Confrontation Between China, US, India Continues in East Asia

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Asia has provided a platform for the "soft confrontation" between China, the United States, and India, especially between China and the United States. These three nations have extensive common interests and tremendous potential for cooperation in the aspects of politics, economy and trade, regional security, and global governance. If they could agree to disagree and handle their bilateral and trilateral relations from a strategic perspective, there is a possibility for them to form positive and interactive strategic relations to achieve a win-win and mutually benefiting situation. This will, in turn, play a critically important role in the stability and development in Asia.
The United States has made corresponding strategic arrangement and policy adjustment in three aspects to prevent itself from being excluded from the process of regional integration, particularly to stop any potential newly emerged country from becoming a strategic competitor of the United States and the dominant player in the process of regional integration. This is to protect the political, economic, and security interests of the United States in East Asia.
In the aspect of security, the United States strengthens and develops the existing "axis and auxiliary security structure" centered round the United States by stepping up and adjusting its relations with its allies like Japan and North Korea. Economically, the United States takes the initiative to encourage negotiation on bilateral trade. It earnestly participates in and attempts to spearhead the process of economic integration in East Asia by signing free trade agreements with East Asian countries. Ideologically, it advocates its democratic value diplomacy. It tries to establish an "alliance of value" that corresponds to the US value system by using ideology as the criterion, so that it could influence the value system of the integration of East Asian region.
The three aforementioned aspects constitute the US strategic framework in East Asia after the Cold War. The main objective of this strategy is to support its allies with its hegemonic power to further boost the US dominant power in East Asia.
The East Asian region includes Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. This article will focus on analyzing and elaborating the strategic maneuvers of China, the United States, and India in Southeast Asia and its influence.
Both US, India Aim at Countering Against China
China, the United States, and India have taken persistent efforts to strengthen their relations with Southeast Asian countries to garner more strategic interests. The United States has officially started to intervene into the affairs in South China Sea. Meanwhile, India is also working hard to strengthen its cooperation with Southeast Asian countries and making this region as a breakthrough point for it to emerge as a strong power in this region on a par with China and the United States. India intends to become a new power in between the United States and China, so that it could elevate its international status to realize its strategic goal of becoming a regional power.
The United States has refocused its attention on its ties with Southeast Asian countries. One can observe from this adjustment the US strategic agenda to counterbalance, contain and diminish China's rising influence in this region.
Meanwhile, India introduced its timely "eastward" policy, aiming at expanding its influence and activities to South China Sea and part of Pacific region. India sees Southeast Asia countries as its important partners and hopes to step out of South Asia with the help of Southeast Asian region as India has "extensive strategic interests" from the Gulf to South China Sea. India's concern over the safety of the environment and potential security issues covers the area "the west, south and east of India from the Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait, middle Asia in its Northwest, China in its Northeast to Southeast Asia."
Southeast Asia is the focus of India's foreign policy, in terms of geographical strategy, economic, and political interests. India strives to strengthen its bilateral ties with Thailand, Burma [Myanmar], Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos through bilateral economic and trade cooperation with these countries to expand its influence to Southeast Asian region. Through the "eastward" policy, India expanded its influence and activity scope to South China Sea and part of Pacific region. Through the implementation of its "eastward" policy, India "improved its cooperation with Southeast Asian countries and even East Asian countries and bolstered its influence in Asia." By doing so, it has established an image of "big power" in Southeast Asia in time and at the same time; it counterbalances and diminishes China's influence in this region to a certain degree.
US Not Happy With India's Expansion of Maritime Influence
Yet, in its consideration of its global strategic interests, the United States would not allow India to become the world police in this waters and it will not allow India to be the dominant power in the Indian Ocean. Although the two countries have fostered increasingly closer cooperation in security, if India "goes overboard" to the extent that affects the US strategic interests in the Indian Ocean, the United States would definitely take action to contain India.
Nevertheless, in view of China's continuous emergence in politics and economy, the United States is thinking of developing closer bilateral ties with India and making India as its most important strategic ally in Asia to counterbalance China's rising influence in Southeast Asia. At the same time, following the expansion of China's political, economic and military powers in Southeast Asia, the United States is "back to Asia" to contain China. The strategic consideration behind the strengthening of economic cooperation between the United States and Southeast Asian countries is to counter China's expansion of influence in this region.
China should take more initiative to strengthen its ties with Southeast Asian countries and develop multilateral and bilateral ties with these countries to establish an image of a "big power" in this region. It should build up new security ties and bilateral cooperation in all aspects with Southeast Asian countries based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit. At the same time, China should handle its bilateral relations with the United States and India properly, including dealing with the border issue with India in an appropriate manner. It should seek common ground with other countries and put aside differences between each other to create a stable and peaceful environment for the modernization process in China. The policy of developing relations with Southeast Asian countries conforms to China's national strategic interests.
Southeast Asian Countries on Guard Against China
The relations between China and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have further improved thanks to the efforts in building up political trust, economic cooperation, and common security. Yet, because of their differences, ASEAN countries are still concerned and worried about China's economic growth and the boost in its military power, particularly when China's military actions in Southeast Asian region are deemed by certain countries as actions meant to expand its military power. The unfavorable influence of nontraditional security factors keeps arising and this has directly or indirectly undermined the efforts to develop more closer ties between China and ASEAN member states.
Although far Southeast Asian countries have not explicitly voiced out that China poses a threat to that region, the intensifying arms race in Southeast Asia, in fact, reflects Southeast Asian countries' strategic intention to stay on guard against China. Essentially, the cooperation in economic sector has not diminished Southeast Asian countries' "hostility" against China. Therefore, China should reinforce its mutual understanding and exchange with Southeast Asian countries to do away with this sentiment.
China's Strategies in Southeast Asia
As opposed to China's strategies in Southeast Asia, apparently the United States has failed to maintain consistent and coherent strategies in Southeast Asia. During the times of President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, the United States did not pay adequate attention to the region of Southeast Asia. Despite its endeavor to advocate democracy in Southeast Asia, the United States has not implemented free trade consistently and persistently in that region.
China should make use of the good opportunity to develop China-US ties remain strategically strong. It should place more emphasis on East Asian region in devising its foreign policy and give more priority to the status and role of relevant East Asian countries and regional power in its diplomatic agenda. China should utilize various forms of media to publicize its policies to prepare the US mentally and attitudinally for the latter to accept a stronger China. As such, China, the United States, and India will be able to achieve a virtuous cycle in their interaction in Southeast Asia and this region could become a peaceful region that enjoys rapid economic development.

Osama Bin Laden Killed: Future Prospects

The world was shocked when United States President Barack Obama announced that Al-Qa'ida's top leader Osama Bin Laden was killed. Al-Qa'ida's leader who was born in Saudi Arabia and lived in hiding was reported to be killed in a special operation by the Unites States military at a house in Abbotabad near Islamabad, Pakistan.
News of Bin Laden's death was greatly welcomed by the United States and its allies. Such reaction may be different from those who sympathize with Bin Laden's cause.
Believed To Be Mastermind Behind 9/11
Bin Laden is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks against the United States that lead to Wshington's invasion of Afghanistan as the Taliban regime was beleived to be sheltering the Al-Qa'ida leader.
For a long time the United States lead the operation to hunt for Bin Laden but failed to track him down. If it is true that Bin Laden was successfully killed, would his death be enough to bring back peace to the world?
World Reactions
The entire world media turned their attention to the news of the death of Usama Bin Laden after it was announced by US President Barack Obama. British Prime Minister David Cameroon said that the death of Usama would bring peace in the entire world. Former US President George W. Bush said that justice was done by the death of Bin Laden.
Former US President Bill Clinton said that the death of Bin Laden was news of peace and security for the entire world. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is hopeful that the death of Bin Laden will bring about a more peaceful, safe and just world.
People's Expectations
Similarly, Muslims are also hopeful that a world free of terrorism will become a reality. Most important of all, as stated by many people across the world, is that Bin Laden's death will help restore the good name of Islam that was tainted by the negative image brought on by the al-Qa'idah leader. Since the September 11 tragedy we have witnessed violence and suicide bomb attacks at tourist attractions in the West that have become targets for Al-Qa'ida.
Each time violence is carried out by loyal followers of Bin Laden, the name of Islam is tarnished. Islam is viewed as a religion that endorses violence, despite the fact that it does not.
Future Prospects
Although reports have said that Bin Laden is dead, his absence is no guarantee that terrorism has ended. Peace and destruction of this world is not in the hands of Bin Laden whom was made a scapegoat during the era of former United States President George W. Bush.
This is the greatest concern of all. Will the world witness peace, or a new series of terror attacks as part of a retaliation from supporters of Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida? We have seen many times that the use of military action to counter the threat posed by terrorists have failed to reduce activities related to terrorism.
We have to look at the root cause of terrorism from various surrounding aspects such as injustice, poverty, and economic disparity.
Nevertheless all parties should remain calm in the wake of Bin Laden's death. This is the time for the global community to erase their misperception and misunderstanding toward Islam and terrorism. The world must stand united against terrorism.

Afghan War Will Blast US, Europe From Within

Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state of the United States. During the last US elections, she tried her best to be nominated presidential candidate from the platform of Democratic Party; however, she did not succeed. Incumbent President Obama was declared to be the most suitable candidate for the election of the president and he also won the election. The lobbies that wanted to see Hillary elected as president adopted another way in order to avoid disappearing from US political scene. They devised several plans and finally Hillary was nominated for the position of secretary of state. These lobbies succeeded here and Hillary was appointed secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton is wife of former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a Democrat president. Even during that time, Hillary was politically very active. Her husband had his own view about the global issues. He did his level best to change the political landscape of South Asia; however, he did not succeed. Practically, he was influenced by the Indian lobby. Hillary's mindset forces her to bend toward India. She appears to be very close to the think tanks who look upon the joint and individual influence of China and Pakistan as a major obstacle in the way of long-term US policy and consider India to be the most important power of this region or want to give India that status, which is nothing but a figment of their imagination.

Taliban and Al-Qa'ida Leadership
Very recently, Hillary Clinton gave a very harsh statement against Pakistan. In this statement, she said some of the people in Pakistani Government know about the whereabouts of leadership of Afghan Taliban and Al-Qa'ida. She threatened that if Pakistan continued to be negligent toward this matter, the United States, itself, will strike in Pakistani areas. This statement of hers induced a strong reaction in Pakistan. The Senate, too, approved a resolution against it.

The United States is the only superpower at this time. There is no second power in the world that could defy any of the steps it takes on international level. Therefore, the US political attitudes have changed. Ever since the era of former President Ronald Reagan, the US administrations started to change their attitude in global politics and the principle of waging war for the sake of preventing war was introduced. It became the foundation of Reagan Doctrine later. The strategy of war proved successful against Russian expansion. Pakistan, during the era of President Ziaul Haq, played a key role in the success of this strategy. Russia suffered defeat in Afghanistan. Not only was Russia defeated but the Russian communist empire was also shattered to pieces. Former President Bush and the presidents elected after him continued the policy of might is right.

Withdrawal of Forces From Iraq and Afghanistan
The American nation is sick of the aftermath of this strategy of war. They elected Obama as their new president. Obama had raised the slogan of change. However, the change for which the American people had elected Obama president never came about. President Obama, who had promised to withdraw forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, did not fulfill his promise. On the contrary, despite the public pressure, he decided to commit fresh troops to Afghanistan. He had taken this decision under the pressure of Pentagon, Department of State and Zionist lobbies. However, it did not bear any positive fruit. The major operation which was launched in Helmand, after the arrival of these troops, failed.

When President Obama became president, the same lobbies that had clutched George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush, closed in on him. The United States had accused Iraq of possessing destructive weapons and developing weapons of mass destruction and said that these weapons were a threat to the neighboring countries, which are friends of the United States. It did not remain a secret any longer that this accusation was false and baseless. Intoxicated by power, the United States ripped through Iraq and proved that might is all right. In Europe, the United States destroyed Czechoslovakia because it was the only communist government left. It wanted to do the same to Afghanistan. However, here they failed.

In Afghanistan, the United States went even further than the principle of waging war for the sake of preventing war. In this case, the United States went on a war as a precautionary measure. The American and Israeli Jews call it right to preventive war. They used the same technique in Afghanistan. They thought that if the Taliban, who claim to have formed an Islamic government, succeeded here, the entire American and European civilization would be jeopardized.

Atrocities Against Sikhs
The Sikhs are very lighthearted and they enjoy jokes. They like to tell and listen to the jokes about themselves. They do not mind it the slightest bit. One of their jokes is very famous. There were several villages of Sikhs spread around at small distances at a place. The Sikhs of one village thought that they should cultivate sugar cane, as it earns a lot of profit. A wise Sikh said: although, it is something very profitable but if the people of the neighboring village chewed all sugar cane, we will suffer huge loss. Then, with mutual consultation, they decided to teach the neighbors a lesson. Therefore, they raised the slogan of Sat Sri Akal (victory belongs to them who recite the name of God with true heart) and invaded the neighboring village and annihilated everything. The villagers asked the invaders: brothers, what was our fault that you inflicted this misery upon us? The invaders brandished their clubs and said: "Chew more sugar canes!"

The United States have been doing since 1981 what the Sikhs did here. The invasion of Afghanistan had a similar reason; and now the United States is thinking the same about Iran. However, it cannot do the same to Iran; nor can it drive Pakistan with this whip because the US and Pakistani military leaderships are in harmony.

Pakistan-US Ties
In this statement, Hillary said: "The relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved. Pakistan's efforts against terrorism are appreciable." It appears that Hillary issued this comparatively soft statement under the pressure of US military leadership. Thus, the differences between US military and civil leaderships have started to become visible.

Unless President Obama gets rid of his present advisors, he will not succeed in establishing peace and the Afghan war will blast the United States and Europe from within.

Obama Considers Health Care Reform Important Agenda of Presidency

Finally, US President Barack Obama managed to have his biggest political engineering work, which is the US health care bill, passed by the US Congress. The bill was passed with 219 supporting votes as against 212 opposing votes.

Fighting to have the health care reform bill passed has not been an easy battle for President Obama. Nevertheless, President Obama has at least won the battle. However, he and the average American people understood that this was a narrowed victory and a victory that President Obama could not be too proud about the result.

Support for Bill
There were a total 431 congressional seats in that Congress. President Obama's Democratic Party has taken up a total of 253 seats and the opposing Republican only has 178 seats. However when the voting result was known, President Obama only received a total 219 supporting votes. Apparently, there were as many as 34 Democrat congressional representatives did not abide with party line to support the Obama Government's health care reform bill. If President lost four more votes at that critical voting period, his health care bill would be rejected.

Despite the fact that President Obama has cancelled his scheduled visit to Australia and Indonesia and absorbed the embarrassment in public diplomacy by staying back in Washington to lobby the lawmakers, he still could not convince 34 Democrat lawmakers to change their minds and support his health care reform bill. The fact that President Obama has such a narrowed victory in getting his health care bill passed by the Congress has reflected the reality that his health care reform plan does not reflect the views of the majority US citizens.

During the time when the US Congress was debating on the health care bill, the result of the public opinion poll jointly organized by the ABC television channel and Washington Post, a US mainstream media that supports the Obama administration, has shown that there were more people opposing the health care reform bill than the people wanting to support it. This public opinion poll has also shown that President Obama's health care reform bill did not get the consensus of the majority of people.

Reducing Federal Deficit
President Obama wants to use US$ 950 billion tax payer's money to implement the first stage of his national health care plan. This first phase of health care insurance expenditure can help the Obama government to reduce $138 billion federal deficit. This is a health care policy that needs to use high amount of tax payers' money to help the government to save just little money. What the government needs to do next will perhaps be to increase tax or to increase the medical fee for senior citizens. As such many people have criticized Obama's health care medical bill as a bill that can indirectly murder the elderly citizens.

President Obama has his reason to insist on his health care reform pan. He said in the United States as high as 40 million citizens were without health care insurance to protect them. His health care reform plan could allow these 40 million needy people to obtain health care insurance protection.

The Other View
In theory, the action taken by President Obama is laudable for universal medical insurance coverage for all citizens is an equitable policy. However, many American people still feel that there is this 'lazy class of people' who does not want to work hard to earn their living but want to enjoy free medical benefits. The tax payers do not agree to use their income tax to look after the lazy class of people in the society. Many tax payers are also unwilling to use their money to assist in forced abortion. These are perhaps the reasons why majority of the US people are not agreeable with President Obama's universal health care reform plan.

In fact, among the Democratic Party presidents such as Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton have all tried but could not achieve this massive health care reform plan that President Obama managed to get done. The main reason is that President Obama has insisted on his health care reform plan. He considers this health care reform agenda as his most important mission as the US President.

One Year of Obama Administration

On 20 January, Barrack Obama would have sworn in as the US President for a whole year. The gains and loses of President Obama during his first White House year were full of different opinions. Some people think that President Obama has basically done what he was aspired to do when he first came to power with the vision to change the US society, revitalize the US economy, promote the health care reform, reconstruct the US international image, and so on. However, there are also people holding different opinions about him. They felt that the glory of his "stardom" has faded, the US economy is still struggling at the bottom, the financial industry and the automotive industry still crumbling, and the unemployment rate is still close to two digits. Nevertheless, President Obama has given himself a performance rating of B plus, a rating that is between B and A.

Major Achievement of President Obama During First Year in Office
When people look back at President Obama's achievement during the past year, many people's feeling about President Obama was similar to the feeling about him when he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize. They have overwhelming doubt in their mind. They felt Obama was granted the Nobel Peace prize when they still could not see any great peace achievement done by President Obama. This is an unfair and unbalanced comment on Obama. This is because during the past one year, President Obama did help the United States make changes in world affairs, although these changes were a far cry from many people's expectations.
For example, in international political arena, the US relationship with Muslim countries such as Turkey, Iran and other nations, including Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and other countries have shown signs of improvement. During the past one year, the pace of President Obama's overseas trip across Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia did permeate "multilateralism," "flexible diplomacy" and "pragmatic" approach of the Obama administration's foreign policy. Within the first year of Obama administration, the US President has fully abandoned former US President George W. Bush's unilateral diplomacy. He has allowed the United States to begin the long march to rebuild the US image in many Muslim countries. On US-China diplomacy, President Obama has walked an extra mile than Bush in trying to reduce Beijing's traditional dissatisfaction factors toward the United States' criticism on its human rights records, armed race, and other issues. In the process, President Obama tried to pave a larger diplomatic space with China to enter into a win-win strategic relationship of mutual trust.
Because of President Obama's effort, the US prestige in the world has also gradually climbed up from the valley and moved upward. In June 2009, a public opinion poll announced that based on a study in 22 countries, the poll result has indicated that since Barrack Obama became the US President, the US image abroad has boosted up to a 6 percent point and that 42 percent of the people overseas said that they had a good impression of the United States. In June the same year, another survey done overseas in 24 countries also indicated that many countries held positive view of the United States. Such positive view about the United States has almost returned to former US President Clinton's era.

Domestic Support Rate for Obama Fades in 2009
On domestic economy, President Obama managed to persuade the US Congress to approve the $787 billion economic stimulus package. This financial budget was mainly used for the expansion of domestic infrastructure. The effect of this economic stimulus was significant. At the same time, President Obama also made use of the relief budget of $350 billion approved during the Bush administration as relief fund for the three major automobile manufacturers in order to stabilize the US automobile industry. After going through four consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, the US Department of Commerce has recently reported that from July to September 2009, the US economy has rebounded to a growth of 3.5 percent.
In addition, President Obama also made every effort to promote universal health care reform for all citizens. After a whole year of intense debate with the US Congress, President Obama's health care reform bill was finally gone through the US House and Senate. It has always been the dream of few generations of past presidents to push forward some kind of health care reform plan for people. President Obama has fulfilled this health care reform dream during his term as the president.
However, there were also some citizens whose confidence and support rate of President Obama have dropped drastically. They could not conceal their disappointment toward President Obama because many of his campaign promises have not been fulfilled. These people lost their confidence in Obama not because of economic or unemployment issue but because they felt Obama did not done a good job in the elimination of divide and difference between different political parties. Survey has shown that the success rate of Obama in trying to mend the political rift has dropped to 28 percent as compared to the 54 percent that he achieved a year ago. However, in the United States, the support rate for a US President is considered by the US people as the barometer for the public to gauge the performance of the US president and for him to gain public recognition. The opinion poll has already shown that the support rate for President Obama has fallen below the half way mark and it was clear that the prestige and image of President Obama has gone done substantially in the eyes of his domestic audience.
Some US citizens also felt Obama was a weak US President. They said that when making major decision, Obama has reflected hesitation. On budget expenditure and taxation, they said President Obama has done them in great hurry without giving details consideration.
There were also people who criticized President Obama's world peace effort. They said Obma has said many things and has paid great effort to do the peace work but the result has been ineffective. For example, although the Obama administration did try hard to mediate lasting peace between Palestine and Israel, but Palestinian-Israeli relations remain stalled. Although President Obama has actively promoted the concept of a nuclear-free world, but the number of "quasi-nuclear state" has not decreased but has increased. Although President Obama advocated the abolishment of the term "counterterrorism war," but the US troop withdrawal plan from Iraq has been delayed in implementation. On Afghanistan war front, the eight-year war in Afghanistan ended up having the United States to continue adding more troops to Afghanistan. On Russia, although President Obama managed to broker and discuss a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia by taking the initiative to stop the construction of antimissile bases in Eastern Europe, however, people do not see any significant progress on his effort or observe significant change in US-Russian relations. On the North Korea nuclear weapon issue, the international community does not see a breakthrough and any sign that the Six-Party Nuclear Weapon Negotiation Talks with North Korea will soon reassume. On the US relationship with Iran, President Obama did try to use "badminton diplomacy" for the Iranian authority to release the US woman journalist. However, in dealing with the most crucial Iran's nuclear fuel issue, both parties remain at an intransigent stage.
At this moment, we hear overwhelming waves of criticism and doubt flocking into the White House. They said that Obama did not end the war. They said that Obama did not close the Guantanamo Bay. They said that Obama did not let all citizens to have access to health care. They said that Obama did not reduce the high unemployment rate. They said that Obama did not provide health care access to all. They said Obama did not manage to reduce the high federal budget deficits. There are many criticism about President Obama. Different criticism just comes out one after another. This has led to the mainstream US media to lament that perhaps these are indeed the deep cries of the US people. To the US media, they seem to conclude that "in the past one year, the greatest achievement of President Obama was to kick George W. Bush out from the White House."
In response to all these external criticism, President Obama's response was to call the US people to be "patience." In fact, to be fair, any reform a new government tries to take will surely face resistance from all sides. Moreover, President Obama is but a novice President on the road for reform. When Obama's reform plan coincided with the US financial crisis, many blood warming presidential campaign slogans President Obama promised his supporters that he would do after becoming the US President eventually were not many. However, it is unfair to say that President Obama was only putting up a "political show" during presidential campaign time. On contrary, we feel that all along, President Obama still put in effort trying to fulfill his commitments to the voters.

Greater Challenges Ahead for President Obama in '10
After ruling the country for one year, President Obama's real test has just begun. In 2010, there are three most critical challenges President Obama must face. First, it is the high unemployment rate. This is the most urgent and most difficult economic problem for any US Government to handle. The White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers admitted that improving employment opportunities for workers should be the Obama administration's top priority in 2010. Second, the United States has an astronomical figure on the federal budget deficit. In 2009, the most serious economic recession since the Great Depression has led to sharp drop in US revenue. While the US Government's expenditure on providing unemployment insurance and other social security schemes are soaring, the US federal budget deficit has also turned record high. We believe how President Obama can reduce the fiscal deficit should be another major challenge faced by the Obama government in this New Year. Third, the United States continues to face the consequence of the two wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The Afghanistan war launched by the former Bush administration has turned into the "Obama's war." In many people's view, the war in Afghanistan has developed more and more like another kind of Vietnam War the United States has to shoulder. However, for the Afghanistan war the United States is facing now, there is no indication that the United States can win the same. Instead, there is indication to show that the United States might likely to be dragged into a muddy situation that can be difficult for the country to pull out.
The aforementioned three critical challenges faced by President Obama will determine the success or failure of President Obama's "New Deal" as well as the entire success of President Obama's full term as the US President. However, all these three critical challenges have a lot of variables. The situational development of any one of them may be far beyond President Obama's scope as US President to control. Fortunately, President Obama has reacted such challenges with a clear mind. For instance, on economic issues, he repeatedly warned that the United States still faces a series of tough challenges. He also warned that economic and complete recovery is still long way off for the United States. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has also said that although a sharp decline in the US economy in the coming days is unlikely, but the United States should not rule out the possibility that a "double-dip" economic recession could also happen. Many economic experts also believe that it might take five to six years for the US economy to return to a healthy level.
On the problem of unemployment issue, in a recent interview, President Obama said: "We cannot be unconcerned or be complacent. The unemployment rate in the United States is still exceedingly high." In addressing the unemployment problem, the Obama government has announced an economic package to promote employment rate for the workers.
On the Afghanistan war issue, President Obama also faces similar challenge. In general, most people believe that 2010 will be the year for the United States to "surge US troop presence" in Afghanistan. President Obama must try to seek significant military progress in Afghanistan within a short period. Then, he can send the entire US troops home after 18 months as planned. In other words, President Obama has already set a target that before the end of his first term as US President he must withdraw most of the US troops from Afghanistan. Otherwise, his effort to seek reelection as a second term president might come to naught.