The world has changed a lot in the past 100 days, with Japan being somewhat brought to its knees by a freak combination of natural and nuclear disasters, and the Arab world being thrown into upheaval. While Japan has managed to control its ongoing nuclear problems (which may or may not have been seriously blown out of proportion by Western media), the Arab world, specifically Libya, is still facing serious issues. The Toronto Star describes the Arab uprising surviving 100 days and still going strong. Libya is in the midst of civil war with Western aerial military intervention, while Yemen, Bahrain and Syria have seen public protests and deaths of civilians.
The US has led the Western aerial intervention (now led by NATO, but with the US still in a leading role) in Libya, despite widespread foreign and local (US) concerns about military action against another Muslim country, and this is strongly a result of Libyan opposition, Arab League and international pressure for supporting the anti-Muamar Gadhafi rebels. What it shows is that for all the talk about US imperialism or conversely, the decline of the US, Europe is still not prepared or not willing to step up. I've never been a strong supporter of the US but this is one instance where it does not deserve the bulk of criticisms for its military role. On the other hand, there have been a slew of voices saying that this is all a sleigh of hand done by the US and Western powers, that instead of having been dragged kicking and screaming, the US actually orchestrated it this way, but for now, I'm going to say it sounds mostly like conspiracy theory.

The Atlantic's Robert D. Kaplan's latest piece is on the top American general in Afghanistan and why he thinks the country is still salvageable. Stanley McChrystal, a special forces commander who previously served in Iraq with an impressive record, seems to really believe in the possibility of victory, that accomplishing key objectives, such as holding on to areas "where the water and the roads are," and staying for the long-term, will help bring peace and defeat the Taliban. Kaplan, a renowned world affairs expert who has written many books on foreign nations including on Afghanistan and the famous essay The Coming Anarchy, writes some surprising things about Afghanistan, such as its coherent sense of nationalism and the desire of its people for modernity and stability. Not surprisingly, Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is described as weak and incompetent, allowing corruption to thrive due to his dependence on and empowerment of warlords. The article also shows the attempts by the U.S. military to boost the competency of the Afghan military through fostering U.S.-Afghan teamwork and letting the Afghans undertake operations for themselves (a novel concept, I'm sure).

Paul Krugman sees a bleak immediate future for the U.S. economy-wise in this piece. As he said, blips happen even in the worst economic times, because when economic activity dropped as deeply as it did last year, then a little jump or improvement is not surprising. The question is how sustainable it can be, and my feeling is it's not. It's funny when everytime there is some slight rise, or a decline that is not as deep as expected in the U.S., such as with unemployment figures or holiday shopping, there are industry pundits and media reports that highlight optimism, as if they expect things will return to normal very soon.

The UK's foreign secretary openly called China an "indispensable superpower" and says China will definitely join the U.S. as one of the two biggest powers in the world, in an interview with The Guardian. It's a bit remarkable for someone of his status to be so frank about China and illustrates the regard and power that China possesses now. The article includes some very interesting comments by David Miliband, especially that Europe may become a third power, thus implying that Europe cannot surpass China on the world stage, and that Europe has not been strategic enough in dealing with China.

On the "torture" allegations of the U.S.
Good point and illustrates the rampant hypocrisy of the dressing up of American interrogation techniques.
Of course, I think that it's hard to believe that any intelligence agency or military never uses torture in conducting interrogations on prisoners.

With the announcement this past week of a new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan which involves sending 21,000 more troops, there's a feeling among some observers that Afghanistan is looking more like a futile cause, no longer the just war that was in contrast to Iraq. Some feel that there is no real possibility of success in Afghanistan, that things are too messed up that it's even turning into a Vietnam, ironically a comparison that used to be made of the Iraq occupation.
This NATO advisor/ social worker in Afghanistan thinks otherwise, providing a good overview of why setting the goals lower will hurt Afghanistan as well as the success of the U.S. mission.

The fact that the situation there is not very good isn't surprising because it's been worsening for a while, as others including British officers have warned that it could take many years, even decades to make that country stable. What is surprising, and unreasonable is when some will use this set of problems to justify ending the Afghanistan campaign because of these problems, even likening Obama to Bush.
One of the main reasons that Afghanistan is the way it is now is because it was never the focus of the U.S., given how soon it went into Iraq after ousting the Afghan Taliban regime in 2001, and the vast manpower and effort it poured into occupying Iraq while leaving just a few tens of thousands of troops to search for Osama back in Afghanistan. NATO and Canada, due to deficient manpower, equipment, expertise and national support, certainly couldn't deal with Afghanistan adequately as the U.S. hoped for.
Unfortunately time can't be turned back and the rash, impulsive actions of the Bush administration in rushing to invade two countries and succeeding in neither can't be quickly solved. It will be tough for Obama but he would do well to stick with a set strategy and think long-term and for the good of Afghanistan and not be too influenced by the whims of critics on both ideological sides at home.

All of a sudden, America is who the world turns to now that the global crisis is getting really scary and shows no sign of ending soon, says Thomas Friedman.

And according to a senior South Korean official who he talked to, "The U.S. is still No. 1 in military, No. 1 in economy, No. 1 in promoting human rights and No. 1 in idealism. Only the U.S. can lead the world. No other country can. China can't. The EU is too divided, and Europe is militarily far behind the U.S."

This fine article from the WaPost gives a great overview of China's geopolitical status in the world, one which is rarely stated or believed by many in the media. Although my reading of it is a bit belated- the article having been printed this July- this is a minor issue because the main gist of the article is still as relevant and effective now.
Basically the writer states that despite the tremendous frenzy over China from the media, the government, economists and others in society, the country is a long way from becoming a true superpower, especially one like the United States. Although this might be kind of obvious to some, one would never know it based on the amount of attention (hype) given to China such as nonfiction books and media stories proclaiming China to be the next superpower or the next big threat to the US or think-tanks releasing reports saying that China's economy will become the largest sometime by 2020 or 2050 and so on.
He gives 4 main points for his contrary opinion: "dire demographics, an overrated economy, an environment under siege and an ideology that doesn't travel well -- China is more likely to remain the muscle-bound adolescent of the international system than to become the master
of the world."

Using a combination of facts and personal experience, the writer effectively makes his case and states things that usually aren't said or explained in many articles about China, for instance its looming senior population explosion.

So earlier this week, the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal bailout plan that would provide US$ 700 billion to help the economy cope with the current crisis. There were mixed reactions with many not surprised or glad that most Congressmen and women would reject it, as many of the U.S. public feel revulsion for what seems like a giant and costly bailout of the financial sector or even socialism for the rich, as I saw it described in one article. Others were disappointed because they believe that this bailout is necessary, not only for the Wall Street firms and financial institutions, but for the broader public who have borrowed any kind of loans from banks and such. Whatever the real situation is, there is a strong sentiment that the plan was presented badly and that the general public has a legitimate reason to feel disgust and apprehension over this plan being passed. There is also a lot of effort being made by U.S. federal officials like the President, the Treasury Secretary and the two main presidential candidates to convince the public that the bailout plan is absolutely essential for the nation. I think that this is true but not because the wellbeing of the financial institutions and banks are themselves intrinsically vital for the nation's wellbeing. The second article I linked to above, from Time, claims that the majority of the bailout plan is not going to help common people but financial assets held by the firms themselves. I do think what the writer says is largely true and I don't care much about the financial firms themselves. What I also think though is that these financial assets, much of them virtual garbage, comprise so much of the economy that if these firms go down, they will take America down with them.

The recent brief conflict between Russia and Georgia, fought over two disputed Georgian territories proved to be one of the most significant events of the year. Auspiciously, or inauspiciously, starting on the same day as the opening of the Beijing Olympics, this conflict set off a load of alarms all over the world, especially in Europe and the US, over the aggressiveness of Russia and the possibility of a new era of global confrontation with the heir of the West's Cold War foe Soviet Union. Several issues were perceived from the conflict including that of the right of places to secede due to ethnic or cultural differences (Kosovo being a striking example), which brought up inevitable comparisons with Taiwan's situation, Russia as a resurgent foe and possibly wanting to invade other nations namely Ukraine, and the role of the US as global superpower being brought into question, in its inability to directly assist Georgia. The biggest issue has to be that seemingly overnight, the possibility loomed of a new military conflict with a dangerous Russia and the West. Notwithstanding the many civil wars and conflicts happening all over the world and the US troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq, the closeness of the threat of Russian military actions on Europe aka the developed world and the European dependency on Russian oil supplies, shocked the EU.
There's no doubt that Russia delivered a savage retribution to Georgia which was far destructive and brutal than Georgia's initial aggression. In the interest of being a cooperative and moral power it should retreat from Georgian territory and allow for international probe and peacekeeping in the disputed areas. But there is also no question that Georgia was the aggressor, sending tanks and soldiers into the disputed territories and attempting to take control by force. The real question which should be asked is was there any substantial Western or American role in this action or was it solely the Georgian leader's prerogative?
Back in April earlier this year, there were already signs of possibly military action by Georgia which was detected by Russia who warned of retaliation.

A roundup of interesting reading:
Here's the French President warning of a "new Cold War" before an emergency NATO meeting in mid-August.
This piece written as the conflict broke out, claims that the conflict is mainly about Russia's concern and anger over Georgia's NATO yearning. The writer does make a good point about Russia's hypocrisy in crushing separatists in Chechnya while endorsing the rights of South Ossetia to separate.
Foreign affairs expert columnist Gwynne Dyer says a new Cold War might be possible.
This article from Canadian Dimension examines the role of the US as an instigator in the conflict given its support for Georgia's leader Saakashvili and its foreign policy moves.
Commentators such as this one think a Russian move on Ukraine is very plausible.
This Guardian editorial slams Russia for its military action and claims that this is a sign of its weakening.
And finally to get a good overview of the conflict, check the BBC here.

The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui writes about the huge cost to Iraq that has been caused by the American occupation and which America needs to take full responsibility for solving.
"An age-old civilization and its remnants have been destroyed.

A whole generation of Iraqi civilians has been killed, maimed and uprooted. Between 80,000 and 1.2 million are dead (depending on which estimate you go by). More than 4 million have been made refugees – half forced into exile in Jordan and Syria, and the other half internally uprooted."

This just has to be the largest catastrophe in the world in this decade, surpassing those of even the Darfur genocide, Afghanistan (which also involves the US) and even the great natural disasters like the Asian tsunami. The DR Congo might be the only one to rival it though.

The Kielburger brothers always write interesting and informative articles on many international social issues. Here they've written something different from their regular articles, as their latest article is about the relationship between China and the US which binds them more tighter than many would think. Specifically this is referring to their economic trade relations in which China has a huge surplus with the US, exporting more to the US than importing, while also buying up a lot of American treasury securities.
As the authors note:

"China is now so deeply invested in U.S. securities, any disruption to the value of the dollar would be a serious blow to its own reserves. Reliant as they are on the U.S. market for goods, the Chinese are forced to buy up new securities as soon as they're issued to prevent their currency, the yuan, from appreciating against the U.S. dollar. Neither country holds a significant advantage over the other."

The thing is not only does China depend on the US to buy a lot of its products, but it also needs the US to keep a strong economy and currency in order for its own vast holdings of American treasuries to maintain their value, to the point of propping up the US currency by continuously buying up American treasury securities. In essence, the US has little leverage over China.

Of course, China does realise the vulnerability of their situation and raised some concerns by suggesting selling off some of their US dollars last year which they later retracted. They have also tried to invest in more US-dollar non-treasury investments such as Morgan Stanley.
See this table for the list of foreign countries who own American treasury securities. As you can see, China is by far the number two owner though it is relatively a little behind Japan. Keep in mind Japan's economy is greater than China's.