After a spirited contest which saw the Democrats pick up seats in the House, Senate and the White House (and after the corresponding 1 month break for recovery), it's finally time for this blog to get back to doing what it does best - arduously long pieces designed to inform.

This, I think, is as good of a time as any to begin blogging again as the last few elections finally passed. Unfortunately, Jim Martin lost his runoff for the Georgia Senate on Dec. 2nd, but the good people Louisiana chose to kick out a bad poltician (William Jefferson of LA-2) and who I am confident will elect a good one in my home Parrish of Caddo.

So, in celebration of a generally swell time for the Democrats, I have chosen to examine several of the problem areas in the world that President Obama will be called to deal with. The first and foremost of these is the escalating situation in the Asian subcontient, a situation that involves multiple nuclear powers and multiple members of the growing global south. Not only does Pakistan and India have a long-held historical and ethnic rivalry, but the tendrils of this conflict has spread in such a way that a hot war could possibly include other nations like China, Iran, and possibly the United States.

Historically, the two nations (Pakistan and India) have always been on opposite sides. Well known by many, upon the liberation of India from the British, the Muslims contained within India chose to establish their own separate nation (now two nations) rather than govern as an united India. During the 1960s-1980s, Pakistan was allied closely with the United States and the Chinese, while India chose to remain largely neutral, though there are implications of Soviet activity in their government. As the Cold War came to an end, the two nations began to antagonize over numerous issues - most well known among them being the situation in Kashmir.

Furthermore, the political situations in both countries were never particularly strong. Pakistan has had a long history of military governance as the military has been the key recipient of foreign aid since the country's inception. India, while a stable democracy, suffers from its large population which tends to make voting and clean elections difficutl. Currently, the government of Pakistan is embroiled in perhaps the worst, most de-centralized government of any nuclearly-armed nation in the world. The current political atmosphere contains as many as 6 governing powers - among them the PPP (represented by current President Ali Asif Zardari), the military, the tribal area, the legal community, and the political opposition. The situation in India is better, but not enough where a war cannot result. The current Prime Minister - Manmohan Singh - is rather unpopular given the increasing resource crunch and India's recent string of well known economic defeats to coutnries like Japan and China. Furthermore, despite the quality of their instructors, the quality of primary education in India is extremely poor, with some studies citing that less than 1% of the GDP goes towards primary education. This results in a population that almost uniquely defines the term "huddled masses" as these individuals lack both adequate education and access to jobs - creating a permenant 3rd estate that is prone for emotional reactions.

The result of this hodgepodge of problems is that the two countries often find themselves driven towards each other's throats often by historical and political considerations. This frequently leads to episodes of mutual distrust and the existance of a permenant cold war. All powder kegs like the current situation needs is a fuse, one ably provided by the terrorist attacks in Mumbai over Thanksgiving weekend.

The situation of terrorism in both states is...disturbing and convoluted. Neither side is able to solve the problem on its own, but the presence of constant hatred between the two peoples have made cooperation all but impossible. To make matters worse China and Iran have numerous historical ties to the area. China, a long-time enemy of India and a competitor for the mantle of the new Asian power, has long supplied Pakistan with both military weaponary and nuclear capabilities. Iran, meanwhile, often uses the situation in Pakistan as a rallying point for its most conservative base. And while Iran is the only nation willing to commit troops to a greater war, the presence of so many diverse interests in the area (and the presence of the faltering state of Afghanistan) makes the situation difficult to diffuse and potentially disastrous given the right mix of circumstances. Make no qualms, this situation is explosive and given both sides have sufficient nuclear weapons for the other's total destruction, the situation must be diffused before desparate regimes (India) and decentralized power (Pakistan) leads to a war that would be greatly regreted in the future.

Diffusing the situation will be difficult, but the best thing the current president-elect can do is explore the expertise of his Vice-President, a man who has long been supportive of the concept of civilian governance in Pakistan. While it might not solve the explosive situation, providing more money to Pakistan's civilian government will certainly mitigate the most hardline portions of the Pakistani ruling mob (the military and intelligence establishments). Passing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (introduced by Vice President-elect Joe Biden and Republican Senator Richard Lugar) will go a long way in restoring a modicum of stability in Pakistan. The current strategy of mutual build up (a strategy perpetrated by providing the Pakistani military with significant aid while at the same time building up India's nuclear and economic ability) will only lead to disaster. The solving of this problem will require a heavy investment of political capital and time by the American president, but it is a situation that can still be avoided with

Last time, we covered the death of libertarianism due to the nature of this current financial crisis. This time, I want to briefly discuss the suddenly very real possibility that the next American president will no longer be the leader of the free world, but one among the many voices which define it.

This is the question explored by a Christian Science Monitor article early last week. It is a question of American power and the challenges to it - a challenge posed, interestingly not by a foreign militant or a domestic defeatist, but by a faith, charismatic ally in the form of French president Nicholas Sarkozy.

For those of you not familiar with Sarkozy, he is an interesting study in the changing face of European politics and of the fundamental difference between American and European democracies. Mr. Sarkozy is a second generation Hungarian immigrant born to a father escaping persecution from the Red Army. He started in politics at a young age, being elected to city council at age 22. He has been thrice married, currently married to the interesting and beautiful Carla Bruni, changed his political affiliation quite a few times, and in his election he defeated an opponent from the socialist party.

Yes, French politics is very different from that of their trans-Atlantic counterparts. Yet, despite their leftist leanings, it is the French leader who is ascendent and the American leadership that is on the decline. The current financial crisis only exacerbated the situation of American decline - American approval were falling world wide before it, and the universal response after the "financial 9/11" wasn't an outpouring of support, but a wide condemnation of the American market system from all sectors of the world from Europe to Russia to Brazil to China.

Part of this is because the American brand is at an all time low, thanks to the bungling of leadership of George W. Bush, but we must examine also why people have abandoned the American cause. Part of this is because the leadership deficit that even Americans admit that we are experiencing. Nowhere was this more clear than during the financial crisis. While President Bush wavered as he promised he would never do and the house Republicans clung foolishly to their ideological roots, the leaders of Europe were the ones to call for immediate action while identifying the cause of the problem.

Sarkozy has quickly adopted a bully pulpit for Europe and its traditionally more measured approach to markets. In Strasbourg Tuesday, speaking to the European Parliament, he stated that Europe "must carry the idea of a new foundation of global capitalism. What happened [with toxic assets and derivatives that created a credit crisis] was a treason of the values of capitalism," he said. "The market economy itself is not called into question."

France moved this week to lend 10.5 billion euros ($14.12 billion) to six banks to boost their capital reserves.(Christian Science Monitor)

The lesson of the financial crisis was a simple one for the majority of the world - the long mocked Europeans were decisive while the supposedly non-blinking Americans not only blinked, they shut their eyes completely to the realities of the situation. This financial crisis has made the world see the deficit in American leadership and the flawed nature of American political dialogue. The next president must do his best to act decisively and correctly and he will have to rebuild the coalitions that Americans have taken for granted. This is why we need a man who speaks not of "A League of Democracies" but of a united world - a world that subscribes to Jeffersonian ideals of de Facto recognition and not selective stratification of the world into them and us. This is the lesson we must learn from our failures of leadership these past months, and the idea of a world without American leadership might soon be a reality if we make the wrong choice on November 4th.

A must read article for any fan of foreign policy.

How John McCain misrepresented the situation in Iran.

John McCain and his butchering of the Russia-Georgia War.

Pakistan and Afghanistan and the impact of two divergent goals.

Dear Media,

Please stop perpetuating the lie that the "Surge is Working"

Thanks

Junichiro Koizumi

Shinzo Abe

Yasuo Fukuda

Taro Aso?

Why the Missile Defense system proposed in Poland is nonsensical, antiquated, and further proof of just how out-of-touch this administration is with geopolitical realities.