If you have noticed that I haven’t posting videos on Oudam.com as often any more, it’s because I have been adding content to my newest Khmer video sharing site, Khmerflix.com. Whereas Oudam.com is a general blog for a wide range of materials, including articles, news, audio playlists and Youtube videos, Khmerflix.com is dedicated mostly to Khmer-related audio-visual entertainment media. While still in launching stage, Khmerflix now has almost 1,500 videos which have been viewed over 150,000 times. I find that I could post 20-30 videos on Khmerflix easily in one sitting, whereas I have time to post only a few a day on Oudam.com. Khmerflix.com also has audio playlists where you can just click on the play button and have your computer playing Khmer songs (categorized by genre and artist) non-stop. In future, I will modify the script to allow people to play flash games right on the site.

Here in Cambodia the internet is slow, unreliable and very expensive compared to that in the U.S. Unlimited broadband access runs about $300 to $400 a month. That’s a lot to pay for internet access in a country where many people live on less than a dollar a day. And even at those rates, the speed and reliability don’t even compare to the $40-a-month DSL connection that you get in the States. Needless to say, very few people subscribe to the $300/month service for private use. These services are used mainly by internet cafes that buys one line and divide the bandwidth among a couple dozen computers and charge their customers by the hour for usage– usually around 2,000 riels ($0.50 US) per hour. Other customers includes schools, hotels, and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).

Customers can go to the internet cafes to make international calls very inexpensively, usually for around 2 to 3 cents a minute to the U.S. If you have your own internet access, you can easily set up Yahoo Messenger on your computer which allows you to call the U.S. for just 1 cent a minute. I have a U.S. phone number on my Yahoo Messenger account which allow my friends and relatives in the U.S. to call me toll-free. The only catches are the 12-hour difference and that my laptop has to be on and connected to the internet to receive their calls.

My apartment offers unlimited access for $65 a month. But it’s only a 128K line that is shared by 10 other tenants, so access can be very slow at times, especially during peak hours. That’s why I like to use the web at odd hours while most people are asleep. I tried a dial-up service where I hook my cell phone (as a modem) to my computer to access the web. That was a joke, as it took me a full three minutes just to load the homepage of this site.

I hear that the internet is much cheaper and faster just next door in Vietnam. So, why is it so expensive and unreliable here? Of course, corruption comes to mind. While I’m sure corruption has something to do with the high cost and low reliability, the main reason is that relatively few people use the internet in Cambodia. The internet remains an alien concept to many of the older generations, who go to internet cafes mainly to make international calls to their relatives abroad. This relatively new medium is more popular with kids who like to go to internet cafes to play interactive games online, often while skipping school. Some people use the web for research, but this is largely limited by language barriers. Because of relatively low internet usage, providers must pass high cost of their initial investments to the few subscribers that they get.

Hi everyone,

I try not to be too political but this coming US Presidential Election in November 2008 is too great to ignore. The next US president/administration will definitely change our lives. So for a moment, put down your remote control to American Idols, MTV, CSI, take a little break from drinking, partying, sports, sex, etc...haha!

Here several snippets about each candidate....and i hope we can have 'constructive discussion'...rather letting emotions fog our ability to 'reason'. I try to be objective with an open mind, study the issues, research their history, voting records, experience of both candidates, etc before making a decision.

BTW...I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat...I'm an Independent, a free thinker...not a sheep.

(Everyone is welcome and encourage to participate in this discussion....)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(In addition #1)

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The financial meltdown will change many things in America, and we can start with campaign promises. You can say goodbye to universal health care, a cornerstone of Barack Obama's campaign strategy. Massive medical benefits are now impossible because the bailout will take all the money.

Also, sayonara to John McCain's across-the-board tax cuts. The Democrats will likely control Congress again and, in the face of a $750 billion expenditure, there is little chance taxes will decline in any significant way.

So, both candidates find themselves losing a major core issue because of the greedy, stupid mortgage scandal.

Polls show that the folks are angry, as they should be. A Fox News survey puts President Bush's approval rating at 26%. Shortly after 9/11, the President had an approval rating of 88%, so you can clearly see how the once-mighty have fallen.

Just two weeks ago, the Palin bounce had John McCain leading Barack Obama in just about every national poll. Now McCain has fallen behind Senator Obama, and it's directly because of the economic madness.

Some Americans object to the feds bailing out companies that trafficked in risky mortgages. But if the government does not allocate taxpayer money to stop the economic bleeding, then what? Do you let the United States slide into a depression? The American economy is greatly dependent on foreign investment—oil sheiks and Chinese entrepreneurs buying our stocks and bonds. If overseas investors believe the U.S. economy is fundamentally unstable, they will pull their money out. That would be catastrophic for America.

Basically, the feds are playing a confidence game right now. They are assuring the world that our economy will not collapse. That assurance is vital.

But, once again, it is the folks who have to pay the bills, and pay we will. For the next four years, our tax dollars will be basically used for two things—fighting terrorists abroad and bailing out greedheads on Wall Street.

The FBI is investigating some corporate managers who made big money while their companies burned. People like former Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal who allowed his company to buy bad mortgage paper and then, when things went south, walked away with a reported $150 million severance package. Meanwhile, millions of Merrill stockholders got hammered.

In any federal bailout, two things have to happen. First, the companies involved must pay back any "loans" after they get back on their feet. Secondly, the government must control the pay of the managers. That is non-negotiable. No more tax dollars for greedhead incompetents like O'Neal.

In the end, the American working person will pull the country out of this mess, just like we always do. But no longer can we the people trust the government to look out for us. The covenant between the folks and Washington has been badly damaged, there's no question about it.
And that may take a longer time to repair than the stupid mortgage mess.


(In addition # 2)

Thursday, September 11, 2008

A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll says that 50% of Americans believe John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was the most effective pick in the campaign. 40% say Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden was the smarter choice. That confirms the prevailing wisdom that Governor Palin is dramatically helping McCain's chances to become President.

Going forward, Governor Palin must consolidate her initial gains, and it will not be easy. First of all, the tabloid press is all over Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and you can bet they'll come up with something. No human being is perfect. And then there's the mainstream media, which took a beating last week after trying to marginalize Palin as some kind of country bumpkin—a religious fanatic who is not fit to serve. The personal attacks against Palin and her family angered millions of Americans and, almost instantly, made the Governor a folk hero in some circles.

Of course, that infuriated the establishment press which doesn't like getting pounded in the court of public opinion. So you can take it to the bank that many left-leaning press people are laying in wait.

But Sarah Palin has some skills which can protect her against the inevitable attacks. She is a natural performer; the TV camera loves the woman. She is also a plainspoken American who connects emotionally with the folks. Therefore, she can set her own agenda. As Ronald Reagan once did, she can go directly to the people and around the press.

If I were advising Mrs. Palin, I would have had her defend Barack Obama in the lipstick/pig incident. If Governor Palin would have stated that she doesn't believe the Senator would compare her to a pig, that would have been a compassionate gesture. The folks love compassion. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in the pig deal would have meant more votes in the barnyard, and also made it harder for the Obama campaign to lash her in the future.

In addition, I would tell Sarah to be Sarah: Feisty, down-to-earth and funny. Don't try to be Henry Kissinger. Just demonstrate a grasp of the issues and a determination to look out for the folks. The key phrase for Palin should be "Here's what we want to do." Then, using simple terms, state that.

Right now, Americans voters want to be reassured that their jobs are safe and that some crazy terrorist won't blow up their neighborhood. Palin has dealt with economic issues successfully in Alaska. On national security she has no record. But I'm sure there are things she wants to do in order to keep her five children safe. Just say them.

The elite media has little in common with everyday Americans, and Palin should just laugh off their attempts to demean her. She can best capitalize on her incredibly fast start by simply keeping it simple. Nice goes a long way in life—also, in politics.


(In addition # 3)

September 23, 2008

The New President and the Global Landscape
It has often been said that presidential elections are all about the economy. That just isn't true. Harry Truman's election was all about Korea. John Kennedy's election focused on missiles, Cuba and Berlin. Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's elections were heavily about Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's first election pivoted on Iran. George W. Bush's second election was about Iraq. We won't argue that presidential elections are all about foreign policy, but they are not all about the economy. The 2008 election will certainly contain a massive component of foreign policy.

We have no wish to advise you how to vote. That's your decision. What we want to do is try to describe what the world will look like to the new president and consider how each candidate is likely to respond to the world. In trying to consider whether to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama, it is obviously necessary to consider their stands on foreign policy issues. But we have to be cautious about campaign assertions. Kennedy claimed that the Soviets had achieved superiority in missiles over the United States, knowing full well that there was no missile gap. Johnson attacked Barry Goldwater for wanting to escalate the war in Vietnam at the same time he was planning an escalation. Nixon won the 1968 presidential election by claiming that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. What a candidate says is not always an indicator of what the candidate is thinking.

It gets even trickier when you consider that many of the most important foreign policy issues are not even imagined during the election campaign. Truman did not expect that his second term would be dominated by a war in Korea. Kennedy did not expect to be remembered for the Cuban missile crisis. Jimmy Carter never imagined in 1976 that his presidency would be wrecked by the fall of the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis. George H. W. Bush didn't expect to be presiding over the collapse of communism or a war over Kuwait. George W. Bush (regardless of conspiracy theories) never expected his entire presidency to be defined by 9/11. If you read all of these presidents' position papers in detail, you would never get a hint as to what the really important foreign policy issues would be in their presidencies.

Between the unreliability of campaign promises and the unexpected in foreign affairs, predicting what presidents will do is a complex business. The decisions a president must make once in office are neither scripted nor conveniently timed. They frequently present themselves to the president and require decisions in hours that can permanently define his (or her) administration. Ultimately, voters must judge, by whatever means they might choose, whether the candidate has the virtue needed to make those decisions well.

Virtue, as we are using it here, is a term that comes from Machiavelli. It means the opposite of its conventional usage. A virtuous leader is one who is clever, cunning, decisive, ruthless and, above all, effective. Virtue is the ability to face the unexpected and make the right decision, without position papers, time to reflect or even enough information. The virtuous leader can do that. Others cannot. It is a gut call for a voter, and a tough one.

This does not mean that all we can do is guess about a candidate's nature. There are three things we can draw on. First, there is the political tradition the candidate comes from. There are more things connecting Republican and Democratic foreign policy than some would like to think, but there are also clear differences. Since each candidate comes from a different political tradition-as do his advisers-these traditions can point to how each candidate might react to events in the world. Second, there are indications in the positions the candidates take on ongoing events that everyone knows about, such as Iraq. Having pointed out times in which candidates have been deceptive, we still believe there is value in looking at their positions and seeing whether they are coherent and relevant. Finally, we can look at the future and try to predict what the world will look like over the next four years. In other words, we can try to limit the surprises as much as possible.

In order to try to draw this presidential campaign into some degree of focus on foreign policy, we will proceed in three steps. First, we will try to outline the foreign policy issues that we think will confront the new president, with the understanding that history might well throw in a surprise. Second, we will sketch the traditions and positions of both Obama and McCain to try to predict how they would respond to these events. Finally, after the foreign policy debate is over, we will try to analyze what they actually said within the framework we created.

Let me emphasize that this is not a partisan exercise. The best guarantee of objectivity is that there are members of our staff who are passionately (we might even say irrationally) committed to each of the candidates. They will be standing by to crush any perceived unfairness. It is Stratfor's core belief that it is possible to write about foreign policy, and even an election, without becoming partisan or polemical. It is a difficult task and we doubt we can satisfy everyone, but it is our goal and commitment.

The Post 9/11 World
Ever since 9/11 U.S. foreign policy has focused on the Islamic world. Starting in late 2002, the focus narrowed to Iraq. When the 2008 campaign for president began a year ago, it appeared Iraq would define the election almost to the exclusion of all other matters. Clearly, this is no longer the case, pointing to the dynamism of foreign affairs and opening the door to a range of other issues.

Iraq remains an issue, but it interacts with a range of other issues. Among these are the future of U.S.-Iranian relations; U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan and the availability of troops in Iraq for that mission; the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations and their impact on Afghanistan; the future of U.S.-Russian relations and the extent to which they will interfere in the region; resources available to contain Russian expansion; the future of the U.S. relationship with the Europeans and with NATO in the context of growing Russian power and the war in Afghanistan; Israel's role, caught as it is between Russia and Iran; and a host of only marginally related issues. Iraq may be subsiding, but that simply complicates the world facing the new president.

The list of problems facing the new president will be substantially larger than the problems facing George W. Bush, in breadth if not in intensity. The resources he will have to work with, military, political and economic, will not be larger for the first year at least. In terms of military capacity, much will hang on the degree to which Iraq continues to bog down more than a dozen U.S. brigade combat teams. Even thereafter, the core problem facing the next president will be the allocation of limited resources to an expanding number of challenges. The days when it was all about Iraq is over. It is now all about how to make the rubber band stretch without breaking.

Iraq remains the place to begin, however, since the shifts there help define the world the new president will face. To understand the international landscape the new president will face, it is essential to begin by understanding what happened in Iraq, and why Iraq is no longer the defining issue of this campaign.

A Stabilized Iraq and the U.S. Troop Dilemma
In 2006, it appeared that the situation in Iraq was both out of control and hopeless. Sunni insurgents were waging war against the United States, Shiite militias were taking shots at the Americans as well, and Sunnis and Shia were waging a war against each other. There seemed to be no way to bring the war to anything resembling a satisfactory solution.

When the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it appeared inevitable that the United States would begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. U.S expectations aside, this was the expectation by all parties in Iraq. Given that the United States was not expected to remain a decisive force in Iraq, all Iraqi parties discounted the Americans and maneuvered for position in anticipation of a post-American Iraq. The Iranians in particular saw an opportunity to limit a Sunni return to Iraq's security forces, thus reshaping the geopolitics of the region. U.S. fighting with Iraqi Sunnis intensified in preparation for the anticipated American withdrawal.

Bush's decision to increase forces rather than withdraw them dramatically changed the psychology of Iraq. It was assumed he had lost control of the situation. Bush's decision to surge forces in Iraq, regardless by how many troops, established two things. First, Bush remained in control of U.S. policy. Second, the assumption that the Americans were leaving was untrue. And suddenly, no one was certain that there would be a vacuum to be filled.

The deployment of forces proved helpful, as did the change in how the troops were used; recent leaks indicate that new weapon systems also played a key role. The most important factor, however, was the realization that the Americans were not leaving on Bush's watch. Since no one was sure who the next U.S. president would be, or what his policies might be, it was thus uncertain that the Americans would leave at all.

Everyone in Iraq suddenly recalculated. If the Americans weren't leaving, one option would be to make a deal with Bush, seen as weak and looking for historical validation. Alternatively, they could wait for Bush's successor. Iran remembers-without fondness-its decision not to seal a deal with Carter, instead preferring to wait for Reagan. Similarly, seeing foreign jihadists encroaching in Sunni regions and the Shia shaping the government in Baghdad, the Sunni insurgents began a fundamental reconsideration of their strategy.

Apart from reversing Iraq's expectations about the United States, part of Washington's general strategy was supplementing military operations with previously unthinkable political negotiations. First, the United States began talking to Iraq's Sunni nationalist insurgents, and found common ground with them. Neither the Sunni nationalists nor the United States liked the jihadists, and both wanted the Shia to form a coalition government. Second, back-channel U.S.-Iranian talks clearly took place. The Iranians realized that the possibility of a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad was evaporating. Iran's greatest fear was a Sunni Iraqi government armed and backed by the United States, recreating a version of the Hussein regime that had waged war with Iran for almost a decade. The Iranians decided that a neutral, coalition government was the best they could achieve, so they reined in the Shiite militia.

The net result of this was that the jihadists were marginalized and broken, and an uneasy coalition government was created in Baghdad, balanced between Iran and the United States. The Americans failed to create a pro-American government in Baghdad, but had blocked the emergence of a pro-Iranian government. Iraqi society remained fragmented and fragile, but a degree of peace unthinkable in 2006 had been created.

The first problem facing the next U.S. president will be deciding when and how many U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Unlike 2006, this issue will not be framed by Iraq alone. First, there will be the urgency of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Second, there will be the need to create a substantial strategic reserve to deal with potential requirements in Pakistan, and just as important, responding to events in the former Soviet Union like the recent conflict in Georgia.

At the same time, too precipitous a U.S. withdrawal not only could destabilize the situation internally in Iraq, it could convince Iran that its dream of a pro-Iranian Iraq is not out of the question. In short, too rapid a withdrawal could lead to resumption of war in Iraq. But too slow a withdrawal could make the situation in Afghanistan untenable and open the door for other crises.

The foreign policy test for the next U.S. president will be calibrating three urgent requirements with a military force that is exhausted by five years of warfare in Iraq and seven in Afghanistan. This force was not significantly expanded since Sept. 11, making this the first global war the United States has ever fought without a substantial military expansion. Nothing the new president does will change this reality for several years, so he will be forced immediately into juggling insufficient forces without the option of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq unless he is prepared to accept the consequences, particularly of a more powerful Iran.

The Nuclear Chip and a Stable U.S.-Iranian Understanding
The nuclear issue has divided the United States and Iran for several years. The issue seems to come and go depending on events elsewhere. Thus, what was enormously urgent just prior to the Russo-Georgian war became much less pressing during and after it. This is not unreasonable in our point of view, because we regard Iran as much farther from nuclear weapons than others might, and we suspect that the Bush administration agrees given its recent indifference to the question.

Certainly, Iran is enriching uranium, and with that uranium, it could possibly explode a nuclear device. But the gap between a nuclear device and weapon is substantial, and all the enriched uranium in the world will not give the Iranians a weapon. To have a weapon, it must be ruggedized and miniaturized to fit on a rocket or to be carried on an attack aircraft. The technologies needed for that range from material science to advanced electronics to quality assurance. Creating a weapon is a huge project. In our view, Iran does not have the depth of integrated technical skills needed to achieve that goal.

As for North Korea, for Iran a very public nuclear program is a bargaining chip designed to extract concessions, particularly from the Americans. The Iranians have continued the program very publicly in spite of threats of Israeli and American attacks because it made the United States less likely to dismiss Iranian wishes in Tehran's true area of strategic interest, Iraq.
The United States must draw down its forces in Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. The Iranians have no liking for the Taliban, having nearly gone to war with them in 1998, and having aided the United States in Afghanistan in 2001. The United States needs Iran's commitment to a neutral Iraq to withdraw U.S. forces since Iran could destabilize Iraq overnight, though Tehran's ability to spin up Shiite proxies in Iraq has declined over the past year.

Therefore, the next president very quickly will face the question of how to deal with Iran. The Bush administration solution-relying on quiet understandings alongside public hostility-is one model. It is not necessarily a bad one, so long as forces remain in Iraq to control the situation. If the first decision the new U.S. president will have to make is how to transfer forces in Iraq elsewhere, the second decision will be how to achieve a more stable understanding with Iran.

This is particularly pressing in the context of a more assertive Russia that might reach out to Iran. The United States will need Iran more than Iran needs the United States under these circumstances. Washington will need Iran to abstain from action in Iraq but to act in Afghanistan. More significantly, the United States will need Iran not to enter into an understanding with Russia. The next president will have to figure out how to achieve all these things without giving away more than he needs to, and without losing his domestic political base in the process.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban
The U.S. president also will have to come up with an Afghan policy, which really doesn't exist at this moment. The United States and its NATO allies have deployed about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. To benchmark this, the Russians deployed around 120,000 by the mid-1980s, and were unable to pacify the country. Therefore the possibility of 60,000 troops-or even a few additional brigades on top of that-pacifying Afghanistan is minimal. The primary task of troops in Afghanistan now is to defend the Kabul regime and other major cities, and to try to keep the major roads open. More troops will make this easier, but by itself, it will not end the war.

The problem in Afghanistan is twofold. First, the Taliban defeated their rivals in Afghanistan during the civil war of the 1990s because they were the most cohesive force in the country, were politically adept and enjoyed Pakistani support. The Taliban's victory was not accidental; and all other things being equal, without the U.S. presence, they could win again. The United States never defeated the Taliban. Instead, the Taliban refused to engage in massed warfare against American airpower, retreated, dispersed and regrouped. In most senses, it is the same force that won the Afghan civil war.

The United States can probably block the Taliban from taking the cities, but to do more it must do three things. First, it must deny the Taliban sanctuary and lines of supply running from Pakistan. These two elements allowed the mujahideen to outlast the Soviets. They helped bring the Taliban to power. And they are fueling the Taliban today. Second, the United States must form effective coalitions with tribal groups hostile to the Taliban. To do this it needs the help of Iran, and more important, Washington must convince the tribes that it will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely-not an easy task. And third-the hardest task for the new president-the United States will have to engage the Taliban themselves, or at least important factions in the Taliban movement, in a political process. When we recall that the United States negotiated with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, this is not as far-fetched as it appears.

The most challenging aspect to deal with in all this is Pakistan. The United States has two issues in the South Asian country. The first is the presence of al Qaeda in northern Pakistan. Al Qaeda has not carried out a successful operation in the United States since 2001, nor in Europe since 2005. Groups who use the al Qaeda label continue to operate in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they use the name to legitimize or celebrate their activities-they are not the same people who carried out 9/11. Most of al Qaeda prime's operatives are dead or scattered, and its main leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are not functional. The United States would love to capture bin Laden so as to close the books on al Qaeda, but the level of effort needed-assuming he is even alive-might outstrip U.S. capabilities.

The most difficult step politically for the new U.S. president will be to close the book on al Qaeda. This does not mean that a new group of operatives won't grow from the same soil, and it doesn't mean that Islamist terrorism is dead by any means. But it does mean that the particular entity the United States has been pursuing has effectively been destroyed, and the parts regenerating under its name are not as dangerous. Asserting victory will be extremely difficult for the new U.S. president. But without that step, a massive friction point between the United States and Pakistan will persist-one that isn't justified geopolitically and undermines a much more pressing goal.

The United States needs the Pakistani army to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, or failing that, permit the United States to attack them without hindrance from the Pakistani military. Either of these are nightmarishly difficult things for a Pakistani government to agree to, and harder still to carry out. Nevertheless, without cutting the line of supply to Pakistan, like Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Afghanistan cannot be pacified. Therefore, the new president will face the daunting task of persuading or coercing the Pakistanis to carry out an action that will massively destabilize their country without allowing the United States to get bogged down in a Pakistan it cannot hope to stabilize.

At the same time, the United States must begin the political process of creating some sort of coalition in Afghanistan that it can live with. The fact of the matter is that the United States has no long-term interest in Afghanistan except in ensuring that radical jihadists with global operational reach are not given sanctuary there. Getting an agreement to that effect will be hard. Guaranteeing compliance will be virtually impossible. Nevertheless, that is the task the next president must undertake.

There are too many moving parts in Afghanistan to be sanguine about the outcome. It is a much more complex situation than Iraq, if for no other reason than because the Taliban are a far more effective fighting force than anything the United States encountered in Iraq, the terrain far more unfavorable for the U.S. military, and the political actors much more cynical about American capabilities.

The next U.S. president will have to make a painful decision. He must either order a long-term holding action designed to protect the Karzai government, launch a major offensive that includes Pakistan but has insufficient forces, or withdraw. Geopolitically, withdrawal makes a great deal of sense. Psychologically, it could unhinge the region and regenerate al Qaeda-like forces. Politically, it would not be something a new president could do. But as he ponders Iraq, the future president will have to address Afghanistan. And as he ponders Afghanistan, he will have to think about the Russians.

The Russian Resurgence
When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the Russians were allied with the United States. They facilitated the U.S. relationship with the Northern Alliance, and arranged for air bases in Central Asia. The American view of Russia was formed in the 1990s. It was seen as disintegrating, weak and ultimately insignificant to the global balance. The United States expanded NATO into the former Soviet Union in the Baltic states and said it wanted to expand it into Ukraine and Georgia. The Russians made it clear that they regarded this as a direct threat to their national security, resulting in the 2008 Georgian conflict.
The question now is where U.S.-Russian relations are going. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union a geopolitical catastrophe. After Ukraine and Georgia, it is clear he does not trust the United States and that he intends to reassert his sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. Georgia was lesson one. The current political crisis in Ukraine is the second lesson unfolding.

The re-emergence of a Russian empire in some form or another represents a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world. The Islamic world is divided and in chaos. It cannot coalesce into the caliphate that al Qaeda wanted to create by triggering a wave of revolutions in the Islamic world. Islamic terrorism remains a threat, but the geopolitical threat of a unifying Islamic power is not going to happen.

Russia is a different matter. The Soviet Union and the Russian empire both posed strategic threats because they could threaten Europe, the Middle East and China simultaneously. While this overstates the threat, it does provide some context. A united Eurasia is always powerful, and threatens to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere. Therefore, preventing Russia from reasserting its power in the former Soviet Union should take precedence over all other considerations.

The problem is that the United States and NATO together presently do not have the force needed to stop the Russians. The Russian army is not particularly powerful or effective, but it is facing forces that are far less powerful and effective. The United States has its forces tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan so that when the war in Georgia broke out, sending ground forces was simply not an option. The Russians are extremely aware of this window of opportunity, and are clearly taking advantage of it.

The Russians have two main advantages in this aside from American resource deficits. First, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas; German energy dependence on Moscow is particularly acute. The Europeans are in no military or economic position to take any steps against the Russians, as the resulting disruption would be disastrous. Second, as the United States maneuvers with Iran, the Russians can provide support to Iran, politically and in terms of military technology, that not only would challenge the United States, it might embolden the Iranians to try for a better deal in Iraq by destabilizing Iraq again. Finally, the Russians can pose lesser challenges in the Caribbean with Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, as well as potentially supporting Middle Eastern terrorist groups and left-wing Latin American groups.

At this moment, the Russians have far more options than the Americans have. Therefore, the new U.S. president will have to design a policy for dealing with the Russians with few options at hand. This is where his decisions on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan will intersect and compete with his decisions on Russia. Ideally, the United States would put forces in the Baltics-which are part of NATO-as well as in Ukraine and Georgia. But that is not an option and won't be for more than a year under the best of circumstances.

The United States therefore must attempt a diplomatic solution with Russia with very few sticks. The new president will need to try to devise a package of carrots-e.g., economic incentives-plus the long-term threat of a confrontation with the United States to persuade Moscow not to use its window of opportunity to reassert Russian regional hegemony. Since regional hegemony allows Russia to control its own destiny, the carrots will have to be very tempting, while the threat has to be particularly daunting. The president's task will be crafting the package and then convincing the Russians it has value.

European Disunity and Military Weakness
One of the problems the United States will face in these negotiations will be the Europeans. There is no such thing as a European foreign policy; there are only the foreign policies of the separate countries. The Germans, for example, do not want a confrontation with Russia under any circumstances. The United Kingdom, by contrast, is more willing to take a confrontational approach to Moscow. And the European military capability, massed and focused, is meager. The Europeans have badly neglected their military over the past 15 years. What deployable, expeditionary forces they have are committed to the campaign in Afghanistan. That means that in dealing with Russia, the Americans do not have united European support and certainly no meaningful military weight. This will make any diplomacy with the Russians extremely difficult.

One of the issues the new president eventually will have to face is the value of NATO and the Europeans as a whole. This was an academic matter while the Russians were prostrate. With the Russians becoming active, it will become an urgent issue. NATO expansion-and NATO itself-has lived in a world in which it faced no military threats. Therefore, it did not have to look at itself militarily. After Georgia, NATO's military power becomes very important, and without European commitment, NATO's military power independent of the United States-and the ability to deploy it-becomes minimal. If Germany opts out of confrontation, then NATO will be paralyzed legally, since it requires consensus, and geographically. For the United States alone cannot protect the Baltics without German participation.

The president really will have one choice affecting Europe: Accept the resurgence of Russia, or resist. If the president resists, he will have to limit his commitment to the Islamic world severely, rebalance the size and shape of the U.S. military and revitalize and galvanize NATO. If he cannot do all of those things, he will face some stark choices in Europe.

Israel, Turkey, China, and Latin America
Russian pressure is already reshaping aspects of the global system. The Israelis have approached Georgia very differently from the United States. They halted weapon sales to Georgia the week before the war, and have made it clear to Moscow that Israel does not intend to challenge Russia. The Russians met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad immediately after the war. This signaled the Israelis that Moscow was prepared to support Syria with weapons and with Russian naval ships in the port of Tartus if Israel supports Georgia, and other countries in the former Soviet Union, we assume. The Israelis appear to have let the Russians know that they would not do so, separating themselves from the U.S. position. The next president will have to re-examine the U.S. relationship with Israel if this breach continues to widen.

In the same way, the United States will have to address its relationship with Turkey. A long-term ally, Turkey has participated logistically in the Iraq occupation, but has not been enthusiastic. Turkey's economy is booming, its military is substantial and Turkish regional influence is growing. Turkey is extremely wary of being caught in a new Cold War between Russia and the United States, but this will be difficult to avoid. Turkey's interests are very threatened by a Russian resurgence, and Turkey is the U.S. ally with the most tools for countering Russia. Both sides will pressure Ankara mercilessly. More than Israel, Turkey will be critical both in the Islamic world and with the Russians. The new president will have to address U.S.-Turkish relations both in context and independent of Russia fairly quickly.

In some ways, China is the great beneficiary of all of this. In the early days of the Bush administration, there were some confrontations with China. As the war in Iraq calmed down, Washington seemed to be increasing its criticisms of China, perhaps even tacitly supporting Tibetan independence. With the re-emergence of Russia, the United States is now completely distracted. Contrary to perceptions, China is not a global military power. Its army is primarily locked in by geography and its navy is in no way an effective blue-water force. For its part, the United States is in no position to land troops on mainland China. Therefore, there is no U.S. geopolitical competition with China. The next president will have to deal with economic issues with China, but in the end, China will sell goods to the United States, and the United States will buy them.

Latin America has been a region of minimal interest to the United States in the last decade or longer. So long as no global power was using its territory, the United States did not care what presidents Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua-or even the Castros in Cuba-were doing. But with the Russians back in the Caribbean, at least symbolically, all of these countries suddenly become more important. At the moment, the United States has no Latin American policy worth noting; the new president will have to develop one.

Quite apart from the Russians, the future U.S. president will need to address Mexico. The security situation in Mexico is deteriorating substantially, and the U.S.-Mexican border remains porous. The cartels stretch from Mexico to the streets of American cities where their customers live. What happens in Mexico, apart from immigration issues, is obviously of interest to the United States. If the current trajectory continues, at some point in his administration, the new U.S. president will have to address Mexico-potentially in terms never before considered.

The U.S. Defense Budget
The single issue touching on all of these is the U.S. defense budget. The focus of defense spending over the past eight years has been the Army and Marine Corps-albeit with great reluctance. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was not an advocate of a heavy Army, favoring light forces and air power, but reality forced his successors to reallocate resources. In spite of this, the size of the Army remained the same-and insufficient for the broader challenges emerging.

The focus of defense spending was Fourth Generation warfare, essentially counterinsurgency. It became dogma in the military that we would not see peer-to-peer warfare for a long time. The re-emergence of Russia, however, obviously raises the specter of peer-to-peer warfare, which in turn means money for the Air Force as well as naval rearmament. All of these programs will take a decade or more to implement, so if Russia is to be a full-blown challenge by 2020, spending must begin now.

If we assume that the United States will not simply pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but will also commit troops to allies on Russia's periphery while retaining a strategic reserve-able to, for example, protect the U.S.-Mexican border-then we are assuming substantially increased spending on ground forces. But that will not be enough. The budgets for the Air Force and Navy will also have to begin rising.

U.S. national strategy is expressed in the defense budget. Every strategic decision the president makes has to be expressed in budget dollars with congressional approval. Without that, all of this is theoretical. The next president will have to start drafting his first defense budget shortly after taking office. If he chooses to engage all of the challenges, he must be prepared to increase defense spending. If he is not prepared to do that, he must concede that some areas of the world are beyond management. And he will have to decide which areas these are. In light of the foregoing, as we head toward the debate, 10 questions should be asked of the candidates:

1. If the United States removes its forces from Iraq slowly as both of you advocate, where will the troops come from to deal with Afghanistan and protect allies in the former Soviet Union?
2. The Russians sent 120,000 troops to Afghanistan and failed to pacify the country. How many troops do you think are necessary?
3. Do you believe al Qaeda prime is still active and worth pursuing?
4. Do you believe the Iranians are capable of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon during your term in office?
5. How do you plan to persuade the Pakistani government to go after the Taliban, and what support can you provide them if they do?
6. Do you believe the United States should station troops in the Baltic states, in Ukraine and Georgia as well as in other friendly countries to protect them from Russia?
7. Do you feel that NATO remains a viable alliance, and are the Europeans carrying enough of the burden?
8. Do you believe that Mexico represents a national security issue for the United States?
9. Do you believe that China represents a strategic challenge to the United States?
10. Do you feel that there has been tension between the United States and Israel over the Georgia issue?

Hi everyone,

I try not to be too political but this coming US Presidential Election in November 2008 is too great to ignore. The next US president/administration will definitely change our lives. So for a moment, put down your remote control to American Idols, MTV, CSI, take a little break from drinking, partying, sports, sex, etc...haha!

Here several snippets about each candidate....and i hope we can have 'constructive discussion'...rather letting emotions fog our ability to 'reason'. I try to be objective with an open mind, study the issues, research their history, voting records, experience of both candidates, etc before making a decision.

BTW...I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat...I'm an Independent, a free thinker...not a sheep.

(Everyone is welcome and encourage to participate in this discussion....)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama:

Friday, September 5, 2008

Like him or not, you have to give Barack Obama credit for waging a smart, focused campaign. Destroying the Clinton machine was a major achievement and so was putting together a successful convention in Denver. Obama is now firmly a part of U.S. history, no matter what happens in the presidential election.

The problem some Americans continue to have with the Senator is that he is long on charisma but short on detail. This frightens some voters. Who the heck is this guy, anyway? So when Obama finally agreed to speak to me this week, specifics were on my mind.

First, the man. The Barack Obama I witnessed is self-confident, determined and driven. He was acutely aware of his surroundings from the moment he entered the room. He looks you in the eye and touches your shoulder. He understands how to connect one-on-one.


As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.
The Senator also believes that poor Americans have a basic right to free health care and monetary supplements from the government with no strings attached. The American substance abuser, for example, would derive the same benefit as a hard working, laid off worker would. Again, classic liberalism. No judgments made regarding entitlements.

So, if Barack Obama does become president, there will definitely be change. His left-wing base will demand it, and he will come through. You can decide if that's change we should believe in, but keep in mind that the unintended consequences of government interference in the marketplace are impossible to predict. Free markets have a way of chafing under government imposition.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy-that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

It is true that we don't know whether Senator Obama has the ability to solve complex problems, but you can say that about all presidential contenders.

Like most politicians, Obama has used guile and good luck to accumulate his power. He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he's a real person trying to achieve an unreal position-that of the most powerful person in the world.

God help him.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

If Barack Obama somehow loses the presidential race, he might partially blame Vlad "the Assailer" Putin. Since Russia invaded Georgia last week, the world's attention has been focused on NATO's response to the brutality. On balance, the response has been tepid, to say the least. President Bush says Russia better get out.

Or what?

Senator Obama is calling for "restraint by both sides." Swell. Asking Putin to restrain his violent tactics is like asking al-Qaeda to celebrate Christmas—not gonna happen.

The Russian action is a reminder to all that we live in a dangerous world where just about anything can happen at any time. And, in America, the reaction from the far left, which enthusiastically supports Obama, is also a stark wake up call.

The liberal base is basically putting forth two sets of talking points on the Georgia situation. The first was articulated by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd:

"The Bushies can hardly tell Russia to stop doing what they themselves did in Iraq: unilaterally invade a country against the will of the world to scare the bejesus out of some leaders in the region they didn't like."

So here again we have the left making a moral equivalency between removing a murderous dictator who violated the Gulf War ceasefire 17 times and hammering the democratically elected Georgian government. To left-wing nuts, Saddam Hussein is as worthy as President Saakashvili; there is no difference between confronting homicidal fascism and undermining a legitimate democracy.

That kind of thinking marginalizes the far left more than anything a conservative critic could come up with.

But wait, it gets worse. A far-left commentator working for NBC News put forth that Putin is not the villain in the Georgia action—America is, because it encouraged Georgia to join NATO, thereby annoying Russia. So, once again, it was the United States that really caused the violent confrontation.

NATO, of course, was set up to protect democratic countries like, well, Georgia. But in the creepy world the far left inhabits, whatever happens is inevitably America's fault.

On the heels of Putin's great adventure, a new Zogby/Reuters poll startled some by concluding that John McCain is now leading Senator Obama by five points. Although these polls don't mean much two and a half months before the vote, they are a snapshot in time.

Non-ideological Americans recoil from the "blame America first" crowd, and that crew is firmly behind Obama. Thus, Putin's aggression reminded folks of that. Advantage McCain.

In the end, Barack Obama will lose the election if independent voters see him as part of the vast far-left conspiracy which, in today's dangerous world, has become a symbol of appeasement and anti-American attitudes. MoveOn.org, NBC News and the New York Times will not get Obama elected. He needs to tell Americans exactly what he thinks of Putin's desire to expand Russian power and influence. And he needs to do it without restraint.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCain:

John McCain and conservative angst

"Right wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are angry that Senator John McCain has become the front-runner for the Republican nomination. They believe he is simply unacceptable. The McCain campaign understands that angst, but feels it can make up for lost conservative votes with independents and Hispanic Americans. The irony here is that the American Conservative Union gives McCain a lifetime grade of 83%. By contrast, Hillary Clinton gets 9%, and Barack Obama is the nation's most liberal senator, according to the National Journal. So if he wins, Senator McCain will be facing a person who is far more liberal than he is. With Rudy Giuliani now supporting McCain, and Governor Huckabee draining support from Governor Romney, there's a chance the senator could wrap up the nomination by next Wednesday morning. In the end, the Republican Party will rally around their nominee, but some conservatives will sit things out. As is their right, no pun intended."

For more insight into right-wing objections to McCain, The Factor interrogated two leading conservatives, beginning with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum. "You never knew issue-to-issue," Santorum complained, "where John McCain was going to be. It's that lack of any core set of principles that make conservatives disconcerted." But radio host Monica Crowley defended McCain's record and electability. "I'm one of the few conservative talk show hosts who actually likes John McCain. He's bad on illegal immigration, bad on campaign finance reform, but John McCain has had a long conservative record of backing tax cuts and being a deficit hawk. And he has been consistently pro-life." The Factor reminded everyone that McCain is a tough terror warrior. "He was one of the few who stood very firm on Iraq, and that was a conservative cause. For him to take a stand on Iraq tells me he was not a waffler. But there's real hatred on the right of McCain, and I think it's driven by immigration."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fight Night: McCain, Obama Spar on Economy, Foreign Affairs
2008 Presidential Nominees Debate for First Time in Oxford, Miss.
Sept. 27, 2008

In the first of the election season's presidential debates, Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama said America's staggered economy was the "final verdict" on President Bush's policies, which he claimed were backed by his opponent, Sen. John McCain.
Best moments from McCain-Obama face off in Oxford, Mississippi.

In a 97-minute debate Friday, Obama, D-Ill., asserted lack of oversight brought on the current financial turmoil, while McCain, R-Ariz., blamed greed and corruption for Wall Street's woes, and echoed Obama's concerns about the impact of the crisis on Americans across the nation.

"This is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies -- promoted by George Bush, supported by Sen. McCain," Obama said, "a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow, prosperity will trickle down."

"It hasn't worked," he added. "And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president."

McCain said if he is elected, he would address the economic problem of earmarks for pork barrel spending.

"I've got a pen and I'm going to veto every spending bill that comes across my desk," McCain said, vowing to crack down on pork-pushing legislators. "I will make them famous and you will know their names."

After the debate, political pundits were split on the subject of who won. But several, including ABC News political contributor Matthew Dowd, the former chief strategist for President Bush's 2004 presidential campaign, gave a narrow edge to Obama.

"I don't think there was a clear winner, but I think you have to give the possession arrow after the debate to Barack Obama," Dowd said. "Debates are judged by the American public by substance and by style, and how you connect with an audience. And I think on that regard, Barack Obama did a much better job."

The official topics of the debate, hosted by the University of Mississippi, were to be foreign policy and national security, but veteran debate moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, noting that the subject matter "by definition, includes the global financial crisis," kicked off the debate with questions about the economy, as was widely expected.

Both candidates agreed on the need for a financial rescue package.

"But I want to emphasize one point to all Americans tonight: This isn't the beginning of the end of this crisis," said McCain. "This is the end of the beginning."

Obama said that, in the face of "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," leaders must "move swiftly" and "move wisely" to address the problems Wall Street has created for Main Street.

Foreign Policy

As the debate turned to Iraq, Obama noted that he opposed entering Iraq from the beginning, and ticked off the costs of the war.

"We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion," Obama said. "We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.

"We took our eye off the ball," he added. "And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month when they [Iraqis] have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home."

McCain countered by saying that the next president shouldn't look back and parse the past.

"The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not," McCain said. "The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind.".

The Illinois senator also reiterated his call for more troops in Afghanistan, citing reports from commanders on the ground that the situation is getting worse -- and he accused McCain of an inconsistent approach towards the country.

"We took our eye off Afghanistan," Obama said. "We took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11. They are still sending out videotapes. And, Sen. McCain, nobody is talking about defeat in Iraq, but I have to say we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision."

But McCain fired back, saying that his travels through the tribal regions in Afghanistan give him a better perspective on the security needs there.

"So the point is that we will prevail in Afghanistan," McCain said, "but we need the new strategy and we need it to succeed."

McCain went on to deride Obama's plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"If we suffer defeat in Iraq, which Gen. [David] Petraeus predicts we will if we adopted Sen. Obama's set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect in Afghanistan, and [on] American national security interests in the region," McCain said. "Sen. Obama doesn't seem to understand there is a connected between the two."

The candidates also offered their overall impressions on U.S. national security.

"I think ... that we have a safer nation [since 9/11], but we are a long way from safe," McCain said.

The Vietnam War veteran, who faced torture as a prisoner of war, stressed the need for well-trained interrogators, "so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again.

"We have to make sure that our technological and intelligence capabilities are better," he added. "We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them."

He also cited his push to form the 9/11 commission as an instance when he met strong opposition from the Bush administration.

Obama agreed that the country is safer now, but added that even though billions have been poured into airport security and potential terror targets have been identified, there are still weak spots, such as chemical sites, transportation systems and ports that need better security.

"And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies," he said. "It's in a suitcase.

"This is why the issue of nuclear proliferation is so important," he added. "The biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons."


Obama also faulted the Bush administration for fostering a negative perception of the United States in the world, claiming that the world view of this country "is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism."


And then things got a little ugly.

Obama tweaked McCain's misstatement earlier this month in an interview when the Republican said he was not sure he would be willing to meet with the prime minister of Spain.

Obama said, "Spain is a NATO ally!" in apparent outrage. "If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism."

McCain seemed prepared for the line, saying, "I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet," tweaking a much-mocked seal that the Obama campaign had on the candidate's podium during a speech early in the campaign season.

Earlier, Obama had knocked McCain's claim that a statement by Obama on Pakistan showed the younger man's inexperience on foreign policy.

Obama said McCain was right to point out presidents need to be careful about what they say, but noted McCain has threatened extinction for North Korea and sung a flip song about bombing Iran.

McCain then cited what he considered his sage foreign policy calls against putting ill-fated Marines in Beirut in the 1980s, and on the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Somalia and other conflicts.

"I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm's way," McCain said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I finally settled in an apartment here in Phnom Penh. A furnished one-bedroom apartment can rent for as much as $1,700 a month here. While that’s a lot by any standard, it’s an astronomical figure for a country where the average worker makes less than $70 a month.

You can get a decent, fully furnished one-bedroom condo apartment (600-800 sq. ft) for around $700 to $900 a month in Phnom Penh (mostly in Boeung Keng Kang and Toul Kouk districts). The rent usually includes 24-hour security and daily cleaning and laundry services. Utilities and internet access are extra. Although you can get a much more spacious three-story flat (ptheas laveng) for less– around $400 to $500 in residential areas– you may need to hire a couple of maids to help keep the place clean because of the prevalence of dust from the outside. Plus, you can’t really leave your flat vacant for even one day with any peace of mind. I don’t like the idea of locking up two to three layers of steel doors and burglar bars every time I leave the house and to keep oneself safe at night. With a secured serviced apartment, you can just lock your door normally without fear of thieves breaking to slit your throat or steal your belongings.

Despite their high prices, serviced apartments are not easy to find here. The nice ones do not stay vacant for very long. These units are occupied mostly by foreigners. Very few local Khmers favor them. Not only are they perceived as over-priced, but they also don’t fit the lifestyles of most local Khmer people. They fit mine perfectly because I value privacy, security, and quietness.

When I show up at these places, the guards and landlords just assume that I’m not Khmer and begin to speak to me in English. When the landlords, usually Khmer, find out that I’m a Khmer from abroad, they’re generally receptive and courteous. If they had a vacant unit to lease to me, they’d often tell me, “We usually only rent to foreigners here”– but not to drive me away, just to let me know that they’d make an exception just for me since I’m not a typical Khmer.

Let’s see….I’m supposed to feel flattered when a Khmer landlord puts down her own people? What they’re implying, of course, is that Khmer people lack the class and civility to share the same premises with foreigners and that I’m supposedly special because I’m from abroad.

Of course, that’s not true at all. First, it’s highly unlikely that any Khmer, local or from abroad, who could afford a $800-a-month rent in a country where most people make less than $100 a month, would be a troublemaker. In fact, foreign troublemakers are much more likely to afford the rent than their Khmer counterparts. Through the years, there have been many Western scumbags who have rented these high-priced apartments to molest young Khmer children. Yet, you’d NEVER hear the landlords say, “We usually rent to only Khmers.”

The truth is, these serviced apartments are out of reach for most Khmer people, and they do not appeal to the rich ones. “We only rent to foreigners” is just a sales pitch the landlords use to tell you how classy and exclusive his or her property is and how special you should feel to be allowed into the company of foreigners. This is akin to all the Khmer billboards and magazine ads that use Western models to advertise products to an exclusively Khmer customer base. It reflects a deep inferiority complex and our false perception of outsiders’ superiority.

Discuss this article at Khmercity.net

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your inspiring account. Through this website, I hope to build a bridge for young Cambodians from around the world to celebrate their Khmer heritage and reconnect with their roots. I am very encouraged to find bright young overseas Cambodians like you take an interest in the rebuilding of our beloved homeland.

You are absolutely right that Cambodia is not the hell hole as it is sometimes made out to be by the naysayers. You just have to visit the country and decide for yourself. Sometimes, the negativity alone can keep good, decent people from visiting our heavily tourism-dependent country.

As for the Cambodian people’s apparent apathy toward the “old white geezers who run around with young Khmer girls,” I think this is an area where you and I can make a major impact. Remember that Cambodia is still reeling from decades of war and destruction, so the most important thing on most people’s minds is day-to-day survival, not sexual exploitation of our women and children by foreigners. The “old white geezers” recognize the extreme poverty in our country and simply move in to prey on less fortunate people. Some of them may find a twisted sense of psychological victory in sexually dominating a race they view inferior to them.

You must understand that many Cambodians associate Westerners with wealth, power, and even righteousness. Consequently, the mischiefs of some Westerners in Cambodia tend to become, over time, normalized and even accepted by the Cambodian people. In fact, some people in Cambodia even consider a teen-aged Khmer girl to be “somnang” (fortunate) to be hitched to a middle-aged white man.

As Cambodians from overseas, we can help explain to our compatriots back home that these behaviors are neither normal nor acceptable in Western societies. In fact, here in America incarcerated child molesters are so hated that they are routinely beaten– even killed– by fellow inmates. While I don’t condone this type of vigilante justice, it’s indicative of the level of revulsion, even among thieves and murderers, that Americans have for sex predators. This is a major reason that the pedophiles are venturing overseas to take advantage of poor law enforcement in developing countries like Cambodia.

When I visit Cambodia, I don’t get angry when my relatives, friends and acquaintances condone the sexual exploits of the “old white geezers.” I just take the time to calmly explain and educate them about how Western societies view sexual predators, and how our apathy toward them is hurting our honor and national image. If my compatriots do not agree with my stance, or simply pretend to sympathize with me just to get on my good side, then all I could do is to distance myself from them and focus on the things that I could do. For instance, I would personally boycott any restaurants and hotels whose employees smile and bow at foreign customers but not at their own kind. I know my boycott may not run them out of business, but I do it anyway because it’s the right thing to do.

You don’t have to accept what you know to be wrong just because you feel powerless to make a difference. There are many skillful and respectful ways you can influence positive changes without being seen as overbearing or confrontational. Remember that most Cambodians are not privileged to travel back and forth between Cambodia and foreign countries, so they don’t have a personal understanding of outside cultures like we do. Many rely on information they hear from their friends and relatives, the media, and even from the foreign “sexpats” themselves.

Cambodian expatriates wield a lot of economic and social power when we return to our homeland; we just have to play our cards right and use our influences to encourage positive changes in calm, realistic and intelligent ways.

Picture this: You are giving a bouquet of gorgeous roses to your beloved. You expect a generous hug, a peck on the cheek, or at least a warm "thank you". Instead you are asked, "Why do you love me?" To answer these spur of the moment questions, we bring you reasons to love someone. So prepare yourself with these "reasons for loving you" and answer the question that begins with reasons why I love you! Given here are top 20 of the most popular reasons that we came up, to answer this often asked questionYou complete me.
You give the word Perfect a new meaning
I can be myself when I am with you
You bring out the best in me.
Just a sight of you lifts my up spirits.
You have taught me what it is to love and be loved.
I can be clumsy and foolish when I am with you, yet know that your love for me will never diminish.
Your smile is enough to make a dull day seem bright as sun.
Being in your arms makes me feel like I can never be lost again.
Ever since you have come into my life, I yearn to come back home and see your lovely smile.
Your innocence makes me forget all shady things of this world.
I love the way you get angry whenever I am late; yet wait for me for as long as it takes.
You have given meaning to my existence.
I love the way your face glows whenever I gift you something.
You are the only one who can make me smile even in my deepest sorrows.
I respect the faith you have in me and love you for it.
I love the calm look on your face when you are sleeping.
I love waking up in the morning and finding you by my side.
I get lost in the depth of your mysterious eyes.
I can fight against the world because I know you will be by my side always.

You complete me.
You give the word Perfect a new meaning
I can be myself when I am with you
You bring out the best in me.
Just a sight of you lifts my up spirits.
You have taught me what it is to love and be loved.
I can be clumsy and foolish when I am with you, yet know that your love for me will never diminish.
Your smile is enough to make a dull day seem bright as sun.
Being in your arms makes me feel like I can never be lost again.
Ever since you have come into my life, I yearn to come back home and see your lovely smile.
Your innocence makes me forget all shady things of this world.
I love the way you get angry whenever I am late; yet wait for me for as long as it takes.
You have given meaning to my existence.
I love the way your face glows whenever I gift you something.
You are the only one who can make me smile even in my deepest sorrows.
I respect the faith you have in me and love you for it.
I love the calm look on your face when you are sleeping.
I love waking up in the morning and finding you by my side.
I get lost in the depth of your mysterious eyes.
I can fight against the world because I know you will be by my side always.

You complete me.
You give the word Perfect a new meaning
I can be myself when I am with you
You bring out the best in me.
Just a sight of you lifts my up spirits.
You have taught me what it is to love and be loved.
I can be clumsy and foolish when I am with you, yet know that your love for me will never diminish.
Your smile is enough to make a dull day seem bright as sun.
Being in your arms makes me feel like I can never be lost again.
Ever since you have come into my life, I yearn to come back home and see your lovely smile.
Your innocence makes me forget all shady things of this world.
I love the way you get angry whenever I am late; yet wait for me for as long as it takes.
You have given meaning to my existence.
I love the way your face glows whenever I gift you something.
You are the only one who can make me smile even in my deepest sorrows.
I respect the faith you have in me and love you for it.
I love the calm look on your face when you are sleeping.
I love waking up in the morning and finding you by my side.
I get lost in the depth of your mysterious eyes.
I can fight against the world because I know you will be by my side always.