be multilateral.  We cannot be the only people there and it can't be just strong armed bit players.  

But there were so many things he was sort of trying to say, such as Mr. Gorbachev, tear down all these metaphorical walls that divide humanity. Like Iran, Bangladesh, Chad, Darfur, Zimbabwe (why Berlin to address all of this?)

He also had some global warming snippets in there. And some shameless Kennedy imitating about "bearing any burdens."

I could throw in my usual blah blah about Obama not living up to my expectations, but what's the point? Neither he nor Obama supporters listen to us anyway except to either A) Take us for granted or B) Tell us we don't matter and/or are stupid refuseniks.

The fact that he reminded people more of Reagan than of JFK should cause some pause with some people today, make them ask why he sounds like that? Is it how he said it, or WHAT he said? And if it is WHAT he said, what are some other similarities between Obama and Reagan we should take note of?

I kid you not - heard it on the news in the car.

McCain says it is never inappropriate to visit American wounded.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung out of Munich headlines its coverage stating "He can do it", "it" being the Presidency.  Complements his ability to make it (foreign affairs) look like he's been doing it all his life.

The Leipziger Volks-Zeitung (a left paper) is a bit hard on him, but notes the speech was aimed more at the US audience, anyway.  I think part of their take being the way it is stems from their audience having been on the other side of The Wall when Kennedy and Reagan spoke.  I suspect they would have responded more positively had Obama spoken some about "Civil Courage" and its necessity when addressing injustice (of all flavors).  They're not happy about his stressing Afghanistan.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine (FAZ, rough equivalent to the WSJ) headlines Obama's call for renewing and strengthening the transatlantic relationship, but then leads by noting that the strongest reference in Obama's speech was his reference to the Blockade-era speech by the Berlin Lord-Mayor "look to Berlin".

Actually, I thought that that, and not his reference to the Reagan speech, was the
analytical/philosophical center of the speech.  By saying today, "look to Berlin", one says look at what transition from un-freedom to freedom can do.  Demolish the philosophical walls, etc.  Berlin is a multi-cultural city;  became that way during the Cold War.  He's saying, in part, that where Berlin has gone in its development
is where the rest of the world has to go.  One could just as easily say "look to New York" and, I suspect, the American audience would get it better than they do with the Reagan echoes.  In NYC, everyone comes from everywhere to better
themselves, etc.

I think of all the papers, the FAZ might have gotten closest to the philosophical center of where Obama seems to be going.  

And, then there's Bild.

It was an ok speech, but a stump speech for Americans, not Germans, and the response sounded like there were 2,000, not 200,000.

Not a memorable line at all for future generations.

Of course, the rightwingers in this country are going to feed it like an ammo belt into the propaganda outlets hosted by Limbaugh and Hannity and Ingraham and others. But their brand of go-it-alone exceptionalism is more out-of-favor in this country than it's been in my lifetime. Bush helped to demonstrate how it leads to a nasty dead end. The dittoheads and wingnuts will be outraged, but I think the majority of Americans will be relieved to see a major American political figure well-received in a civil and philosophical address (as opposed to something Yosemite Sam might holler).

Does it give me hope? Does it inspire me? No. It's a nice speech and it sent an important reminder to the world that not all Americans are George W. Bush. But it was too self-conscious to be soaring to me. For example, the "this is the moment" theme has become a canned slogan for Obama and it's a pity he trotted it out for this speech.

To find Obama inspiring, I think you must have to believe the often-repeated comparison of his oratorical skills to RFK's or JFK's or King's. If you don't--if you remember them as speakers who were more movingly sincere and substantial--then you begin to resent Obama as you resent the comparison. Perhaps if people would stop making those (to me) silly comparisons, I could appreciate him as himself--whenever I get a sense of who that self is.

Kennedy and Reagan's speeches were for the support of a united Germany. They were Presidents. They had the office beyond them, giving them authority to speak as leaders of the United States.

I find the photo ops and the grandiose speeches nothing more than opportunistic staging for the sole purpose of getting elected. All this staging and pomposity reminds me of GWB.

When we bombed the hell out of Baghdad, the "shock and awe" horror, that was terror.

The A-bomb was terror.
The slaughter of hundreds of thousands in one go is terror.

But the only terror that Obama and the rest allude to is the molotov cocktail or the car bomb.

What about nuclear proliferation? And I mean everywhere - not just our latest bogie man - Iran. (Obama buys into this too.)

And when he says that we won the "battle of ideas" with "the communists" - I'm wondering what stupid pills he has been taking. Is he pandering not only to the right wing of today but the right wing of 50 years ago?

Then there's the good part. Brotherhood.

Something for everybody.
And nobody knows what the hell he's talking about or what he will do if he is given the enormous power of the presidency.

While we all agree, I think, that George Bush has failed to advance the cause of peace and democracy, and has not represented the American people as well as he should have in his dealings with the rest of the world, what Obama did today in Berlin overstepped the bounds that surround the office of the POTUS.  

I guess I just don't get it.  When visiting with world leaders and learning a little more about these countries could have been done with little fanfare as part of his Senate duties, he claimed to be too busy running for the nomination.  Now he has time for grand and glorious speeches - not really working, mind you - that did what, exactly?  

The optics were great, but I bet there will be little mention of the concert that was scheduled to make sure there was a big crowd.  And when people have a chance to look at it again, and read it again, they will end up once again wondering what it all meant.  

I think 200,000 is generous. I have seen estimates that said it was more like 100,000 and that was before the crowd started tho gradually thin after the concert.

Fark news summary of the day - Barack Obama to Angela Merkel: "Send more German troops to Afghanistan." Angela Merkel to Barack Obama: "Nein." Barack Obama to Angela Merkel: "We're gonna need a few more than that"

Senator Barack Obama drew a crowd of more than 200,000, according to German estimates, in Berlin on Thursday. More Photos