Why haven't we learned from fires?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Pyrotechnics, overcrowding, poor exits have contributed to tragic fires in recent years


• You would think the world would have learned from past incidents, John Barylick says


• Concertgoers have to be their own fire marshals, he says

Editor's note: John Barylick, author of "Killer Show," a book on the 2003 Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island, is an attorney who represented victims in wrongful death and personal injury cases arising from the fire.

(CNN) -- Sunday morning we awoke to breaking news of another tragic nightclub fire, this time in Brazil. At last report the death toll exceeded 230.

This tragedy is not without precedent. Next month will mark the 10th anniversary of a similar nightclub fire in Rhode Island. At this sad time, it's appropriate to reflect on what we've learned from club fires -- and what we haven't.

Rhode Island's Station nightclub fire of 2003, in which 100 concertgoers lost their lives, began when fireworks set off by Great White, an 80s heavy metal band, ignited flammable packing foam on the club's walls.

Deadly blazes: Nightclub tragedies in recent history

John Barylick

Panicked patrons stampeded toward the club's main exit, and a fatal pileup ensued. Contributing to the tragedy were illegal use of pyrotechnics, overcrowding and a wall covering that would have failed even the most rudimentary flammability tests.

Video images of the Station fire were broadcast worldwide: A concert begins; the crowd's mood changes from merry, to curious, to concerned, to horrified -- in less than a minute. You'd think the world would have learned from it. You would be wrong.

The following year, the Republica Cromanon nightclub in Argentina went up in flames, killing 194 people. The club was made to hold about 1,000 people, but it was estimated that more than 3,000 fans were packed inside the night of the fire, which began when fans began lighting flares that caught the roof on fire.

Echoes of the past: Rhode Island victims 'can't help but watch'

Then, in January 2009, at least 64 New Year's revelers lost their lives in a nightclub in Bangkok, Thailand, after fire ignited its ceiling. Many were crushed in a rush to get out of the club. In December of that same year, a fire in a Russian nightclub, ignited by pyrotechnics, killed 156 people. Overcrowding, poor exits, and indoor fireworks all played roles in these tragedies; yet no one bothered to learn from mistakes of the past.

While responsibility for concert disasters unquestionably lies with venue operators, performers and promoters, ultimately, we, as patrons of clubs and concerts, can enhance our own safety by taking a few simple steps. The National Fire Protection Association urges concertgoers to:

• Be observant. Is the concert venue rundown or well-maintained? Does the staff look well-trained?

• As you proceed to your seat, observe how long the process takes. Could you reverse it in a hurry? Do you pass through pinch points? Is furniture in the way?

• Once seated, take note of the nearest exit. (In an emergency, most people try to exit by the door they entered, which is usually not the closest, and is always overcrowded.) Then, share the location of that nearest exit with your entire party. Agree that at the first sign of trouble, you will all proceed to it without delay.

• Once the show begins, remain vigilant. If you think there's a problem, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Do not stay to "get your money's worth" despite concerns about safety. Do not remain to locate that jacket or bag you placed somewhere. No concert is worth your life. Better to read about an incident the next day than be counted as one of its statistics.

Read more: How to protect yourself in a crowd

To be sure, all fire codes must be vigorously enforced, and club and concert hall operators must be held to the highest standards. A first step is banning indoor pyrotechnics in all but the largest, stadium-type venues.

But, ultimately, we are our own best "fire marshals" when it comes to avoiding, and escaping, dangerous situations. We can still enjoy shows. But it is up to us to look out for our own safety.

In coming days, Rhode Islanders will follow the unfolding news from Brazil with a sense of queasy deja vu -- the rising body counts, the victim identification process, the grieving families, and the assigning (and dodging) of blame. If only they had learned from our tragedy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Barylick.

Read More..

Why haven't we learned from fires?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Pyrotechnics, overcrowding, poor exits have contributed to tragic fires in recent years


• You would think the world would have learned from past incidents, John Barylick says


• Concertgoers have to be their own fire marshals, he says

Editor's note: John Barylick, author of "Killer Show," a book on the 2003 Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island, is an attorney who represented victims in wrongful death and personal injury cases arising from the fire.

(CNN) -- Sunday morning we awoke to breaking news of another tragic nightclub fire, this time in Brazil. At last report the death toll exceeded 230.

This tragedy is not without precedent. Next month will mark the 10th anniversary of a similar nightclub fire in Rhode Island. At this sad time, it's appropriate to reflect on what we've learned from club fires -- and what we haven't.

Rhode Island's Station nightclub fire of 2003, in which 100 concertgoers lost their lives, began when fireworks set off by Great White, an 80s heavy metal band, ignited flammable packing foam on the club's walls.

John Barylick

Panicked patrons stampeded toward the club's main exit, and a fatal pileup ensued. Contributing to the tragedy were illegal use of pyrotechnics, overcrowding and a wall covering that would have failed even the most rudimentary flammability tests.

Video images of the Station fire were broadcast worldwide: A concert begins; the crowd's mood changes from merry, to curious, to concerned, to horrified -- in less than a minute. You'd think the world would have learned from it. You would be wrong.

Deadly blazes: Nightclub tragedies in recent history

The following year, the Republica Cromanon nightclub in Argentina went up in flames, killing 194 people. The club was made to hold about 1,000 people, but it was estimated that more than 3,000 fans were packed inside the night of the fire, which began when fans began lighting flares that caught the roof on fire.

Then, in January 2009, at least 64 New Year's revelers lost their lives in a nightclub in Bangkok, Thailand, after fire ignited its ceiling. Many were crushed in a rush to get out of the club. In December of that same year, a fire in a Russian nightclub, ignited by pyrotechnics, killed 156 people. Overcrowding, poor exits, and indoor fireworks all played roles in these tragedies; yet no one bothered to learn from mistakes of the past.

While responsibility for concert disasters unquestionably lies with venue operators, performers and promoters, ultimately, we, as patrons of clubs and concerts, can enhance our own safety by taking a few simple steps. The National Fire Protection Association urges concertgoers to:

• Be observant. Is the concert venue rundown or well-maintained? Does the staff look well-trained?

• As you proceed to your seat, observe how long the process takes. Could you reverse it in a hurry? Do you pass through pinch points? Is furniture in the way?

• Once seated, take note of the nearest exit. (In an emergency, most people try to exit by the door they entered, which is usually not the closest, and is always overcrowded.) Then, share the location of that nearest exit with your entire party. Agree that at the first sign of trouble, you will all proceed to it without delay.

• Once the show begins, remain vigilant. If you think there's a problem, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Do not stay to "get your money's worth" despite concerns about safety. Do not remain to locate that jacket or bag you placed somewhere. No concert is worth your life. Better to read about an incident the next day than be counted as one of its statistics.

Read more: How to protect yourself in a crowd

To be sure, all fire codes must be vigorously enforced, and club and concert hall operators must be held to the highest standards. A first step is banning indoor pyrotechnics in all but the largest, stadium-type venues.

But, ultimately, we are our own best "fire marshals" when it comes to avoiding, and escaping, dangerous situations. We can still enjoy shows. But it is up to us to look out for our own safety.

In coming days, Rhode Islanders will follow the unfolding news from Brazil with a sense of queasy deja vu -- the rising body counts, the victim identification process, the grieving families, and the assigning (and dodging) of blame. If only they had learned from our tragedy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Barylick.

Read More..

Can sanctions deter North Korea?

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• N. Korea said Thursday it plans to carry out new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches


• It said they are part of new phase of confrontation with United States


• George A. Lopez says North Korea's aim is to be recognized as a 'new nuclear nation by fait accompli'


• The Security Council sanctions aim to deteriorate and disrupt N. Korea's programs, says Lopez

Editor's note: George A. Lopez holds the Hesburgh Chair in Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame. He is a former member, UN Panel of Experts on DPRK.

Indiana, U.S. (CNN) -- North Korea has responded to new Security Council sanctions condemning its December 12 rocket launch with a declaration that it plans a third nuclear test and more missile launches. Politically, it has made unambiguous that its "aim" is its enemy, the United States.

In this rapid reaction to U.N. sanctions, the young government of Kim Jong Un underscores what Security Council members have long known anticipated from the DPRK. Their end-game is to create a vibrant, integrated missile and nuclear weapons program that will result - as in the cases of Pakistan and India - in their being recognized as a new nuclear nation by fait accompli.

Read more: North Korea says new nuclear test will be part of fight against U.S.

In light of DPRK defiance - and a soon to occur nuclear test - the Security Council's first set of sanctions on North Korea since 2009 may seem absurd and irrelevant. These sanctions will certainly not prevent a new DPRK nuclear test. Rather, the new sanctions resolution mobilizes regional neighbors and global actors to enforce sanctions that can weaken future DPRK programs and actions.

Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions

The utility, if not the necessity, of these Security Council sanctions are to deteriorate and disrupt the networks that sustain North Korea's programs. Chances of this degradation of DPRK capabilities have increased as the new sanctions both embolden and empower the member states who regularly observe - but do nothing about - suspicious vessels in their adjacent waterways.

The resolution provides new guidance to states regarding ship interdiction, cargo inspections, and the seizure and disposal of prohibited materials. Regarding nuclear and missile development the sanctions expand the list of material banned for trade to DPRK, including high tech, dual-use goods which might aid missile industries.

Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland

These new measures provide a better structure for more effective sanctions, by naming new entities, such as a bank and trading companies, as well as individuals involved in the illicit financing of prohibited materials, to the sanctions list. To the surprise of many in the diplomatic community - the Council authorizes states to expose and confiscate North Korea's rather mobile "bulk cash." Such currency stocks have been used in many regions to facilitate purchases of luxury goods and other banned items that sustain the DPRK elites.

Finally, the Security Council frees the Sanctions Committee to act more independently and in a timely manner to add entities to the list of sanctioned actors when evidence shows them to be sanctions violators. This is an extensive hunting license for states in the region that can multiply the costs of sanctions to the DPRK over time.

Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion

Whatever their initial limitations, the new round of U.N. sanctions serve as a springboard to more robust measures by various regional and global powers which may lead back to serious negotiations with DPRK.

Despite its bluster and short-term action plan, Pyongyang recognizes that the wide space of operation for its policies it assumed it had a week ago, is now closed considerably. To get this kind of slap-down via this Security Council resolution - when the launch was a month ago - predicts that any nuke test or missile launch from Pyongyang will bring a new round of stronger and more targeted sanctions.

Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch

Although dangerous - a new game is on regarding DPRK. Tougher U.N. measures imposed on the North generated a predictable response and likely new, prohibited action. While DPRK may be enraged, these sanctions have the P5 nations, most notably China, newly engaged. A forthcoming test or launch will no doubt increase tensions on both sides.

But this may be precisely the shock needed to restart the Six Party Talks. Without this institutional framework there is little chance of influencing DPRK actions. And in the meantime, the chances of greater degrading of DPRK capabilities via sanctions, are a sensible next best action.

Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George A. Lopez.

Read More..

Can sanctions deter North Korea?

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

Kim Jong Un and his military

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• N. Korea said Thursday it plans to carry out new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches


• It said they are part of new phase of confrontation with United States


• George A. Lopez says North Korea's aim is to be recognized as a 'new nuclear nation by fait accompli'


• The Security Council sanctions aim to deteriorate and disrupt N. Korea's programs, says Lopez

Editor's note: George A. Lopez holds the Hesburgh Chair in Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame. He is a former member, UN Panel of Experts on DPRK.

Indiana, U.S. (CNN) -- North Korea has responded to new Security Council sanctions condemning its December 12 rocket launch with a declaration that it plans a third nuclear test and more missile launches. Politically, it has made unambiguous that its "aim" is its enemy, the United States.

In this rapid reaction to U.N. sanctions, the young government of Kim Jong Un underscores what Security Council members have long known anticipated from the DPRK. Their end-game is to create a vibrant, integrated missile and nuclear weapons program that will result - as in the cases of Pakistan and India - in their being recognized as a new nuclear nation by fait accompli.

Read more: North Korea says new nuclear test will be part of fight against U.S.

In light of DPRK defiance - and a soon to occur nuclear test - the Security Council's first set of sanctions on North Korea since 2009 may seem absurd and irrelevant. These sanctions will certainly not prevent a new DPRK nuclear test. Rather, the new sanctions resolution mobilizes regional neighbors and global actors to enforce sanctions that can weaken future DPRK programs and actions.

Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions

The utility, if not the necessity, of these Security Council sanctions are to deteriorate and disrupt the networks that sustain North Korea's programs. Chances of this degradation of DPRK capabilities have increased as the new sanctions both embolden and empower the member states who regularly observe - but do nothing about - suspicious vessels in their adjacent waterways.

The resolution provides new guidance to states regarding ship interdiction, cargo inspections, and the seizure and disposal of prohibited materials. Regarding nuclear and missile development the sanctions expand the list of material banned for trade to DPRK, including high tech, dual-use goods which might aid missile industries.

Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland

These new measures provide a better structure for more effective sanctions, by naming new entities, such as a bank and trading companies, as well as individuals involved in the illicit financing of prohibited materials, to the sanctions list. To the surprise of many in the diplomatic community - the Council authorizes states to expose and confiscate North Korea's rather mobile "bulk cash." Such currency stocks have been used in many regions to facilitate purchases of luxury goods and other banned items that sustain the DPRK elites.

Finally, the Security Council frees the Sanctions Committee to act more independently and in a timely manner to add entities to the list of sanctioned actors when evidence shows them to be sanctions violators. This is an extensive hunting license for states in the region that can multiply the costs of sanctions to the DPRK over time.

Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion

Whatever their initial limitations, the new round of U.N. sanctions serve as a springboard to more robust measures by various regional and global powers which may lead back to serious negotiations with DPRK.

Despite its bluster and short-term action plan, Pyongyang recognizes that the wide space of operation for its policies it assumed it had a week ago, is now closed considerably. To get this kind of slap-down via this Security Council resolution - when the launch was a month ago - predicts that any nuke test or missile launch from Pyongyang will bring a new round of stronger and more targeted sanctions.

Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch

Although dangerous - a new game is on regarding DPRK. Tougher U.N. measures imposed on the North generated a predictable response and likely new, prohibited action. While DPRK may be enraged, these sanctions have the P5 nations, most notably China, newly engaged. A forthcoming test or launch will no doubt increase tensions on both sides.

But this may be precisely the shock needed to restart the Six Party Talks. Without this institutional framework there is little chance of influencing DPRK actions. And in the meantime, the chances of greater degrading of DPRK capabilities via sanctions, are a sensible next best action.

Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George A. Lopez.

Read More..

Where is aid for Syria going?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The U.S. ambassador to Syria says the U.S. has provided $210 million in humanitarian aid


• The assistance has to be discrete, he said, to protect workers from being targeted


• Washington has also provided $35 million worth of assistance to Syria's political opposition


• Ambassador: We can help, but it's up to Syrians to find their way forward

(CNN) -- It has been more than a year since the United States government withdrew its ambassador to Syria and closed its embassy in Damascus.

On Thursday, that ambassador returned to the region along with a U.S. delegation, touring a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey to bring more attention to the growing humanitarian crisis. As the civil war has intensified in Syria, hundreds of thousands of people have sought refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and other neighboring countries.

Ambassador Robert Ford gave an exclusive interview to CNN's Ivan Watson and described what the U.S. is doing to help the refugees and the Syrian opposition.

Ivan Watson: The U.S. has given $210 million in aid (to Syria), but I think that there is a perception problem because no one can actually point at what that help is. So people conclude there is no help.

Robert Ford: The assistance is going in. It's things like tents, it's things like blankets, it's things like medical equipment, but it doesn't come in big boxes with an American flag on it because we don't want the people who are delivering it to be targeted by the Syrian regime.

The regime is going after and killing people who are delivering supplies. You see them bombing even bakeries and bread lines. So we're doing that, in part, to be discrete.

The assistance is going in ... but it doesn't come in big boxes with an American flag on it.
Robert Ford, U.S. ambassador to Syria

The needs are gigantic. So even though a great deal of American materials and other countries' materials are arriving, the needs are still greater. And that's why we're going to Kuwait to talk to the United Nations and to talk to other countries about how we can talk together to provide additional assistance.

Watson: The head of the Syrian National Coalition, which the U.S. government has backed, came out with a statement very critical of the international community, saying we need $3 billion if you want us to have any say on events on the ground inside Syria. Where is that money?

Ford: (Sheikh Ahmed) Moaz al-Khatib is a good leader, and we think highly of him and we have recognized his (coalition) as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. And, of course, he wants to get as many resources as possible because of the humanitarian conditions that I was just talking about. Especially the ones inside Syria.

But we also, at the same time, have to build up those (aid) networks I was talking about. In some cases, they start out with just a few people. We don't need just a few people, we need hundreds of people, thousands of people on the inside of Syria organized to bring these things in.

And so step by step, the Syrians, Moaz al-Khatib and his organization, need to build that capacity. We can help build it, we can do training and things like that. But in the end, Syrians have to take a leadership role in this.

Watson: Is Washington giving money to the Syrian National Coalition?

Ford: We absolutely are assisting the (coalition), with everything from training to, in some cases, limited amount of cash assistance so that they can buy everything ranging from computers to telephones to radios.

Frankly, if not for the American assistance in many cases, the activists inside Syria wouldn't be in contact with the outside world. It's American help that keeps them in contact with the outside world.

Watson: But, how much assistance has this coalition gotten from the U.S.?

Ford: So far, we've allocated directly to the coalition in the neighborhood of $35 million worth of different kinds of equipment and assistance. And over the next few weeks, couple of months, we'll probably provide another $15 million worth of material assistance.

Watson: Washington recently blacklisted Jabhat al-Nusra, the Nusra Front, calling it a terrorist organization even though inside Syria, it has attracted a lot of respect for its victories and for comparative lack of corruption compared to many rebel groups. How has blacklisting the Nusra Front helped the Syrian opposition?

Ford: We blacklisted the Nusra Front because of its intimate links with al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization with whom we have direct experience, which is responsible for the killings of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of Americans. We know what al Qaeda in Iraq did and is still doing, and we don't want it to start doing that in Syria -- which is why we highlighted its incredibly pernicious role.

I think one of the things that our classification of Nusra as a terrorist group did is it set off an alarm for the other elements of the Free Syrian Army. There was a meeting of the Free Syrian Army to set up a unified command, (and) Nusra Front was not in that meeting -- which we think is the right thing to do. As Syrians themselves understand that Nusra has a sectarian agenda, as they understand better that Nusra is anti-democratic and will seek to impose its very strict interpretation of Islam on Syria -- which historically is a relatively moderate country in terms of its religious practices -- as Syrians understand that better, I think they will more and more reject the Nusra Front itself.

Watson: But I've seen the opposite. As I go into Syria, I hear more and more support and respect for the Nusra Front, and more and more criticism for the U.S. government each time I go back.

Ford: I think that people, Ivan, are still understanding what Nusra is. I have heard criticism from the Nusra Front from people like Moaz al-Khatib who, in Marrakesh (Morocco) in his speech, said he rejected the kind of ideology which backs up Nusra. ... We have heard that from the senior commander of the Free Syrian Army as well. And so the more people understand inside Syria what Nusra is and represents, I think they will agree that is not the group on which to depend for freedom in Syria.

Watson: Do you think the U.S. government could have done more?

Ford: I think the Syrians, as I said, are the ones who will bring the answer to the problem -- just as in Iraq, Iraqis brought the solution to the Iraq crisis, to the Iraq war. The Americans can help, and we helped in Iraq, but ultimately it wasn't the Americans. Despite our help, it was Iraqis.

In Syria, again, it has to be Syrians who find their way forward. Twenty-three million Syrians need to find their way forward. We can help, and we are helping: $210 million in humanitarian assistance, $50 million to help the political opposition get organized for the day after (Bashar) al-Assad goes. These are important bits of help. But ultimately, it's not the American help. It's the Syrians themselves.

Read More..

Benghazi blame-game is useless

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

Hillary Clinton through the years

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

>

>>

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

Read More..

2013 could be 'climate game-changer'

An ice sculpture entitled 'Minimum Monument' by Brazilian artist Nele Azevedo outside Berlin's Concert Hall, September 2, 2009.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The "neglected" risk of climate change seems to be rising to the top of leaders' agendas


• Extreme weather events are costing the global economy billions of dollars each year


• Gas can be an important bridge to a lower carbon future but it's not the answer


• More investment in renewable energy is needed, with fewer risks

Editor's note: Andrew Steer is President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a think tank that works with governments, businesses and civil society to find sustainable solutions to environmental and development challenges.

(CNN) -- As leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, signs of economic hope are upon us. The global economy is on the mend. Worldwide, the middle class is expanding by an estimated 100 million per year. And the quality of life for millions in Asia and Africa is growing at an unprecedented pace.

Threats abound, of course. One neglected risk -- climate change -- appears to at last be rising to the top of agendas in business and political circles. When the World Economic Forum recently asked 1,000 leaders from industry, government, academia, and civil society to rank risks over the coming decade for the Global Risks 2013 report, climate change was in the top three. And in his second inaugural address, President Obama identified climate change as a major priority for his Administration.

Andrew Steer

For good reason: last year was the hottest year on record for the continental United States, and records for extreme weather events were broken around the world. We are seeing more droughts, wildfires, and rising seas. The current U.S. drought will wipe out approximately 1% of the U.S. GDP and is on course to be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Damage from Hurricane Sandy will cost another 0.5% of GDP. And a recent study found that the cost of climate change is about $1.2 trillion per year globally, or 1.6% of global GDP.

Shifting to low-carbon energy sources is critical to mitigating climate change's impacts. Today's global energy mix is changing rapidly, but is it heading in the right direction?

Coal is the greatest driver of carbon dioxide emissions from energy, accounting for more than 40% of the total worldwide. Although coal demand is falling in the United States -- with 55 coal-powered plants closed in the past year -- it's growing globally. The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently identified 1,200 proposed new coal plants around the world. And last year, the United States hit a record-high level of coal exports—arguably transferring U.S. emissions abroad.

Meanwhile, shale gas is booming. Production in the United States has increased nearly tenfold since 2005, and China, India, Argentina, and many others have huge potential reserves. This development can be an economic blessing in many regions, and, because carbon emissions of shale gas are roughly half those of coal, it can help us get onto a lower carbon growth path.

However, while gas is an important bridge to a low carbon future—and can be a component of such a future—it can't get us fully to where we need to be. Greenhouse gas emissions in industrial countries need to fall by 80-90% by 2050 to prevent climate change's most disastrous impacts. And there is evidence that gas is crowding out renewables.

Renewable energy -- especially solar and wind power -- are clear winners when it comes to reducing emissions. Unfortunately, despite falling prices, the financial markets remain largely risk-averse. Many investors are less willing to finance renewable power. As a result of this mindset, along with policy uncertainty and the proliferation of low-cost gas, renewable energy investment dropped 11%, to $268 billion, last year.

What do we need to get on track?

Incentivizing renewable energy investment

Currently, more than 100 countries have renewable energy targets, more than 40 developing nations have introduced feed-in tariffs, and countries from Saudi Arabia to South Africa are making big bets on renewables as a growth market. Many countries are also exploring carbon-trading markets, including the EU, South Korea, and Australia. This year, China launched pilot trading projects in five cities and two provinces, with a goal of a national program by 2015.

Removing market barriers

Despite growing demand for renewable energy from many companies, this demand often remains unmet due to numerous regulatory, financial, and psychological barriers in the marketplace.

In an effort to address these, WRI just launched the Green Power Market Development Group in India, bringing together industry, government, and NGOs to build critical support for renewable energy markets. A dozen major companies from a variety of sectors—like Infosys, ACC, Cognizant, IBM, WIPRO, and others— have joined the initiative. This type of government-industry-utility partnership, built upon highly successful models elsewhere, can spur expanded clean energy development. It will be highlighted in Davos this week at meetings of the Green Growth Action Alliance (G2A2).

De-risking investments

For technical, policy, and financial reasons, risks are often higher for renewables than fossil-based energy. Addressing these risks is the big remaining task to bring about the needed energy transformation. Some new funding mechanisms are emerging that can help reduce risk and thus leverage large sums of financing. For example, the Green Climate Fund could, if well-designed, be an important venue to raise funds and drive additional investments from capital markets. Likewise, multi-lateral development banks' recent $175 billion commitment to sustainable transport could help leverage more funds from the private and public sectors.

Some forward-looking companies are seeking to create internal incentives for green investments. For example, companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and UPS have been taking actions to reduce internal hurdle rates and shift strategic thinking to the longer-term horizons that many green strategies need.

Davos is exactly the type of venue for finding solutions to such issues, which requires leadership and coalition-building from the private and public sectors. For example, the the G2A2, an alliance of CEOs committed to addressing climate and environmental risks, will launch the Green Investment Report with precisely the goal of "unlocking finance for green growth".

Depending on what happens at Davos—and other forums and meetings like it throughout the year—2013 could just be a game-changer.

Follow us on Twitter@CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Andrew Steer.

Read More..

Obama's ringing defense of liberalism

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Contributors offer impressions of Barack Obama's second inaugural address


• Julian Zelizer says speech a ringing defense of liberalism, obligations of citizens


• Donna Brazile says speech spells out "American faith; Tim Stanley says it shows division


• Bob Greene: He spoke of "never-ending journey" for U.S.; more remarkable journey is his

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama was sworn in Monday for a second term. CNN contributors and analysts offered these assessments of the 44th's president's inauguration:

Julian Zelizer: A call to the obligations of citizenship

The speech connected the greatest generation with our generation. In a ringing defense of liberalism and the obligations of citizenship, Obama called on the nation to complete the unfinished struggles of the 1950s and 1960s -- making rights real, giving more Americans the tools they need to work their way into the middle class and caring for those who can't care for themselves.

Julian Zelizer

He didn't present this as an argument from a Democratic president, but rather as a leader who believes the nation is exceptional. He continued to express his desire to search for the middle way, but based on a strong defense of the political tradition that shapes him. It was powerful oration for a contentious moment in national politics.

Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and of "Governing America."

Obama's address: Full text

Donna Brazile: Speech defined 'American faith'

Obama's second inaugural address was a deeply moving and patriotic speech.

It was one of the most effective usages of the founding documents' principles as a supporting narrative -- drawing us from the past to the present to the future. It combined two of Obama's greatest strengths: his reason (constitutional analysis, desire to teach) with his poetic skills as a writer and a leader.

Donna Brazile

He touched on some of the practical challenges facing America. And in addressing these, he reaffirmed the approach he outlined during the election.

But the speech itself was about a different kind of affirmation. It echoed sentiments and subjects that have been a motif of his presidency, indeed his career. Obama defined what may be called an American faith.

In referring to the Declaration of Independence's guiding principle, he said, "For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on Earth."

Each balanced phrase and each oscillation between where we have been and where we must go elaborated this theme: The American faith is the faith in America. "We are true to our creed," he said, when even a little girl born in poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own."

I will long ponder this, that "preserving our planet, commanded to our care by God ... will lend meaning to the creed our fathers."

This may not be remembered as the most stirring or oratorical inaugural speech. But it was a president sharing with the nation his values most personal and vision most spiritual.

Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. She is a nationally syndicated columnist, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of "Cooking With Grease." She was manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000.

Obama embraces key social justice movements

Alan Brinkley: Richard Blanco a new Walt Whitman?

Inaugurations are usually pretty dull, and second-term inaugurations are usually even worse. Obama's speech was much better than I thought it would be -- not one for the ages, but good for our time. The crowds, perhaps surprisingly, were enormous -- almost as large as 2008.

Alan Brinkley

Obama spoke clearly about his own views without openly criticizing his opponents. As he did in 2008, he continued to call for compromise, although he must have known that little compromise in Congress is waiting. And so he continued with his list of his hopes -- few of which will likely succeed.

No one has reached the level of Lincoln's second inauguration speech. Obama's speech is not likely to be remembered in the way Lincoln's was. But it was better than most inaugural speeches, and better than his 2008 speech. To me, though, the best part of the inauguration was the little known poet Richard Blanco, who sounded like a new Walt Whitman.

Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history at Columbia University.

Inaugural poet: My story is America's

John Avlon: Reclaiming 'American exceptionalism' from conservatives

Obama used his second inaugural address to recast contemporary political debates in the larger sweep of American history, implicitly making the case that the current Democratic Party's agenda is in the mainstream of American history, part of a constant process of forming a more perfect union -- with individual freedom heightened best when balanced with community security.

John Avlon

It was an audacious speech to the extent that Obama sought to reclaim politicized concepts like American exceptionalism from their conservative contexts, making the case that the combination of diversity and opportunity makes the American Dream possible for each new generation.

The president did not shy away from commenting on contemporary policy debates, saying that "the commitments we make to each other -- through Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security -- these things do not sap of initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." Somewhere in La Jolla, California, Mitt Romney's ears were burning.

Although the ambitions of the speech were audacious, the scope of the speech was sprawling and dotted with policy references more suited to a State of the Union address. It was not tightly framed or focused on a single concept, nor was there a single clear phrase that summed up the speech, at least at first listen.

The closing refrain -- a reminder that the presidential oath of office is an extension of the oath of citizenship taken by new immigrants or the oath taken by soldiers -- also offered a reach across the aisle: "It was an oath to God and country, not party or faction." Balanced with the pointed presidential reality check that "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling for reasoned debate," it summed up the hopes of this inaugural moment and the import of his decisive re-election amid such a divided political landscape.

Here's hoping for all of us that those patriotic emotions -- those actual imperatives of self-government -- are carried forward into the next Congress.

John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." He is a regular contributor to "Erin Burnett OutFront" and is a member of the OutFront Political Strike Team. For more political analysis, tune in to "Erin Burnett OutFront" at 7 ET weeknights.

Sworn in again, Obama lingers for last look

Anne-Marie Slaughter: A welcome focus on climate change

This was the rainbow inauguration. It was dedicated above all to showcasing the diversity of the American people and calling on us once again to fulfill the promise of e pluribus unum -- out of many, one. Foreign policy got a scant few paragraphs.

Anne-Marie Slaughter

But the single most important moment was Obama's decision to list our commitment "to respond to the threat of climate change" as the first mention of a foreign policy issue. He spoke of leading a transition to sustainable energy resources, a national grand strategy that has recently been proposed by Patrick Doherty of the New America Foundation, building on the proposal of a new strategic narrative by two military men working for Adm. Michael Mullen when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Climate change is in fact the most important existential and security issue of our time. Equally important, it is both a foreign policy and a domestic policy issue. Obama believes that how we respond to our domestic challenges will determine our power and influence in the world, so he will bring troops home, engage the world through partnerships, support democracy through the power of our example, and, as he said so often on the campaign trail, engage in nation-building here at home.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. She curates foreign policy on Twitter at @slaughteram.

The best Inauguration Day tweets

LZ Granderson: Cheers for one Supreme Court rock star

The crowd cheered when President Obama was introduced. It cheered loudly for the first lady and her bangs. The people politely applauded Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leaders of the Democratic Party.

When Beyonce and Jay-Z were shown on the big screen, there were screams and when the Clintons emerged, shouts. None of this was unexpected.

LZ Granderson

What did surprise me was the enthusiastic reaction to Sonia Sotomayor. Maybe it was because she was selected to swear in Vice President Biden, though John Roberts was barely recognized when he was on the screen and he saved Obamacare.

You would think for a crowd as partisan as this one -- Paul Ryan was booed loudly -- that Roberts would get some love. But nope. On this day there was room for only one Supreme Court rock star and it was the wise Latina from the Bronx who, despite all of her success, still admits to suffering a tad from imposter syndrome.

Perhaps hearing hundreds of thousands of people cheer at the sight of her face will help her get over it.

LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN the Magazine and ESPN.com. Follow him on Twitter: @locs_n_laughs.

Ana Navarro: Today, revel in the strength of democracy

I love the pomp and circumstance of inaugurals. I love the significance of the traditions. I was born in Nicaragua into a dictatorship that had already lasted more than two decades. I lived through a civil war and communist revolution before I was 10.

Ana Navarro

Today, I am fortunate to live in a country where for 224 years we have had peaceful transitions of government. Sadly, it is something of a rare occurrence in our hemisphere and our world. In these difficult times when political divisions and ideological differences dominate our political discourse, we must not take for granted the strength of our democracy. We cannot forget, that in other countries, political disagreements can land you in exile, jail or a grave.

Inaugurations are a day for unity and vision, a day for lofty rhetoric and inspiration. It's not a day when we wave a magical wand to erase divisions. Instead, it is a day when in spite of those divisions, we recognize that our Constitution and democracy prevail.

I'm not going to dissect Obama's speech. Former Jimmy President Carter called it a "very progressive" speech. I agree. There were many lines in that speech that the coalition that voted for Obama will find encouraging, and those who didn't vote for him, will not. We have plenty of time to focus on those differences. Today, let's focus on what brings us together, not drives us apart

Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and commentator, was national Hispanic campaign chairwoman for John McCain in 2008 and national Hispanic co-chair for Jon Huntsman's 2012 campaign. Follow her on Twitter @ananavarro.

Obama's second-term priorities

Timothy Stanley: President's speech laid out America's divide

Obama obviously intends to govern as he campaigned -- as a committed, uncompromising liberal. We were promised one of those "bring us together"-type speeches that typified the heady days of 2009; instead we got a more policy specific speech that reflected the difficult, partisan reality of 2013. Obama has an agenda, and he's willing to fight for it.

Timothy Stanley

The philosophical ground work was laid out. Freedoms, we learned, "are self-evident but not self-executing." It requires "collective action" to realize basic liberties. And we cannot truly be free if dominated by a "privileged few." So we were promised economic justice, renewable energy and a moral commitment to gay rights -- "for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." For that line alone the speech proved controversial but admirably courageous. All of this is germane to European politics, but it feels radical coming from a U.S. president. It wouldn't have been out of place if he had joined James Taylor in a rendition of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."

Obama's presidency was supposed to heal the nation, but it's notable just how divided it feels today. Aside from the polls that show significant numbers of Americans are worried about the future (and worrying numbers of Republicans hoping that the president's policies will fail), the biggest marker of this is the growing philosophical difference between the parties. If Romney had won, his speech would no doubt be equally as partisan but very different in tone and content. And the enormous gulf between Obama's collectivist reading of the Constitution and Romney's individualist one reflects the fracturing of the country into camps that understand their country's history and values very differently.

Of course, if Romney had won, the speech probably also wouldn't have been so good. On style alone, Obama has earned his place in history. What he makes of his second term, however, will be determined by forces beyond his control.

Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."

'Mr. President, please fix America'

Maria Cardona: Hope and change undimmed

Maria Cardona

It was more sober in this inaugural address, but Obama's message is still one of hope and change. On a cold, windy morning, before a smaller throng than last time around, the president laid out his vision with a keen focus on what got him: his championing of the middle class, a recognition and celebration of the growing and powerful demographics in this country -- Latinos, women, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, and young people -- and a reaffirmation that we "are all in this together."

The historic participation of four Latinos front and center and his mention of immigration reform- by description if not by name, underscored the importance of the Latino electorate. You saw co- chair of the Inaugural Eva Longoria, Justice Sonia Sotomayor who swore in Vice President Biden, openly gay Latino poet Laureate Richard Blanco reciting a riveting poem that reflected the diversity of the country, and the Rev. Luis Leon, who gave part of the benediction in Spanish. This, along with the president's acknowledgment in his speech that we cannot be a country that is unwelcoming of immigrants or one that does not embrace young immigrants who have studied hard and want to succeed, was a clear indication that the president understands that the 71% of Latinos who helped get him elected will be looking for him to have their back. It seems he will.

He was also defiant in his defense of the middle class and put his opponents on notice that he will not back down in the fights ahead to ensure that Medicare and Social Security remain strong and that our economy is rebuilt for everyone, not just the privileged few. He gave his supporters hope he will continue to fight for them. He gave all Americans the assurance the country will continue to change for the better. Still: hope and change.

Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton and former communications director for the Democratic National Committee.

A tale of two terms: Obama's unfinished business and battles ahead

Bob Greene: Obama's remarkable journey

"A never-ending journey."

Bob Greene

Obama used those words to describe America's path. But, long after most of the specific words of his second inaugural address fade into memory, it is another journey -- his -- that will be endlessly instructive, both for his admirers and his detractors.

The ambition, the lightning speed with which, in 10 brief years, he changed the trajectory of his life, seem only more remarkable on a day like Monday, when, at the U.S. Capitol, the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as he waited to again take the oath of office.

Among the faces at the Capitol as Obama arrived was that of a congressman from Illinois named Bobby Rush. Ten Januarys ago Obama was a member of the state Legislature in Illinois, having returned to those chambers after, in 2000, suffering a humiliating defeat. He had hoped to go on to national politics, to the U.S. Congress, but Rush had crushed him 2-to-1 in the primary. Obama's career, at least beyond the confines of Springfield, Illinois, seemed stalled.

In January of 2003, could even Obama, with all his self-confidence, have imagined that in January of 2013 he would be taking the oath of presidential office for the second time?

He will only be 55 when he finishes his second term. Perhaps, when all the politics are done, he will feel at ease to explain, in human terms, just how he convinced himself that all of this was even remotely possible.

"We cannot afford delay," he said to the nation Monday.

He was referring to all of us, to the country. But you could look at him and consider what must go through a person's mind when he seems stuck in a place he doesn't want to be, and decides that urgency may be the only answer.

"We are made for this moment," he said Monday, the words traveling around the world.

CNN contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "Late Edition: A Love Story," "Chevrolet Summers, Dairy Queen Nights" and "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams."

Photos: Obama's face all over the place

Brian Balogh: Obama reminds us why he's a progressive

Inaugural addresses, especially the second time around, are not supposed to matter.

Brian Balogh

This one did. That's because future historians will mark it as the moment that Obama explained why he is a progressive.

The programs that Obama called for were characteristically liberal: reaffirming the social safety net, equal pay for women, etc. Nothing new here -- just the Obama classic.

What differed this time, and what this moment was made for (to twist the president's own words) was articulating the progressive rationale for these programmatic ends. "Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action," Obama proudly told the nation.

Compare this with the rationale that Obama offered to the American people at his State of the Union less than a year ago. Saving the heroic mission to capture Osama bin Laden for the grand finale, the president insisted that the "mission only succeeded because" each brave warrior knew that "there's somebody behind you, watching your back." The pre-election Obama, still seeking the middle ideologically, deployed the lowest common denominator of Cold War liberalism -- collective security -- as the rationale for a far more ambitious social program.

His second election behind him, Obama linked his fate and the nation's to a rationale that propelled tens of millions of Americans into the middle class. By making collective action explicit, Obama yoked a century-old progressive agenda to the nation's founding documents and its past history. "Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people." To achieve America's lofty goals of "life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" will require back watching, backslapping and no shortage of back-scratching as well.

But today, Obama left that for back benchers. He stated the "c" word -- collective -- loudly and proudly. And the nation will be better off for his candor.

Brian Balogh, a professor of history at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, is co-host of "Backstory With the American History Guys."

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

Read More..

Why Hollande must 'reset presidency'

John Gaffney says Francois Hollande, seen here at the Elysee Palace on January 11, 2013, needs to rethink his presidency.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• French President Francois Hollande and the country's Socialists are in a strong position


• Despite this, Hollande has made little progress since his election, says John Gaffney


• Gaffney: Hollande "like a stunned bunny in the headlights" of economic reality


• President must act now, and act decisively, to make France admired again, says Gaffney

Editor's note: John Gaffney is professor of politics and co-director of the Aston Centre for Europe, at the UK's Aston University.

(CNN) -- France is the fifth richest country in the world. It is the world's sixth largest exporter. It has the second largest diplomatic network in the world, after the US. It is a member of the UN Security Council. It is the most visited country in the world, welcoming 82 million visitors last year. It is a major nuclear power. It is the true founder of the European Union. And it is in a terrible mess.

Socialist Francois Hollande was elected president almost a year ago, ousting the deeply unpopular "Mr Bling," President Nicolas Sarkozy.

John Gaffney is professor of politics at Aston University in the UK.

France's Socialist left have never been so strong politically: They control the presidency, the government, both houses of parliament, the regions, and all the big towns and cities. And in his first eight months in office, Hollande has done virtually nothing. He is like a stunned bunny in the headlights of an oncoming vehicle called "Harsh Economic Reality."

Hollande has three fundamental problems. The first is that he doesn't have a plan. Tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs each week, and it is going to get worse and worse.

France faces a huge public spending crisis - in health, pensions, and now welfare, and a government debt of 90% of GDP. Not one single adequate measure has been put forward, nor even proposed in his eight months in office.

The second problem is that he lacks the political will to break the log-jams in French society: Making industry more competitive, reducing government spending. He cannot do these things because one of the constituencies he needs to take on -- the huge public sector -- is made up of the people who voted him into power.

He could take on the equally irresponsible banks -- they didn't vote for him -- but he risks sending the economy into a tailspin if he does.

And not only does he need to address the structural issues in France's economy and society, but he made the mistake of telling everyone he could solve the country's problems painlessly, or by taxing the super-rich, and he is not managing to do that either, so he is just taxing everyone else.

Now he faces the worst situation possible because no one believes a word he says. He delivered a robust New Year's message last week, watched by millions; yet 75% don't believe he can deliver on its promise.

In fact, the New Year's Eve wishes everyone in France did believe were the Churchillian tones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her message was essentially the opposite of Hollande's bizarre optimism, which seems to involve little more than following the "Keep Calm and Carry On" mantra. But waiting for the upturn will find France unprepared and in a worse predicament than Spain or Italy, who are now busily restructuring their economies.

The third and fundamental problem Hollande has is that he does not understand the nature of the office he holds, the French Presidency of the Republic. If he did, he might find a way forward. In his New Year message he likened himself to a ship's captain. But he has to be one, not just say he is one. The office of French President is a highly complex mixture of the political and the symbolic. But it is fundamentally about leadership; that is leading not following, and taking the French with him.

Hollande urgently needs to reset his Presidency - and there are a few clear rules to do so:

He needs to take on the banks where necessary, take on the benefits system, the impediments to innovation and to setting up new businesses, take on the appalling situation of France's forgotten inner city misery; his need not be a hard-nosed liberal agenda.

No government in French history is in a better position to make France a more equal society while making it and its economy more efficient. He should focus on young people trying to set up their own business. Focus on small businesses generally. Drag France away from its drive to over regulate everything and throttle innovation. Tax the super-rich if necessary, as long as it contributes to the overall solution he is aiming for.

He also needs to get into step with Merkel and lead Europe with Germany, not pretend he is the spokesperson for the irresponsible spenders.

But above all, he should use the presidency in a more imaginative way: Begin an ongoing and exciting conversation with the French. No other office in the world, not even the presidency of the US, offers such scope for an intimacy between leader and population.

He should boldly use the referendum to build up and direct the conversation towards change and innovation. If the vested interests won't move, bring in the people. Use the referendum like de Gaulle did between 1958 and 1962, as a major political weapon to break the deadlocks in French political society.

In Europe and the wider world he has to make France admired again, as it once was. Inside France, he has to forget about not upsetting anyone. In fact, he should have a plan that upsets just about everybody. The French would love him for it.

So far it remains to be seen what impact his first major foreign policy challenge -- in Mali -- will have. As French forces, with the backing of the international community, go into the West African country to take on Islamist rebels, the coming weeks will tell us whether fate just gave to him the best or the worst opportunity to show the French, and the rest of the world, what he is made of.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Gaffney.

Read More..