News pensively

Benghazi blame-game is useless

Labels: World

Hillary Clinton through the years

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Anthony Cordesman: Questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack inevitable, important

But political blame game useless, a discouraging message to diplomats, military advisers, he says

He says in hindsight, warnings, pleas for support mistakenly make crisis seem obvious

Writer: U.S. must focus forward: encourage, support risk-takers doing crucial work in field

Editor's note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Follow CSIS on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Politics are politics, and partisan congressional challenges over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last September were inevitable.

But while some of the questions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bordered on politics at their worst, some represented democracy at its best: A legitimate challenge of how the government works. The fact is, we do need to ask serious questions about the way our diplomats function, how they are deployed and protected.

In her responses, Clinton took responsibility, as the top official in every department always must. The question now, however, is what, if anything, will we really learn from the events that led to the deaths of Stevens and his colleagues?

Anthony H. Cordesman

Do we actually learn something from their courage and sacrifice, and the similar experience of other American diplomats and officers that have faced similar attacks in the past? Or do we go on playing a pointless blame game, creating a climate that discourages our diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers from taking necessary risks -- and relies even more on fortifying our embassies.

Three lessons here. The first: Virtually every post mortem that relies on the blame game has the same result. There is always someone who asked for more resources and warned of the risk before the event. There are always enough intelligence indicators so that once you go back -- knowing the pattern of actual events -- it becomes possible to predict the past with 20-20 hindsight.

The problem is that the post mortems and hearings tend to be useless. Every prudent security officer has always asked for more; the indicators that could provide warning with 20-20 hindsight will still be buried in a flood of other reporting that warns of crises that don't take place; U.S. officials will still have to deal with what intelligence experts call "noise" -- the vast amount of reporting and other data that make it impossible to sort out the right information until the event actually occurs and the patterns are known. All of this makes it hard to know what request or warning ever matters.

Opinion: Algeria hostage crisis shows jihadists on rise

Yes, intelligence and warning can always be improved if the post mortem is realistic and objective. But the resulting improvements will never be enough. No one will ever assess all the risks correctly, U.S. diplomats and other Americans will be vulnerable when they operate in a hostile environment, and risk-taking will remain inevitable.

The second lesson is that we cannot deal with crises like the political upheavals in the Arab world, or the more direct threats that countries like Iran and North Korea can pose, unless our diplomats and military advisers take risks -- and more casualties -- in the process.

Stevens and those around him did what had to be done. These are the teams that can help lead unstable countries towards democracy and stability. They are the crucial to our counterterrorism efforts in the field and to building up the military security capabilities of developing states. They are key to uniting given factions, creating effective governance, and persuading states to move toward development and greater concern for human rights.

They can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats. Like Stevens, they cannot wait for perfect security, stay in a safe area, or minimize risks and deal with the realities of Libya, filled with local power struggles, extremist elements and potential threats.

We need risk-takers. We need them in any country that is going through the kind of upheavals taking place in Libya, as well as in countries where our enemies operate, and semi-war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. We need diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams, and intelligence officers that reach far beyond our embassies and go into high risk zones. We need to reward and honor those risk-takers, not those who shelter in safety and avoid the risks they should take or fear their career will be damaged if anyone is killed or hurt.

Opinion: Algeria crisis is a wakeup call for America

The third lesson is that we do need to steadily strengthen our ability to provide secure mobility, better intelligence, better communications, and better protection for those diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers. We need to be able to better provide emergency help to those American NGO personnel and businessmen who take similar risks.

We need both an administration and a Congress that look beyond the blame game and understand that some things are worth spending money on. We need them to understand that what we once called the Arab Spring is clearly going to be the Arab Decade, and we face different but equally real risks in the field in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

It is far better -- and cheaper even, in the medium term -- to fund strong U.S. country teams, military advisers, counterterrorism teams and development efforts than to let nations collapse, to let extremists take over, to lose allies, and see American NGOs and businesses unable to operate.

We need to see what new methods and investments can protect our people in the field and reduce the risks they should be taking. The answer may be special communications, intelligence system, helicopters and armored vehicles, emergency response teams and new career security personnel to replace contractors and foreign nationals.

What the answer is not is partisan blame, risk avoidance, punishing those who do take risks for the result, and failing to make the improvements in security for risk takers -- while building larger fortress embassies. If you want to honor the Americans lost in the line of duty, focus on the future and not the past.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Cordesman

Resurgent inflation dampens Vietnam stimulus hopes

Labels: Technology

HANOI: Vietnam's inflation accelerated in January, according to official data, reducing expectations of further monetary stimulus to boost the economy.

Consumer prices were up by 7.07 percent this month from a year earlier, following a 6.8 rise in December, the General Statistics Office in Hanoi said in a statement. Month-on-month prices gained 1.25 percent.

A further increase in prices is expected next month due to high demand before the Lunar New Year festival which starts on February 10, one Hanoi-based banker who did not want to be named told AFP.

Vietnam repeatedly raised interest rates in 2011 to prevent the economy from overheating and to rein in double-digit inflation, but with the economy cooling the authorities last year resumed monetary stimulus efforts.

The central bank in December cut interest rates for the sixth time since March as annual economic growth slowed to the weakest pace in 13 years, at roughly five percent for 2012.

Resurgent inflation is now seen as limiting the scope for further monetary stimulus that could stoke price pressures.

"It will not be easy to keep inflation below the government's initial target of 6.9 percent" in 2013, said one independent analyst who asked not to be named.

"The authorities will have to be very careful about future monetary policy. It is too early to say if they will have to raise interest rates again. They are in the middle of nowhere and don't know which path to follow."

The communist nation's economic woes are compounded by worries over toxic debts in the banking sector, falling foreign direct investment and a string of financial scandals among state-owned firms.

- AFP/al

Martin: You want black votes, GOP?

Labels: Lifestyle

Roland Martin says one reason the GOP draws mainly white voters is its leaders' reluctance to reach out and listen to minorities.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Roland Martin: GOP National Committee's Priebus dodges appearing on Martin shows

He says GOP leaders in general avoid interacting with blacks; they lose black votes this way

He says GOP leaders seem to think blacks don't have same concerns as all Americans

Martin: One area where GOP, minority voters might share goals: sentencing reform

Editor's note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for the TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."

(CNN) -- For more than a year I've tried to get Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to make an appearance on my Sunday morning news show on TV One, the nation's second-largest black cable network.

He has also been invited to appear on my daily segment on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," with 8 million listeners.

Although Priebus did tell me "yes" a year ago, on the day of the GOP primary debate in South Carolina, he has yet to show up and talk GOP politics to either of these audiences.

This is no shock to me, because most white Republicans I've invited appear to be deathly afraid to accept invites to appear on both shows. In fact, it has been tough even getting a callback or an e-mail from GOP staffers.

Since the debut of my show, "Washington Watch," in September 2009, we have had an open invitation for any member of the GOP House or Senate Conference to appear on the show. In four years, only four -- Reps. Tom Price (twice), Allen West, Steve King, and Pete Olson -- have appeared on the show.

Roland Martin

None was verbally attacked. None was called a bigot or a racist. None was prevented from talking. We had polite, but firm, discourse on multiple issues. Any of them would tell you I was more than fair, providing them with a forum to discuss their policy differences with President Barack Obama and Democrats.

Think about that: Even GOP backbenchers who rarely get called to appear on a national TV or radio show seem afraid to show up.

You would think they'd welcome a chance to share their policies with a constituency that routinely doesn't vote for them. But Republicans routinely pass it up, and then wonder why they don't get the votes of blacks and other minorities.

What I'm describing points up a much larger problem with the GOP and its inability to speak to issues that all voters care about.

That's why I find it interesting that at the GOP retreat this past weekend in Virginia, there was a session entitled, "Coalitions-Discussion on Successful Comms w/ Minorities & Women."

Comms stands for "communications."

If Republicans want to understand how to successfully communicate with minorities and women, it sure would help to actually go to the forums where minorities and women read, listen and watch.

When Michael Steele was chairman of the RNC, he appeared on my TV show and radio segments on many occasions. I could call him on his cell phone or at home and book him on a moment's notice. See, Steele understood that if you want to communicate a policy to black people, it helps to talk to them. Maybe his being black is the reason.

The mental block that keeps the GOP from engaging black folks and others could have something to do with its perception of the issues we care about.

For instance, a prominent black Republican in Illinois told me about a presentation a few years ago with party elders about how they could attract black voters. When it was all done, this Republican said, the first comment from the floor was, "We are not going to support welfare."

The group of black Republicans was puzzled: "We didn't even bring up welfare. What are you talking about?"

The GOP apparently has the idea that minorities don't care about education, taxes, entrepreneurship, homeownership, and a litany of other issues.

When Republicans speak to black folks and the main thing they have to say is that the GOP is the party of Lincoln and he freed the slaves, then you have a problem.

Yes, Republicans played a critical role in civil rights legislation during the 1950s and 1960s while Southern Democrats were obstructionists -- but it's the GOP's concern for blacks and minorities in the last four decades that has been troubling and problematic.

Republican consultants will say that cultivating minority voters is a waste of time. That's a short-term view. I would think that allowing the opposition party to get 90% of a group's vote without lifting a finger -- because your own ineptitude prevents you from making your case -- means trouble long-term.

Republicans could compete for minority votes if they were actually interested in listening to the concerns of said voters. But if they just want to talk to minority voters and not listen, they cannot compete.

I know a bunch of African-Americans who don't self-identify as Democrats. They, and I am one of them, have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. The issues that we care about vary. It's not about ideology or party; it's about what you can do to be of help to those in need.

If the GOP wants to learn how to communicate with minorities, it must listen to and work with the numerous minority Republicans who have been shouting this from the rooftop for years.

You want to hear evidence from a couple of white guys? Pick up the phone and call former U.S. Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio. He enjoyed sizable black support because when he was mayor of Cleveland, he didn't avoid minorities and treat them as outcasts. He sat down with them, shared their concerns, and worked on public policy -- together.

Give Mike Huckabee a ring. When he was governor of Arkansas, he earned a lot of black votes for the same reason as Voinovich. He has urged the GOP to reach out.

One issue where Republicans are finding themselves working with black civil rights leaders and pastors is in the area of sentencing reform. African-Americans see a legal system that has turned into a moneymaking machine for private prisons. GOP governors see state budgets out of control.

A major civil rights leader told me he has found more success working with GOP governors than Democratic governors on sentencing reform.

This is an example of what happens when individuals sit down, talk, share their concerns, and find common ground.

But as long as the GOP is scared to even sit down with black folks and other minorities, it can expect to keep getting dusted at the ballot box. And don't look to blame anyone else but yourselves, when you were given the chance and your own ignorance prevented you from reaching across the divide to talk.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Labels: Health

Mitt Romney will make it to Washington, D.C. for inauguration week after all.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee and his wife Ann are scheduled to attend a luncheon in their honor Friday at Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, National Journal reported this afternoon. The reception will be hosted by two of Romney's biggest campaign fundraisers: Virginia philanthropist Catherine Reynolds and hotel tycoon Bill Marriott, Jr.

Romney, a longtime friend to the Marriott family, serves on Marriott International's board of directors. While on the trail, he and his traveling staff stayed almost exclusively at Marriott hotels.

Having opted to spend Inauguration Day at his home in La Jolla, Calif., on Monday, Romney became the first presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1989 to not attend the ceremonial event. But he's made at least one appearance in the nation's capital since the election: Several weeks following his loss, he enjoyed a lunch of white turkey chili with President Obama at the White House.

Pentagon to Allow Women in Combat

Labels: Business

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lift a longstanding ban on women serving in combat, according to senior defense officials.

The services have until this May to come up with a plan to implement the change, according to a Defense Department official.

That means the changes could come into effect as early as May, though the services will have until January 2016 to complete the implementation of the changes.

"We certainly want to see this executed responsibly but in a reasonable time frame, so I would hope that this doesn't get dragged out," said former Marine Capt. Zoe Bedell, who joined a recent lawsuit aimed at getting women on the battlefield.

The military services also will have until January 2016 to seek waivers for certain jobs -- but those waivers will require a personal approval from the secretary of defense and will have to be based on rationales other than the direct combat exclusion rule.

The move to allow women in combat, first reported by the Associated Press, was not expected this week, although there has been a concerted effort by the Obama administration to further open up the armed forces to women.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended in January to Secretary Panetta that the direct combat exclusion rule should be lifted.

"I can confirm media reports that the secretary and the chairman are expected to announce the lifting of the direct combat exclusion rule for women in the military," said a senior Defense Department official. "This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey sent Panetta a memo earlier this month entitled, "Women in Service Implementation Plan."

Adek Berry/AFP/Getty Images

Soaring With the First Woman Fighter Jet Commander Watch Video

Instant Index: Divers Save Dolphin; Orangutans Play With iPads Watch Video

Extreme Cold Takes Its Toll on Freezing Nation Watch Video

"The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service," the memo read.

"To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our warfighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right," he said in the memo, referring to the 2016 horizon.

Women have been officially prohibited from serving in combat since a 1994 rule that barred them from serving in ground combat units. That does not mean they have been immune from danger or from combat.

As Martha Raddatz reported in 2009, women have served in support positions on and off the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, putting them at equal risk. Hundreds of thousands of women deployed with the military to those two war zones over the past decade. Hundreds have died.

READ MORE: Female Warriors Engage in Combat in Iraq, Afghanistan

"The reality of the battlefield has changed really since the Vietnam era to where it is today," said Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former military helicopter pilot who lost both her legs in combat. "Those distinctions on what is combat and what is not really are falling aside. So I think that after having seen women, men, folks who -- cooks, clerks, truck drivers -- serve in combat conditions, the reality is women are already in combat."

Woman have been able to fly combat sorties since 1993. In 2010, the Navy allowed them on submarines. But lifting restrictions on service in frontline ground combat units will break a key barrier in the military.

READ MORE: Smooth Sailing for First Women to Serve on Navy Submarines

READ MORE: Female Fighter Pilot Breaks Gender Barriers

Panetta's decision will set a January 2016 deadline for the military service branches to argue that there are military roles that should remain closed to women.

In February 2012 the Defense Department opened up 14,500 positions to women that had previously been limited to men and lifted a rule that prohibited women from living with combat units.

Panetta also directed the services to examine ways to open more combat roles to women.

However, the ban on direct combat positions has remained in place.

Defterios: What keeps Davos relevant

Labels: World

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Since the late 20th Century, the ski resort of Davos has been synonymous with the World Economic Forum

Defterios: I first came to Davos as a relatively junior correspondent, two months after the Berlin Wall fell

Fall of Communism, China's opening, removal of apartheid in South Africa unfolded in the 90s

It's the inter-play between geo-politics and business is what keeps the forum relevant

Davos (CNN) -- Veterans of Davos often refer to nature's awe-inspiring work as the Magic Mountain.

The name comes from an early 20th century novel by Thomas Mann -- reflecting on life in an alpine health retreat, and the mystery of time in this breath-taking setting.

Read more from John Defterios: Why Egypt's transition is so painful

Since the late 20th century, this ski resort has been synonymous with the World Economic Forum, which represents networking on its grandest scale.

This year nearly 40 world leaders -- a record for this annual meeting -- 2000 plus executives and it seems an equal number of people in the media, like yours truly, are in pursuit of them all. The setting is certainly more chaotic then a decade ago. The agendas of the Fortune 500 chief executives are to filled with bi-lateral meetings and back door briefings to allow for the spontaneity that made this venue unique.

Davos gets ready for leaders' gathering

HIDE CAPTION

I first came to Davos as a relatively junior correspondent in 1990, two months after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was arguably then, after nearly two decades in the conference business, when the forum became a fixture on the global calendar.

Quest: U.S. economy to dominate Davos 2013

I can remember, quite vividly, working out of a bunker (like we do today) in the Davos Congress Centre. West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl sat side-by-side with his East German counterpart Hans Modrow. That meeting before the global community helped set the stage for monetary union, a huge unification fund for what became Eastern Germany and shortly thereafter German elections.

The early 90s at Davos were dominated by European reconstruction after the fall of communism. Former party bosses came to the forum to convince business leaders that a transition to market economics could be delivered. Boris Yeltsin made his Davos appearance during that chaotic transition from the USSR to today's Russia.

Davos 2013: New year, same old problems?

In 1992, Chinese Premier Li Peng used the setting here in the Alps to articulate plans for the country's economic opening up to the world. Not by chance, the architect of Washington's engagement with Beijing, the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also took a high profile that year.

Again only two years later in 1994, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres walked hand in hand on stage, holding a public dialogue leading up to the creation and recognition of the Palestinian Authority.

The World Economic Forum, as the saying goes, was positioned to be in the right place at the right time. While the author of the Magic Mountain talked about the complexity of time around World War I, in the 1990s time was compressed here.

The fall of communism, the lowering of global trade barriers, the opening up of China, the removal of apartheid in South Africa and the proliferation of the internet all unfolded in that decade.

Interactive: How's your economic mood?

As those events came together, so too did the major players as they made the journey to Davos. Michael Bloomberg, evolving as a global name in financial data and now the Mayor of New York City, sat alongside Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. U.S. President Bill Clinton outlined his party's historic move to the political center before a packed audience of global business executives.

To spice things up, rock stars and actors, as they became activists, chose the Davos platform: Bono, Richard Gere, Sharon Stone, Brad and Angelina would have the wealthiest and most powerful corporate titans freeze in their tracks.

Earlier this week, I walked into the main plenary hall as workers put the final touches on the stage and lighting. It is a venue which has welcomed countless political leaders and business executives, during internet booms and banking busts, in the midst of a Middle East crisis and even during the lead up to two Gulf Wars.

But that inter-play between geo-politics and business -- during the best and worst of times -- is what keeps the forum relevant. It allows this setting at the base of the Magic Mountain to endure and recreate something unique during what Mann rightly described as the ongoing complexity of our times.

Indian panel likely to recommend tougher rape law

Labels: Technology

NEW DELHI: A government commission tasked with looking at India's sex crime laws after the gang-rape of a student on a New Delhi bus is expected to recommend tougher sentences as it reports its findings Wednesday.

A three-member commission led by former chief justice of India Jagdish Sharan Verma will hand over its recommendations to the government, which faced violent protests following the fatal gang-rape on December 16.

"The report will be submitted to the home ministry today and the committee members will give details of their recommendations to the media," ministry spokesman Kuldeep Singh Dhatwalia told AFP.

Judge Verma received thousands of suggestions after he set January 5 as a deadline for comments from jurists, women's groups and other forums to revamp existing legislation to deal with sex offenders.

The panel was formed in late December amid demands for greater protection for women after the brutal assault of a 23-year-old student by six rapists after she boarded a bus in New Delhi with her boyfriend.

India's 153-year-old penal code stipulates rapists should serve a minimum of seven years in prison and a maximum of life, while gang-rape convicts face a minimum term of 10 years and life imprisonment.

Media reports say India's ruling Congress party has suggested the death penalty for rapists in exceptional cases, while "chemical castration" -- using drugs to eliminate sex drive -- has also been raised.

The government, which has announced new "fast-track" courts to speed up India's notoriously slow justice system and efforts to boost the number of women police officers, has declined to comment on the panel's work.

Though sexual harassment is commonplace in India, the student's gang-rape has touched a nerve, leading to an outpouring of criticism about the treatment of women in Indian society.

Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi on Sunday condemned the "shameful" social attitudes that she said led to crimes like gang-rape. The case had "shaken the entire country", she added.

-AFP/fl