OBAMA TAKES ON BUSH'S LINE ON SO-CALLED MISSILE DEFENSE

Obama's trip to Russia seems to offer up some things that could be progressive, maybe, and then some old Bush policies.

Were real commitments to meaningful reductions made? I hope so but I need to look at what the reduction in nuclear weapons and missile launchers is really all about. Sometimes they just take out the warhead or some warhead component that could be reattached in a few hours or less.

So what is the fate of the decommissioned weapons and were they already decommissioned. I am skeptical.

It would be good to see the nuclear weapons decommissioned and is a step that is in the progressive direction but if both powers still retain thousands of weapons the reduction will still look relatively meaningless to nuclear have nots or those with relatively tiny arsenals like Pakistan, India, China, Israel and Korea.

As for the ridiculous advocacy for the so-called "missile defense system"
it is Bush Lite all over again.

The big change is the willingness of Russia and the United States to work together in fighting the wars to Russias southeast in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran may feel safer now that the Russian ally is providing a corridor for United States military forces. I suppose this may be necessary because Uzbekistan is closing the US military base there.
I don't really know but I suppose supplying these remote wars is a real
problem for the empire.

Once again, the apparent willingness of the United States to call Russia
"equal" appears to be a recognition that Russia is a regional power to be worked with rather than an enemy to be continuously opposed. It almost looks like an alliance?

WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE ANYWAY?

I suppose we can hardly wonder how progressive some political policy, theory or act is unless we have a standard by which to judge what is progressive and what is not.

One might say that to side with the have nots against the haves is progressive but a little history suggests not always. Do you side with this set of have nots or that other set? Women and Blacks saw themselves as at odds in the post civil war era and we can easily see that individuals and groups adopt a hodge podge of progressive and not so progressive views.

An oppressive patriarchy may characterize a progressive nationalist struggle. Workers may become Nazis rather than progressive socialists. Of course all these persons, supposedly animated by this or that ism acts in a world of unfolding realities that may or may not be under any influence by the actor.

Obama is an imperialist leader. If so, it seems difficult to characterize him as a progressive imperialist leader but he certainly seems able to unite with more nations than his predecessor.

He seems committed to some sort of draw down in Iraq but I would be surprised if he actually goes for one hundred percent withdrawal.

Obama has adopted the war in Afghanistan as his own and Iraq may now descend into a civil war or civil wars. If the Taliban are routed by the current offensive in Afghanistan I will be surprised. It seems they are not making themselves easy targets this go of it. Taliban positional warfare in Pakistan seems to have failed in Swat. Are the Taliban really there in South Afghanistan and if so in what numbers?