Great Andrew Sullivan column on the two condenders (h/t Moderate Voice):
There will be plenty of time to weigh the two on domestic and foreign affairs. But one observation about foreign policy is worth airing now. My major worry about Obama is the ghost of Jimmy Carter. Will Obama be too reflexively diplomatic? Does he believe that some of our enemies are reasonable in a good way rather than rational in a malign way? Could his admirable desire to restore America’s standing be compromised by naivete? And how will he respond if our enemies attack? More telling to me will be: can he adjust to new realities and possibilities in Iraq? I don’t mean not withdrawing. I mean withdrawing in the best way for our interests as possible.
With McCain, I have a reverse worry. Has he become Liebermanized?
Has his admirable sense of the danger of our foes blinded him to ways in which a defter diplomacy and shrewder deployment of force can help advance our interests? Or will he revert to a binary, victory-or-surrender blather that typifies the Bush-Cheney mindset? Does he understand the need to appeal beyond Muslim leaders to Muslim populations? Is he temperamentally suited to the delicate chess game of the new global politics?
This is the key question in choosing Obama, and here I tend to side with Sullivan. But…but…a lot hinges on the basic trust one has in Obama’s political competence, and that trust is being shaken a bit right now.
More on that later, as I’ll talk about the differences between OO, Extemp, and Impromptu…
Short version:
What if Obama can’t walk on water and perform miracles?
What if McCain is actually a 1950’s Democrat?
Like, is he closer in temperament to Harry Truman, or Phil Donahue? Or, if global politics were an All in the Family episode, would he be Archie Bunker, Meathead, or Edith?
Exactly what kind of temperament is Andrew looking for? Because if this is a “delicate chess game”, does he think we want a quiet European master who sits there and plays for a draw until he gets his fat ass beaten to a pulp? No, I would want Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov – one of those ill-tempered types.
And how does one do that, except by standing up for the democratic rights and freedoms of Muslims, against the royalists, fascists, and theocrats? I think John McCain understands that. I think Andrew Sullivan used to understand that. That just leaves Obama unaccounted for.
I was recently contracted to conduct a seminar in “alternative dispute resolution,” partly as a consequence of the fact that I was one of the first graduate scholars to receive certification in ADR through an instructional network established by Roger Fisher (*Getting to Yes*). However, after my initial lecture made the point that some disputes can’t be resolved at the level of rational dialog my seminar was promptly canceled. They paid me anyway. They just wanted to prevent me from corrupting their students.
It seems to me that the very first consideration one should entertain is the possibility that the subtle and canny strategies utilized in ADR may simply not apply, and that some things aren’t negotiable. My test case for this was the radicalization of Austria in the 1930s, as documented by Jahoda and Lazarsfeld’s *Marienthal Studies*. I don’t see this as terribly nuanced. We know what is non-negotiable, for the most part. In the US we managed what Austria apparently could not: a middle road between abject dependence on the fascistic State and absolute laissez faire. And given that McCain is even willing to unilaterally eschew just about anything that anyone might conceivably construe as “torture,” (including interminable piano practice, presumably), the implication is that he isn’t very likely to require remedial chess instruction in order to be taught to pragmatically modulate his position.
Moreover, by Lawrence Wright’s estimation, we’re clearly winning the argument over rationality and tolerance, even within Arabia. The question is, if reformed Islamofascists can see this, why can’t our progressive Guevarian Left? Where is the disconnect?
So far I have absolutely no reason to believe that Obama comes down on the right side of this debate. I can hope against hope, but that’s not the best reason to contract my vote before November. I will wait and see.
bq. And given that McCain is even willing to unilaterally eschew just about anything that anyone might conceivably construe as “torture,” (including interminable piano practice, presumably), the implication is that he isn’t very likely to require remedial chess instruction in order to be taught to pragmatically modulate his position.
Wow, what an amazing leap of illogic. There is no “implication” inherent in his position on torture that applies to his other positions no more than any single issue by any candidate, including Obama. And certainly not to ALL of his other positions, as you seem to suggest.
Unless, of course, by “pragmatically modulate his position” you mean discard his principles and prior stands in order to gain electoral support from the Radical Right Screachers and Preachers, as he has been doing over the past few years during his run up to the current campaign. This does not, in my view, count as a character plus no matter how you want to spin it.
A.L, I mean this sincerely, I will be fascinated to hear how, why, and whether you think Obama will be a man suited to 21st century international diplomacy on behalf of the United States. I know what I think, and why (and because I’ve said it here twice, I won’t spam you with my opinion unless someone asks.)
But you’re a smart guy, and an honorable guy, so the fact that we disagree (as far as I know) makes me very curious to hear your detailed thoughts. I know you’ve said in the past that Obama strikes you as the most competent, but I never quite understood why.
Marcus, I cannot speak for AL. I have noted however among liberals a desire to “prove” the US is good and great by electing a Black man. ANY Black man, to the Presidency. Obama has rode this as far as he can go, as Ferraro has pointed out.
It’s not a rational selection of the candidate for the best policies and personality. It’s also based on the fantasy of having a Black Guy(tm) as President causing all the jihadis to say “hey, the Americans are good guys now, let’s all give out hugs!” Or somesuch nonsense.
You’ll note that neither Andrew Sullivan nor Obama promote any realistic alternative to Bush’s strategy in confronting AQ, or any rational explanation of what happens after immediate and unilateral surrender/withdrawal from Iraq. No “Naval Strategy” based on using a vastly beefed up Navy and Aircraft carriers to pound any enemy into submission. No strategy to deal with nuclear proliferation. Nothing but “hug the first responders” after the US is nuked.
Pakistan is slowly devolving into AQ’s grasp. We cannot supply Afghanistan except through Pakistan, which also has it’s nuclear arsenal (100 nukes or so) at risk of Taliban “borrowing.” Other nations, including Iran, are developing nuclear weapons. Soon even AQ or other terrorist groups will have the ability to destroy American cities at will.
Obama’s error is reflexively embracing South Side Chicago politics — using his “organizer” creds to PC political opponents into rolling over. That doesn’t extend to either thugs who aren’t impressed and have both killed and risked death themselves, or weak figurehead leaders like Musharraf who preside over tribal chaos.
McCain is not any walk in the park but has direct experience with tough and brutal thugs who won’t respond to hugs, shaming, or PC.
Marcus, I’ll do a longer post soon, but for now I’d just note two things – 1) I really deeply believe that we’re in a long, warm war and that the key factor in success will be domestic unity about it. That won’t happen – period – as long as it’s a GOP war, and the Democrats can argue that it’s not their war. I believe that Obama and Hillary are patriotic enough that if their stated goals of reasoned discourse don;t work, they will let the guys in the five-sided building figure out what to do. 2) I’m very concerned about the split within the US into economic layers with decreased mobility between them, and think that mainstream GOP policies make that worse, not better.
How’s that for touching on the issues?
A.L.
A.L.
I don’t see how Obama can unite the country or make the Democrats buy into defending it. There has been an anti-American strain in the Democratic Party, now dominant, since the late sixties, and Obama is representative of that strain; I don’t see how anything but electoral defeat will change that. The vague hope that Obama will magically morph into something different when his base needs him to be as he is, strikes me as dangerous and delusional. I might have some hope in that regard if he demonstrated any sort of independent thought or familiarity with the world, but he doesn’t. Heck, the man doesn’t even know his own country and that is starting to hurt his election prospects. I doubt he can do better overseas.
AL:
I find your first line of reasoning unconvincing. “The country needs unity in war, therefore let’s elect the favored untried candidate of the peace activist wing whose patriotism is often in doubt, project our hopes onto what is essentially a blank slate, and hope he is a Lincoln to lead us through fire and death and victory as a single people.”
As for the second, I note that it is not without irony that the “new” sources of wealth, the most radically prosperous, the investment bankers, the Silicon Valley capitalists, the hedge fundies, who have prospered most in this era and benefited from their returns on education, trend Democratic, while larger portions of those who work in unglamorous but vital industries have tended to vote Republican in the last few elections.
So too is it true that so many of the institutions that conspire to depress opportunity in this country — the unwieldy bureaucracies of our public educational system, the dispensers of welfare who believe that people cannot survive without their “help,” and so on, all tend to have their vested interests deep inside the Democratic establishment.
Of course, it can be argued that the Republicans are not present in many of these because they have shown apathy towards these issues, in broad part. But then, if you have need to radically reform vital but failing and powerful institutions, would you prefer a man who has seldom broken from party and was nestled in the bosom of machine politics, or a man with a history overflowing with examples of both personal and political courage?
I have to agree with Chuck’s #8 post and would just add two more general points.
First, I think it’s foolish to vote for a candidate in the hope that s/he is either lying about what they intend to do if elected or will ultimately decide to something decidedly different from what they promised to do when they ran for office. Yes sometimes candidates break their promises or some radical and largely foreseen circumstances force them to reevaluate their position but it seems to me that candidates largely try to do what they campaigned on doing and that’s usually (not always but nearly always) a pretty good indicator of what they’ll try to do if elected.
My other point is that I tend to think in general, barring some accusation of “stealing an election†or a “failure to get out the message,†political parties and candidates generally see elections as either a sign that people generally agreed with the candidate who won and disagreed with the party who lost. Example, Mike Dukakis gets beat by George HW Bush in part because he was seen as a wimpy coddler of criminals and four years later, Democrats nominate candidate who took time out of his campaign to witness an execution in his home state to emphasize how tough on crime he was. Bob Dole runs on a Republican Party platform that includes calls for abolishing the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce and loses and the result is that Republicans nominate a candidate promising “compassionate conservatism,†the centerpiece of which included No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. On the other hand the winning party seems to see the victory as an affirmation that the general public must agree with the bulk of what they’re doing so they keep doing it until they go too far.
So when I put these two thoughts together, they lead me to this rather astonishing conclusion that if I vote for a candidate, s/he will see that as a sign that I must agree with what s/he campaigned on and if they win, they will probably try to do just that.
A.L.,
Thanks for the response. I’ll wait for your longer post to respond at my own length (in part because I don’t want to put words in your mouth) but to respond briefly to your points:
1) I agree with the general premise that we need a degree of unity. I disagree, though, that Obama is the choice. I think Clinton is by temperament and exposure, more committed to seriously winning than Obama is; I think there are consequences to Obama’s opening up with a move that may be interpreted as a prelude to surrender; and while Obama may not be as surrender-oriented as his rhetoric indicates, well, be wary of voters who will take you at your word.
2) That’s a complicated subject, about which I do have something to say, but as well as being long, I haven’t organized it sufficiently in my head.
He’s a two-faced (bald-faced?) liar.
He’s clueless.
He’s a hyocrite.
He’s a cynical opportunist.
And he’s utterly unqualified.
But,
he’s young.
He’s articulate.
He’s so gosh-darn charismatic!
He tells me what I want to hear.
He fills me with hope.
Actually, he fills the world with hope.
He’s NOT a Republican; in fact he’s the ANTI-Bush (at least as far as I can construe what the anti-Bush is).
He’s the darling of the Europeans.
And Hamas, et al.
He’ll make Americans loveable again.
I won’t mention his color, because this election is most certainly NOT about race.
So tell me, really, truly: how can anyone not vote for him??
The thing that bugs me about the notion of Obama’s diplomatic advantage is that it seems to be based entirely on personality, as opposed to substance. Or, rather, it’s substantive among the same tribe of American & European elites who share his views, and this seems to blind them into assuming that it extends to everyone else. I don’t see how relations will improve with, say, Columbia or Korea (to say nothing of India or Israel), when the substance of his policies are completely at odds with their interests.
Demosophist, re Roger Fisher, Getting to Yes.
I think that’s a great book, and it informs some of my concerns about Obama.
First, I don’t see that Obama has said much in describing Iran’s interests. The closest I can find is that he assumes that Iran is interested in normalizing relationships with the West and economic expansion. I think normalization is a particularly West-centric assumption. I think Carter’s inability to negotiate a resolution to the hostage crisis is a good example of a situation in which anti-Americanism is its own valued currency. In any event, both assumptions need to be examined in light of similar assumptions made by Clinton’s negotiating team in the late 90s and the European Union’s more recent efforts.
Second, what is Obama’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement? Again, the closest I can find is Obama saying America will impose economic sanctions. I’ve seen no evidence that America has meaningful economic sanctions left to play. And I’m confused on one point: In 2004 Obama suggested missile strikes against Tehran, but more recently he said Clinton’s statement that the U.S. would be able to totally obliterate Iran was not helpful. Military action may not be a good alternative, but I’m not sure a negotiator would ever take it off the table for nothing.
But mainly Obama is publicly setting the expectation bar too high, putting himself in a face-saving bind. And the Best Alternative IMO is for Europe to impose sanctions on Iran, which suggest strongly that Europe is the entity with which to negotiate.
As I’ve said before, and will continue to say; I think the appearance of America that is willing to negotiate with it’s enemies may not solve problems directly, but will work against the ideology that claims our only interest is destroying the muslim world.
On the other hand, refusing to speak to Iran actually appears to buttress their argument that we are on a “Christian Crusade” determined to destroy all muslim power.
On the other hand, going to the negotiating table (even it it fails), demonstrates that they are completely unreasonable. If we use that correctly, we can promote our side of the argument, that Iran’s government has nothing but ill intentions.
I’ve been away for quite awhile, obviously much has changed since I last peeked in on WoC.
Firstly, I pray for the safety of AL’s son and hope that his service will be one of distinction.
Second, your stance on Obama: you are entitled to your opinion, but I will say up front…your judgment disappoints me.
In terms of his policy and political ‘footprint’ Obama is an ignorant nobody. If I searched for decade I would be had pressed to find anyone less qualified to be the POTUS.
How bad will Obama be? He will make Carter look like Clausewitz. G_d save the Republic if that Marxist poser becomes leader of the Free World.
Make that “hard-pressed”; not enough caffeine in me… 😉
As a litmus test, Obama makes all the wrong friends. It’s not just that he makes the friendship of anti-American Americans, but that anti-American foreign dictators seem to be salivating at the prospect of an Obama presidency. ‘Popular in Europe’ is not good branding for an American presidential candidate as far as I’m concerned. I’d much rather hear he causes Europeans in general to froth with rage. The later is far more indicative of rational foreign and economic policy.
From rock stars to actors to journalists to sociology, Obama seems to have the majority admiration and support of every group of people who I observe as a class tending to exhibit poor judgment. If one did not want to research the issues at length, I think it would be sufficient to just ask who or what Susan Sarandon was voting for and then vote for whatever she wasn’t.
I hope these groups never figure out just how effective of reverse barometers they are, or figuring out who the lesser of the evils is will be much more difficult.
#15
Can you flesh your line of thought out a bit? I don’t inherently oppose negotiations with anybody, but when you can’t identify any shared interests, I don’t see what purpose the negotiations serve. Furthermore, all too often in international relations negotiations become an end unto themselves (see: Middle East Peace Process). The desire to continue fruitless negotiations perpetuates a problem instead of resolving it.
Now, if you assume that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, I can see how negotiations help them. It buys them time, it allows *them* to appear reasonable, it serves to legitimate their pursuit of nuclear weapons. But I don’t see how it strengthens the US position. How does the US withdraw from a failed negotiation without it appearing to be the unreasonable party? You seem to see a path where the US is strengthened diplomatically; can you describe in some more detail how you see that scenario playing out? How do we lay out the ground rules such that muslims perceive a failed negotiation as Iranian belligerence and not American high-handedness in attempting to deny Muslims what America possesses? I’m not arguing it can’t be done – indeed, I would love for it to happen – I’m just saying out don’t see how to get there from here.
Granted, this all presumes Iran is intransigent in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If you don’t presume that, then the calculus changes greatly and negotiations are absolutely in order. If you don’t accept that presumption, I’d be interested in that thought process too.
You used to have a commenter on Winds whose kicked off. He always spoke of the skull mounds of Communist countries. It was pretty clear to me he had blood envy on his hands which is what most of this seems to be about.
The position Obama has IMO is that the US lost far more prestige and good will around the world against a common enemy by the Iraq invasion. Returning Afghanistan to a functioning national state should have been our real goal It would take years but it would also give the citizens of the US an opportunity to learn about a culture w/ more facets than most of us are used to trying to understand. We would be dealing w/ Buddhists, Sunni Muslims and Shi’a Muslims, a multitude of languages. In doing so we had the supportof most of the world to do so after Sept 11th 2001.
In doing so we would not be seen as the Crusader but as a helper. Instead we pissed the goodwill away in Iraq, depleted our military and treasury to accomplish very little. Yes this means it would still really suck to be an Iraqi but people always accept the worse of their leaders than the good intentions of outsiders. It is especially true if that outsider has little in common w/ them.
So in order to regain the high ground the government of the US has to talk to everyone. Since we are still the most powerful state capable of extending military power across the globe why should we be afraid? To use an Admiral Fallon or others whom have served as the mailed fist beneath the diplomats white glove speaking for the White House is normal policy. When a deal is reached the President shows up to signal approval in the APPROPRIATE manner.
There are some ways of achieving ends that are not negotiable. One only has to think of all the hijackings that occurred where negotiations took place tho free hostages and the perpetrators hunted down and killed. But negotiations must take place w/ those we disagree with. Every situation most be evaluated for the threat it is and dealt w/ appropriately. Even Bush has had more success w/ North Korea through quiet diplomacy than open talk of an “Axis of Evil.”
As for those whom keep screaming Obama is a lightweight I doubt most of you voiced these concerns about Bush. There was a thought the advisers would come through and prevent fiasco’s. Look how that turned out.
Robert M.
I guess I don’t know what all this is about, then, because I have no idea what “blood envy” is. And incidentally, it is not inappropriate to speak of skull mounds in Communist countries, when there exist countries such as Cambodia with actual skull mounds. Pretending that the evil in the world doesn’t exist is a lousy basis for foreign policy.
There is a good reason why the POTUS should not go around the world and give everybody a good talking to. The world is not run by five year-old children who just need someone to explain to them why they shouldn’t give kitty a bath in the toilet. It’s full of people who have no respect for the weak, and a president who goes around the world like a vacuum cleaner salesman looks weak.
Good luck with Obama. The Democratic Party is an anti-foreign policy party now, and he’s the man for that.
Robert M: I concur with Glen Wishard that I have no idea what ‘blood envy’ is or what you think this is all about. I would also like to know what purpose is served within your essay by introducing it in the way that you do.
“The position Obama has IMO is that the US lost far more prestige and good will around the world against a common enemy by the Iraq invasion.”
First of all, I don’t believe that it has. The US did not command much love or respect from the rest of the world before or after 9/11. If we were waiting for thier love or respect, we would be waiting a very long time. Second of all, I don’t particularly value the love and respect of the rest of the world, which for the most part is either completely valueless or of comparitively little worth given the conditions imposed on this good will. And thirdly, much of the world is of a character that its love and respect ought to be an anathema to America. To recieve love and respect from many mouths would be to me a sign that we are acting in a
profoundly wrong manner.
The myth that the world united behind us after 9/11 is close kin to the myth that we were as a country united by 9/11. We most certainly were not. We weren’t even united in grief. An American born (Anglo-Saxon) colleague’s first responce to learning of 9/11 was to rejoice. A good many famous people in America responded much the same way. We weren’t united in any fashion except in the most abstract way. We might all grieve, but when it came to being united in purpose, or in the specifics of the direction we should take in responce, we were most certainly not at all united. Quite the contrary to the general myth that has developed in some circles, 9/11 profoundly divided a country already deeply divided by 8 years of a contriversial President and the circus of the 2000 elections.
The Iraq War has squandered lives and money by a certain amount of unfortunate ineptness (combined with a certain amount of just general friction of war), but I don’t think it has squandered good will much at all. And if it has, I really don’t care.
“Returning Afghanistan to a functioning national state should have been our real goal…”
It is a quite worthy goal. I don’t think it has really been abandoned. It’s just that Afghanistan really hasn’t ever been a functioning nation state in the Western European sense of the term. At its best, it was a functioning nation state in the sense that 11th century france was a functioning nation state. So we aren’t returning it to anything. We are trying to build something entirely new amongst a people prone to be very suspicious of any outside influence or domination.
“It would take years”
It will take years. Years and years and years. We are talking a culture that is centuries apart from ours. Barring a Meiji restoration and all the horror that comes along with that glory, it isn’t going to happen this century. We’ve made a pretty good start considering.
It’s particularly ironic that you don’t apply the same logic you use to denounce the Iraq war, especially given the notorious independent spirit of the Afghan people. Of course, a good portion of those opposed to the Iraq war do apply this same logic to denounce what we do in Afghanistan.
“but it would also give the citizens of the US an opportunity to learn about a culture w/ more facets than most of us are used to trying to understand.”
Oh just shut up. I hate that sort of condescending clap-trap. Speak for yourself or go away; I’ve no desire to read through those sort of false apologies in your desperate bid to look down on people you don’t even know. Between being missionaries, engineers (or other workers) in transnational companies, and being in the US military, there are alot more people out there used to learning about other cultures than you think.
“In doing so we would not be seen as the Crusader but as a helper.”
I’ve broke bread with an Afghan Muhajideen fighter. Don’t tell me about what you don’t know. For cultural reasons, we are going to be seen as Crusaders by certain types prone to seeing everything through that lens regardless of what we do. It won’t matter if we bring bullets or school books, both will be found equally offensive and justification for murder. But on the other hand, neither can you look at the whole Islamic world through the lens that they all look at us as Crusaders and Infidels no matter what we do.
For whatever faults you may find in current US policy, it does not stray toward either end of the spectrum.
“So in order to regain the high ground the government of the US has to talk to everyone.”
First of all, the US has the high ground. The only countries who can claim clean hands are those that lack the capacity to do anything. It’s very easy to be critical of play on the field when you are a spectator. Of those that have the capacity to do something, doing nothing does not make your hands clean. It is among the worst sort of villany to do nothing. Doing nothing is something our critics are very good at. They do nothing all the time, and then wring hands afterward with false piety about how they should of done something. It is among the worst sort of hypocricy to do absolutely nothing and then get all in a moral fit about the folks getting thier hands dirty. You want to judge the USA, then get your hands dirty and show you’ve a better way. Otherwise, shut the @#$# up. The world doesn’t need you.
Second of all, nothing would so plummet us off the moral high ground as going hat in hand to the murders of the world and asking them what they want us to do for them, and trying to gently scold them about being ‘naughty’. Glen is absolutely spot on here. The worst foreign policy momment, the very most embarassing and disasterous foreign policy incident in my lifetime, is Albright taking off her shoes and running after an aging mass murder, thief, tyrant and defiler of small boys to beg him to be good and sign the paper. You want to talk about losing the moral high ground and respect and good will of the world, that is how you do it. You want to talk about talk that gets people killed, that’s the sort of talk that gets people killed and condemns them to misery. Words can kill. Even ones with peaceful intentions.
“Since we are still the most powerful state capable of extending military power across the globe why should we be afraid?”
Afraid? Who said anything about being afraid. This isn’t about fear. If you think fear-mongering is going on, you don’t understand what it is about.
The surest sign of whether or not you support present US foriegn policy is whether or not you are afraid. If you are afraid, you oppose it.
“Even Bush has had more success w/ North Korea through quiet diplomacy than open talk of an “Axis of Evil.””
Bush, or rather his administration, has had broad diplomatic success – in Pakistan, India, Libya, and elsewhere – because he’s been able to combine the successful strategy of stick and carrot with the sort of resolute dogged determination that makes both our friends and allies think that just maybe, for once, our policies won’t change next year as the winds shift, we won’t actually end up betraying our friends, and we will actually end up going after those that betray us. Whether this determination is composed of stupidity or calculation hardly matters, its been remarkable to watch it in action.
Armed Liberal:
bq. _”But…but…a lot hinges on the basic trust one has in Obama’s political competence, and that trust is being shaken a bit right now.”_
What tests of political competence are Barack Obama passing now that Jimmy Carter was not passing in 1976?
Also, are you sure that Barack Obama is skilled at power diplomacy chess?
Or might his skill be in a more Dilbert-like game, where the obvious next move is to kill the previous manager’s ailing pet project, regardless of its potential for success, or _because_ of its potential for success, to make the previous manager and his faction look bad?
What tests of political competence are Barack Obama passing now that Jimmy Carter was not passing in 1976?
Or that George Bush could pass in 2000?
SG: Sorry to take so long to get back to you. The last few days I’ve been busy.
I think the key to me is this quote:
_It buys them time, it allows them to appear reasonable, it serves to legitimate their pursuit of nuclear weapons. But I don’t see how it strengthens the US position._
As opposed to now? Where they have all the time they want, and no one to answer to? That’s the problem, the only stick we have left is war, and Iran isn’t going to back down because they don’t think we can pull the trigger. Moreover, they could significantly destabilize Iraq & Iran simultaneously, putting us into a 3-front war that we could win, but not without significant losses. Short of nuclear annhiliation (which is has other, massive reprocussions), this is not an easy fight to pick.
Meanwhile, we do know that the Iranians (and many moderates in the ME) are not all that psyched up about a US-Iranian confrontation over nuclear weapons. Show that we are making an endeavor to avoid such confrontation (and that they are actively pursuing it) and those moderates push back on the Iranian government.
People tend to forget that a youth rebellion was shaking Iran just 5 years ago. Those youth are now adults with families, making them less likely to rebel. However, appealing to those groups is our best chance to change the mind of the government.
ooopss. I meant Iran could destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan…
Celebrim and Wishard
I will reply. Obligations require it be later. One question Celebrim what do or did you do? Breaking bread w/ the Muhajideen when?
“Breaking bread w/ the Muhajideen when?”
A high ranking Afghan Muhajideen leader had his son injured by an old landmine. He was allowed to bring his son to the US to recieve medical treatment, and was befriended by a nurse who happened to be a member of the church I was attending. Out of respect for his friend, he attended the church on several occassions – something which raised I’m told a big stink in the local Islamic community.
I believe he told them that he was a tribal chief, accounted by his people an Imman, and that he had been fighting as a Muhajideen and was far better positioned to tell them how a good Moslem should behave than they were positioned to tell him.
I also have some friends who are missionaries in Afghanistan.
As for what I did or do, that isn’t really important. My point is that we are seen as helpers by the people we are helping. If observers in the Islamic community see us as Crusaders, in very large part it has nothing to do with what we have done or not done but is merely indicative of the sort of bias those observers have – especially looking on from a distance. Likewise, my point is that the general level of cultural sophistication amongst ‘red staters’ is alot higher than you might think it is. I’m continually impressed by the number of ‘Rednecks’ I meet that turn out to have lived overseas for some time in some part of the world never seen by tourists. I’m continually disgusted by the number of people in the upper class that think that they have sophisicated cultural understanding because they’ve been tourists and/or read Gabriel GarcÃa Márquez.
bq. I’ve broke bread with an Afghan Muhajideen fighter. Don’t tell me about what you don’t know.
LMAO. The dude had a meal with this guy at his churches’ potluck and all of a sudden he’s an expert on Afghanistan and Islam. I doubt that he even spoke to him personally!
bq. I’m continually disgusted by the number of people in the upper class that think that they have sophisicated cultural understanding because they’ve been tourists and/or read Gabriel GarcÃa Márquez.
So sayeth the fool who also types:
bq. Oh just shut up. I hate that sort of condescending clap-trap. Speak for yourself or go away; I’ve no desire to read through those sort of false apologies in your desperate bid to look down on people you don’t even know.
I am honestly on the edge of sympathy for this confused and angry person who is “disgusted” by many of the traits in other people that he himself displays here in all their Glory.
LMFAO.
Celebrim: On the flip side of that; my wife works for abuse therapy in a southern red-state, so I get the opposite impression. I’m constantly amazed about how many clients could fit that hilarious “idiocracy”:http://www.spike.com/video/2811209 clip.
Sure, most people here (95%) are normal (or better) people. On the other hand, I’ve met some who certainly deserve the reputation.
On the other note: If someone has a misconception of you, how do you solve the problem. do you:
a) Assume it’s their fault, nothing is required of you.
b) Tell them their opinion is wrong.
c) Actively work to change their opinion
If it’s not important, a or b are perfectly acceptable options. However, if it’s a boss, or a business relationship, (a) can destroy your career, and (b) alone won’t help your position in the company. (c) would be the best career option, although they’re are certainly some bosses that are impossible to appease.
Example: if you’ve been accused of stealing work property, Business as always won’t clear your name. Clearing your name from wrongdoing would be best, and steering clear of misinterpreted situations might be a good idea.
If you’re accused of starting a crusade, you probably want to clearly separate your intentions from an actual ‘crusade’. Maybe you keep the president from using “crusades” in his speech. Or prevent military generals like Boykin publicly casting the war in religious terms. Or make sure public figureheads don’t discuss “bombing mecca”. For some reason muslims confuse these things with an actual crusade.
I wonder why?
Sepp: Come back when you have some small amount of logic.
“LMAO. The dude had a meal with this guy at his churches’ potluck and all of a sudden he’s an expert on Afghanistan and Islam.”
a) I haven’t claimed expertise in either.
b) To the extent that I claim expertise in either, having met an Afghan man on several occassions and having talked with people who’d actually been there isn’t my basis in doing so.
c) My own expertise is not really significant to my point.
d) If I was claiming my expertise as proof of my point, it would only amount to a logical falacy anyway (‘Appeal to Authority’).
“I am honestly on the edge of sympathy for this confused and angry person who is “disgusted” by many of the traits in other people that he himself displays here in all their Glory.”
Believe me when I tell you, I haven’t the slightest interest in your sympathy. If you can’t tell the difference between judging someone you’ve met, and judging someone you haven’t met, then well, your sympathy for me is very much misplaced.
bq. For some reason muslims confuse these things with an actual crusade. I wonder why?
I would guess it’s a combination of an honor culture obsessed with past grievances, and a lack of “sophistication” when it comes to deciphering modern political discourse. The latter is probably unavoidable given the lack of a Western tradition to refer to, or maybe the misunderstanding is facetious and it’s politically popular to play up the Crusade rhetoric to certain audiences.
You could also say it’s their culture misunderstanding our culture, but that comes dangerously close to pointing out the fatal flaws in the the whole multicultural worldview. I suppose the disagreement is whether we should let others’ irrational fears dictate our own actions and policy agenda. (And the assumption here _is_ that existance of a national policy favoring wholesale conquering and genocide is irrational, right? Or do we have to waste more pixels re-refuting the same old hyperbole for the Nth time?)
Alchemist: “I’m constantly amazed about how many clients could fit that hilarious idiocracy clip.
Sure, most people here (95%) are normal (or better) people. On the other hand, I’ve met some who certainly deserve the reputation.”
Absolutely. I’ve met lots of people that live up to the sterotypes of thier class, sometimes even willfully. Often, sterotypes exist because they do have some fundamental basis. Even more sadly, sterotypes are adopted by the group so sterotyped as an identity. In fact, in many groups conforming to the sterotype can become a requirement of being accepted into the membership of that group.
My point is not to say that ignorance doesn’t exist in rural areas. I know full well that it does. I grew up there. I know all about shockingly small horizons, poor education, zero ambition, and rural tribalism. I got enough of that to last a lifetime.
My point is to say that groups of people are complex and composed of individuals whose traits tell you more about them individuality than membership in a class does. My point is that you can go into one of these groups and see evidence of your sterotype being met, but that doesn’t mean that you can judge the group on the basis of the sterotype. My point wasn’t that it was surprising how often sterotypes are met, because that would hardly be shocking. My point was how often someone who seems to fit a sterotype turns out to be on closer inspection radically more complicated than the sterotype would suggest.
And in particular, the old canard about how ‘Americans don’t know or care about anything past thier own borders’ is in fact somewhat of a true sterotype, but also to the extent that it is not true the fact that it is not true cuts broadly across regional, cultural, and even economic lines for reasons like those that I suggested. It is a common ‘blue state’ pretension that they are more worldly than thier ‘red state’ counterparts, but in my experience this isn’t in fact true. (Likewise, it is my experience that urban dwellers often have the same shockingly small horizons, poor education, and zero ambition I once in my own ignorance associated only with rural areas.) And it is certainly not true that those that support the general thrust of our Afghanistan policy do so out of ignorance of Afghan culture.
“If you’re accused of starting a crusade, you probably want to clearly separate your intentions from an actual ‘crusade’. Maybe you keep the president from using “crusades” in his speech. Or prevent military generals like Boykin publicly casting the war in religious terms. Or make sure public figureheads don’t discuss “bombing mecca”. For some reason muslims confuse these things with an actual crusade.”
Like I said, I don’t think it has very much to do with anything we’ve done. All those things are merely excuses, but attempting to remove the excuses is a futile exercise. An excuse will always be found because it isn’t the excuse that created the opinion. The excuse just validates the opinion, and if you want to validate your opinion you can always find a way to do it.
In particular, when someone has a bias like this, words of any sort are meaningless. There is nothing you can say to remove the bias. No amount of taking care in your speach is going to convince the other person of anything. The only thing that changes a bias like that is getting hit upside the head by life so hard that you can no longer ignore that the world is different than you thought it was.
So I don’t get particularly fretful about any of those things you mention. They aren’t really important and they play almost no real role in shaping impressions.
We’ve had some bad days on the hearts and minds front, but none of them had anything do with what you mention. Likewise, we’ve had some good days on the hearts and minds front, but none of them would make a sound bite because they weren’t about words. In fact, most of them probably wouldn’t be noticable and could never make the news. Michael Yon gets what’s important in the battle. It’s not words. It’s deeds. And in particular, it’s not even national or collective deeds. It’s the really intimate one on one personal contact between this person and that person that matters in changing opinion.
bq. Come back when you have some small amount of logic.
bq. Speak for yourself or go away
Just a tad preoccupied with telling other’s to go away, aren’t we now celebrim. A bit of an authority complex I see. The Keyboard Kommando Syndrome strikes again.
bq. I haven’t the slightest interest in your sympathy
It might surprise you to learn that there are other people who might read these posts and that even comments about you are not necessarily directed at you.
bq. If you can’t tell the difference between judging someone you’ve met, and judging someone you haven’t met
Pretty much anyone can tell the difference between opinions formed on the basis of indirect vs. direct experience, professor, so whatever profound point you think you’re making is laughingly simplistic.
What’s more striking is that you don’t realize that forming OPINIONS about others on either basis is not only perfectly acceptable, but you yourself have been doing it throughout the thread. If you want to abide by your own rules and suggestions, then, perhaps it is you who should STFU about all those imaginary “upper class cultural elitists” that you “detest” because of what you presume they think as you crawl back under your rock for a while.
Just look at the laughable comments in #18 for more evidence of this idiocy:
bq. From rock stars to actors to journalists to sociology, Obama seems to have the majority admiration and support of every group of people who I observe as a class tending to exhibit poor judgment.
sepp: The only thing striking about your post is how wildly you are flailing around. Touched a nerve, eh? Further responses to you or comments about you would be a waste of my time. My I suggest that if you feel I’m a fool and an idiot, you act as if it is a waste of time to read what I have said and don’t bother responding to it or commenting on it.
“You can’t reason a man out of an attitude he didn’t reason himself into” would seem to apply.
bq. My I suggest that if you feel I’m a fool and an idiot, you act as if it is a waste of time to read what I have said and don’t bother responding to it or commenting on it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I can certainly spare the few milliseconds of time it takes to point out your twisted idiocy.
Like this gem, for instance;
bq. It is a common ‘blue state’ pretension that they are more worldly than thier ‘red state’ counterparts, but in my experience this isn’t in fact true.
Keep ’em coming, celebrim! Very entertaining, this mind-reading display from an alleged Crusader against mind-reading.
Dave: Yes. That’s a good summary of my opinion.
Also Karl Popper’s adage would seem to apply as well:
“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
I would go farther than saying it summarizes your opinion, #38; I’d say it summarizes your contributions here.
I also wouldn’t take any solace from the fact that your comments fall under the purview of a pithy quote from a respected philosopher. I hope you don’t think that it somehow justifies your incoherent ramblings to point out the obvious, once again.
Go back to church, boy, where no reason or logic need intrude upon a pleasing but completely false view of the world.
You probably ought not invite comparisons between celebrim’s contributions to this blog with your own.
You do not come off looking good.
#40
To be judged as a positive contributor to this blog is, for the most part, certainly not a distinction that I seek nor think is worth seeking. The main quality needed for people with my views is extreme, saintlike patience above all else. Certainly reason and logic and facts alone are not sufficient. And while I do admire this quality in many of the lefty contributors here, I have no similar inclination toward beating my head against a brick wall in the hopes that it will develop a crack. In my experiences here and elsewhere, it never does.
It’s past time for AL to re-examine strategy for this so-called “warm” war, since whatever it is called, whatever victory means, and whoever the enemy is, we don’t seem to be doing all that well. I believe that for AL the war is to secure the United States against Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attack, and the measure of success is their failure to do so.
There are other metrics of success: decimating the existing terrorists, drying up their sources of funding, securing the help of other countries in denying them safe haven, impeding their recruiting efforts and reducing their popularity–drying up the pond so the fish can’t swim.
Barack Obama offers us an opportunity to get this right. John McCain follows in the footsteps of George Bush in botching this task with a war and occupation in Iraq fought for any number of reasons, of which the ones related to the security of the United States were spurious confections eagerly believed. How does it impinge on Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or the Maghreb if we stay forty years in Iraq (per Bush) or 100 (per McCain)?
I know, this is where the Bush remnant talks about our troops in Germany. What they miss is that by 1949, West Germany was de facto running its own internal show. The American troops’ primary function was external defense, a role we no longer permit the Germans to play. Germany is relevant, however: our troops play in Iraq a role more similar to Soviet troops in East Germany: propping up the preferred local clients, defending them against domestic opposition, menacing neighboring countries. The Iraqis want us out of their country. Did you notice that even the Parliament we have largely created rejected our large permanent bases? (We once did, of course, have troops in Saudi Arabia and had since the 1940s, but they were withdrawn by Bush in a strange acceptance of one of Osama bin Laden’s demands.)
By getting us out of the IraqWagmire, Obama lets us refocus our anti-terrorist strategies. Recall he even suggested it might be necessary to insert Special Forces into Pakistan. This doesn’t strike me as a sign of appeasement, and recall that when he did so, the exact same people who accuse him of weakness complain that on this issue he was reckless. For the Bush Remnant, only exactly the Boy King’s decisions (Saudia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) are correct.
On September 12, 2001, we were in a bipartisan war. One vote against. Bush approval 92 percent. This became a GOP war because Bush insisted on running it his way: split the Democrats with the Iraq nonsense (both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton would have won, had they shown a brief moment of foresight and courage at that moment), entrust the reconstruction of Iraq to the Young Republican Club, truculent boasts timed for domestic political purposes, etc. Comparisons to Neville Chamberlain are made cheaply here. He does come to mind in thinking of Bush–Chamberlain between the outbreak of the war and the Fall of France. The importance of the project simply not macthed by any sort of execution. The Bush Administration talks of sacrifice. We do not need the GOP to give up golf, to paraphrase Lloyd George, it is time they sacrificed their seals of office.
Hey Sepp – feel free to apologize or to take a break – we don’t call each other “boy” here, regardless of your deep attraction to white sheets and burning crosses.
Andrew – you’re right, it is due for a re-examination, and I’ve been reading and talking to a bunch of folks about it and thinking about it. S’gonna be a while, if that’s OK – but a month or so tops.
A.L.
Andrew: That was such an impassioned and bold plea, that it prompted me to go and closely reread Barack Obama’s foreign policies statements again. I would very much like to believe that Obama had a plan for going forward.
Unfortunately, I just don’t see the substance. Obama makes alot of promises he simply can’t keep. He promises to increase spending on everything, because you know everything is a good cause. I’m not at all opposed to expanding the military back to its cold war strength, but after Bush’s prolifigate domestic spending and all the Obama promises to add on top of that I can’t see where he’s going to get the money to live up to that promise, nor can I imagine the Democrats as a whole passing a plan to do so over the likely objections of thier constituients who generally feel we are spending to much money on the military as is.
Let me ask you, what do you think the likely results of negotiations with Iran to be?
What do you think the are the likely results of sending US troops into Pakistan?
What do you think are the actual odds of getting robust economic sanctions against the Sudan, given the opposition by France and China to such a policy and given the past performance of economic sanctions on Iraq (or anywhere else) particularly in the light of France and the UN’s role in undermining those sactions?
Sell me on the Obama plan. Defend the seemly unreflective assertions of his key foreign policy speach on counter-terrorism. If you can sell me on the idea that he’s not reading from the same tired script filled with the same tired myths and thoughtless cliches, that would go a long way toward reassuring me about Obama. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve no love for McCain, so once again due to a weak GOP candidate I’m willing to shop around. I have no use for the America haters who long for our defeat, but I’m more than willing to listen to a plan intended to achieve victory.
Heck, if you won’t, why doesn’t AL try to make this case.
#42 from Andrew J. Lazarus:
It means funds and trained jihadists are less available from Iraq to transfer to these other theaters.
Also, resources Al Qaeda commits to Iraq and that are written off are unavailable for other purposes.
There is also a double-edged effect on our ability to threaten other Islamic states with invasion.
If we hold our other actions hostage to the occupations we already have, obviously the effect on our flexibility is negative.
But if we are serious about coercing other regional players, such as Saudi Arabia, to constrict their funding for jihad, then a) it’s safer for them to comply with us, since they are not potentially threatened with a counter-strike from Iraq, and b) it’s more dangerous for them not to comply with us, since the resources of Islamic solidarity able to assist them are less.
My main reason for supporting the invasion of Iraq is that whoever else you wanted to deal with or seriously threaten, whether it was Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria, you would also need to deal with Iraq, in order not to have Saddam Hussein too active on your flank, threatening those who meet your demands, giving support to those who make jihad against you, and eventually arming himself with serious weapons of mass destruction programs to purchase immunity from kuffer retaliation, support Iraq’s own threats, and also give or threaten to give to jihadist allies.
If you might want to do A, B or C next, but D is the necessary corollary in every case, then doing D first increases your flexibility in dealing with unexpected problems while improving your threat potential and negotiating position against every possible opponent.
There’s also the simple demonstration effect – you too, can be pulled from a spider-hole. But that’s more a short term thing, as the effect fades unless you maintain or increase your ability to carry out such threats. (If you hold your actions hostage to their acceptability to the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, naturally those occupations diminish your capacity to carry out such threats, and they can become a negative for your diplomatic effect on Muslim / unfriendly states.)
I still think that the idea of increasing our flexibility would have been a valid approach. Obviously it’s not what we have committed to.
Roger Kaplan gives a much better breakdown of obama’s intentions than I have:
“Is Barack Obama too naive to be president?”:http://www.slate.com/id/2192940/
Alchemist’s link is indeed read-worthy, but it is by Fred Kaplan.
bq. Barack Obama offers us an opportunity to get this right.
If he ever managed to articulate _how_ he will offer us this shot at redemption, it would go a long way towards bolstering his wafer-thin case for deserving the Presidency.
“Kaplan gives a much better breakdown of obama’s intentions than I have:”
Unsurprisingly considering the source, I find the argument unconvincing. He seems to be doing alot of rationalizing.
I disagree with most of his particular conclusions, especially those he presents without argument. The closest I come to agreeing with him is when he suggests we aren’t a superpower, but a ‘normal’ albiet ‘powerful’ nation. Of course, I think by that standard we’ve probably never been a superpower, and if we aren’t a superpower then I don’t know who qualifies. Still, the term is abit ridiculous especially when stretched to terms like ‘hyperpower’ which really mean ‘The United States is still as powerful as ever, but we have become much weaker.’ So let us just say that we are a world power, and at present the greatest of those world powers – as Kaplan himself admits.
But I digress.
In the run up to the second Gulf War, one basis among the many that opponents of the war criticized the US on was that Saddam had at one time been an ally of convienance. Pictures of US officials meeting with the murderous Saddam circulated widely. As is often the case, my responce to those pictures was I think somewhat different than what I think was the intended effect. I saw them not as an argument against the war, but an argument against ever making the mistake of shaking hands with murderous dictators to obtain some short term political advantage. In short, I saw them as a pervasive argument not to sacrifice our high minded principals on the alter of realpolitik. I saw them as an argument against making deals with dictators.
My question for Fred Kaplan would be, “Why do we want to talk to these governments in the first place? What do we hope to achieve?”
According to Fred Kaplan, the whole purpose of inserting ourself into these matters regional diplomacy is to further US power and influence. For what ends we desire this power and influence is not at all made clear, and is rather skipped over even though it would seem to be the most pertinent point. You talk to a nation to make agreements between its government and your government. If our goal is to increase or power and influence, the best way to do that is make ourselves useful to that government, to insure its security, to help prop it up, and increase its power and influence. That is the carrot in international politics. But if our goal is to spread democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and liberalism, then quite often this goal is at odds with increasing our own power and influence. Because if our goal is spreading democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and liberalism, quite often this is best served by not increasing the security of tyrants, by not helping to prop them up, and by not increasing the power and influence of those governments.
The problem with talking to tyrants is that we have nothing we want to give them that they want. In the case of governments opposed to democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and liberalism, thier best interest is served by increasing thier power and influence at our expense. When we deal with them to obtain our short term interests, we start becoming something other than what we are or want to be.
I have a hard time believing that Obama’s supporters think I should vote for the man because he is planning to make deals with dictators to further the goal of American imperialism.
And if that isn’t the goal, then what is? What do we actually have to talk about?
Beyond that large problem, Kaplan gets off alot of zingers that I think really ought to be questioned more closely.
“For instance, its lack of success in Iraq and Afghanistan has made our enemies less fearful of our threats and our allies less trusting in our assurances.”
Really? Compared to what? Compared to the military success of the previous administration? Compared to our reputation for abandoning our allies after Vietnam, or when Saddam was slaughtering the Kurds and Shites of Iraq? I don’t think we’ve ever had a particularly good reputation for steadfastly standing by our allies. Likewise, its hard to imagine a time wear our enemies were less fearful of our threats than the ’90’s, unless its perhaps the ’70’s under Carter in the aftermath of the Vietnam war. By comparison, what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan is positively terrifying.
“Its disinclination even to engage in serious Middle East diplomacy has made it politically harder for moderate Arab leaders to side openly with U.S. interests.”
If serious Middle East diplomacy means putting another mass murderer in charge of the Palistinians (or anyone else) and getting repaid with the second intifada, then I think we can do without ‘serious Middle East diplomacy’ just fine.
“Look at the deals that foreign leaders are cutting on their own. Israel and Hamas are talking about a cease-fire, using Egypt as a mediator. Turkey is serving as middleman in talks between Israel and Syria. The political factions in Lebanon worked out an accord, under Qatar’s supervision.
These local and regional arrangements are encouraging developments.”
Perhaps they are, and perhaps they aren’t. But there is certainly no need to get entangled in the middle of them.
“A presidential visit, in this light, is not such a big deal.”
Yes, it is. And I don’t see how cheaping it will make it any more important.
During the July 23 debate, Barack Obama said: _”[Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy talked with Soviet leaders because] they understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary threat to us, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.”_
On these terms, defined by Obama, America’s bargaining position would be weak, and he would wind up making concessions greater than any that would follow from the objective balance of power. Between Mahmoud and Sam, if the obligation to find common ground and move forward (and where is that?) rests on Sam, then Mahmoud is in a strong position and Sam is in a weak position.
There are other reasons to think that America would do badly in these open-ended negotiations, including America’s distributed attention problem (America’s negotiating partners can afford to put a much greater effort into getting the best deal from the Americans than the Americans can afford to invest in any one player), America’s unpopularity and weak will, and Iran’s long history of playing successful rug merchant games in hostile diplomacy. The Americans might even wind up trading arms for hostages … again.
But simply deciding that you are the one that has to deal is enough to get the ground sliding out from under your feet. And Obama gives that away.
If Barack Obama thought like Beldar, I would trust him to deal with the Iranians. He doesn’t, and I don’t.
_And if that isn’t the goal, then what is? What do we actually have to talk about?_
Obama’s response made clear that he wanted to talk about Iraq, and what happens if everything falls apart. That’s a pretty clear topic of conversation that will directly impact Syria and Iran (and not necessarily infringe on the nuke question). Millions have already flooded Syria, and left a refugee disaster that we have (thus far) refused to aid. If the Iraq situation gets worse again (which is certainly plausible) planning with the aid of Iraq’s neighbors would be beneficial. Or we can not plan at all (this administrations forte).
Next, there’s something I want to clear that’s said often but not explained, the idea that just by meeting with Iran, we are “legitimizing them”
To whom are they being legitimized? Not in the west, where Europe has been trying to prevent Iran’s dealings for 5 years without our help, and certainly isn’t going to wake up tomorrow and say “Wow, if the US is meeting with Iran they must be ok”. Nope, Iran’s reputation isn’t changing among western nations.
Certainly not in Sunni nations, which are nervous as hell about a Shia bomb. Sure, they’d probably prefer it if we bombed their factories, but I still think that’s monstrously bad idea.
Certainly not in China & Russia, who already treat Iran as an established trading partner, destroying any attempt at a Western embargo.
And I don’t see their status changing at all in Sunni nations, where they’re already more liked than we are. In fact, meeting with Iran might actually help OUR reputation in the Sunni world.
Is there anyone left of any significance that I missed?
So the question still is, if we don’t meet with them what do we do? Sit here and wait? I don’t see how that’s going to be any more successful.
“Obama’s response made clear that he wanted to talk about Iraq, and what happens if everything falls apart.”
Which answers nothing.
So, again, what do we hope to achieve through such a conversation?
“To whom are they being legitimized?”
I disagree with your portrayal of the EU’s relationship to Iran. Germany has three times the trade relations Russia has with Iran. Italy and the Netherlands are among the largest buyers of Iranian goods. The EU has gotten absolutely nothing out of Iran and has refused to put a stick of any sort on the table because they don’t want to hurt thier trade relations with Iran. It’s all been carrots, and Iran has basically ignored all of them. In fact, Iran has ignored even the offer by the EU to build them a nuclear reactor, because quite obviously, they have no interest in a nuclear reactor which is not useful for creating weapons.
Based on how the EU treats Iran, Iran is already legitimate in the eyes of the EU. If they are not, there is no evidence for it. Much as in the case of Cuba, US policy to toward Iran is undermined by the European rush to legitimize the Iranian government. We could get China and the Russians to put an embargo around Iran (we couldn’t but hypotethically speaking) and the embargo would still be fully undermined just by the EU’s trading partnership with Iran.
But there is one group you fail to mention. The Iranian people themselves. For tyrants, security always means first and foremost control of its own people. Why do you think that Amadinejad wants to speak at Columbia university? Do you think it is because he hopes to persuade the American people? No, it is because of the images that he wants to take home. What do you think Amadinejad gets by having an American President (named Barack Obama no less) extending his hand to him? What do you think that he gets of the President goes to meet with him but fails to extend his hand. For the tyrant, this is a win-win situation. For us, it is lose-lose.
“So the question still is, if we don’t meet with them what do we do? Sit here and wait? I don’t see how that’s going to be any more successful.”
It’s more successful than giving things away for nothing, which is the likely result of Obama’s strategy. That’s what we got when we negotiated with the North Koreans. Clinton pretty much propped up the NK state and prevented it from collapsing, and in exchange he got NK full speed ahead on thier weapon delivery systems. Nothing would have been by far the preferred course of action.
_what happens if everything falls apart_
a. Iran doesn’t know that?
b. The U.S. can’t communicate what happens without the President?
What is the purpose of public face-to-face meetings other than to elevate the stature of the heads of state to their people?
To place the question back to alchemist, why do you oppose any one of these preconditions to a heads-of-state meeting with Iran?
1. Iran renounce terrorism;
2. Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist;
3. Iran comply with its treaty obligations with NNPT
These are preconditions that Obama would insist on before meeting with the prime minister of Gaza (except the third one has been modified to identify a treaty obligation specific to Iran). Why? Because we don’t want to legitimize terrorism, violence against Israel and violation of important treaties.
PD, Quite obviously, I am no expert on the issues involved here, nor do I have an particularly strong feelings or opinions on the matter. Having said that, it does seem to me that the 3 pre-conditions you list would be better characterized as US goals. If they were met prior to any talks, there wouldn’t be much need for talks. The aim of talks would be to assess the possibility of achieving the goals and determining what, if any, steps would lead to them.
It also seems to me that by making them preconditions you are ensuring the continuation of the status quo into the far distant future. It is doubtful that Iran would meet any of them simply in order to be invited to talks.
The thing about talks is that nobody is making any claims that they would necessarily be successful; just that they shouldn’t be ruled out on principle.
_Go back to church, boy, where no reason or logic need intrude upon a pleasing but completely false view of the world._
But he’s not arrogant or closed-minded!
Fred, if arrogance were a disqualifying characteristic for contributing, this would be a significantly shorter thread, don’t you think?
_”If they were met prior to any talks, there wouldn’t be much need for talks. “_
If talking could convince Iran to stop being murderous thugs I’d carry the next President to Tehran on my back. The point is we arent (and cant) negotiate to stop radically anti-social, nihilist behavior. To negotiate by definition means making concessions to utter brutality, which of course encourages the practice. We shouldnt make concessions in the _hopes_ of a terrorist state complying with the most base level of human behavior.
_it does seem to me that the 3 pre-conditions you list would be better characterized as US goals. If they were met prior to any talks, there wouldn’t be much need for talks._
I probably agree with item 3 on my list. Iran is in violation of its treaty commitments. The path to coming back into compliance with the treaty, if Iran so desired, would involve a lot of talks. But the point is that those are reasonable types of preconditions to negotiation:
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.” “Obama”:http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1636948020080416
Preface. What an embarrassment, Noam Chomsky is vindicated. Our rationale for remaining in Iraq is truly to turn it into East Germany, a pathetic colony where our troops run the show. They will have the power to arrest Iraqis but not (of course!) vice versa. The Iraqis loathe the proposal; the puppet Parliament rejects it utterly; how Al-Maliki will authorize it is something of a mystery. It does explain why we needed the largest embassy in the entire world in Iraq, as if we couldn’t guess long before. This treatment is suitable for a country that attacked the United States and was conquered. We have pretended to “liberate” Iraq, but it looks like a war of conquest now, doesn’t it?
I. Pro-Obama Probably it would be better to go to his web site and let him speak in his own words, but as far as I can see, his foreign policy is based around
(a) Willingness to use force when necessary, in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda worldwide;
(b) Unwillingness to use the US military as a colonizing force in Iraq, and
(c) A return to action in conformity with John Kerry’s ridiculed statement about a “global test“. Maladroit Kerry managed to bungle what seemed to me to be an obvious reference to one of our Founding Documents: “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”.
(d) Return to the more traditional role of the Executive Branch, without torture, kangaroo courts, and Stasi-like wiretapping (the East Germany model comes home).
II. Anti-Bush/McCain Until this week, McCain seemed at least to be with Obama on a restoration of the Bill of Rights and the Laws of War, but even the potential of power corrupts and he now sings the Yoo/Bybee song of unlimited Article II power. (Common sense suggests that the Founding Fathers wanted an executive less powerful than King George III, not greater, but originalism is a conservative value only when applied to liberal ideas.) This isn’t the only place in the so-called War on Terror that McCain is Bush’s Third Term. McCain now says troops will be coming home in 2013 without giving a shred of evidence that this isn’t another in an unbelievably long string of premature Mission Accomplished withdrawal declarations dating back to May 2003. [August 2005 The Pentagon is laying the groundwork for beginning a withdrawal from Iraq, even as it is weighing the risk of moving so quickly that Iraqi security forces collapse without U.S. support.] Why we will be in better position to withdraw in 2013 than now is left as an exercise for the viewer. The political progress that was supposed to take place in the space created by The Surge seems stalled—how many times have we announced the oil-revenue bill is on its way?
In terms of reaching goals, is there any way that Obama could do worse than Bush/McCain?
No.
_”The Iraqis loathe the proposal; the puppet Parliament rejects it utterly; how Al-Maliki will authorize it is something of a mystery”_
Why hasnt the Iraqi Parliment asked us to leave? Puppet? How so? I thought last month they were Sadr’s goons? Now, apparently, they are US puppets. So hard to keep up these days…
Iraq War detractors say out of one side of their mouths that we are wasting trillions and trillions of dollars in a Iraq. And then turn right around and say out of the other side of their mouths that America is a imperial nation.
America must be the most F’ed up empire in the history of the world. We conquer countries not to extract tribute, but to give them billions of dollars. Some Empire.
These are apparently the same two sides of their mouths, where Bush is simultaneously the dumbest president ever and the most brilliantly devious one.
It’s a wonder their heads don’t explode trying to contain all the contradictions.
Andrew: Ok, nevermind. You came close to persuading me of something, but man am I embarassed now to have ever taken you seriously.
It appears the Iraqi Parliament is interested in our leaving. I assume they are not in session to say so formally. One year ago:
Yesterday:
That sounds pretty clear to me. Bush and Maliki are trying to figure out how to make this agreement without having to submit it for ratification to their respective representative bodies, where it is sure to be rejected.
Meanwhile, those of you convinced John McCain knows what he is doing in foreign policy should contemplate this:
Yes, that’s a Presidential trip sure to meet with success. How come Bush and Petraeus haven’t thought of such a straightforward solution?
_”That sounds pretty clear to me.”_
Actually, it does. It appears we’re all in agreement:
_U.S. ambassador: No permanent Iraq bases
‘Not going to be forever,’ he says after some Iraqis raise concern”_
“link”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24988101/
_”Bush and Maliki are trying to figure out how to make this agreement without having to submit it for ratification to their respective representative bodies, where it is sure to be rejected. “_
Source?
Andrew, your spin on this just doesnt hold up. The Iraqi parliament doesnt want us in Iraq permanently, and certainly not in control of airspace etc. That does not follow that they want us out NOW. Thats simply farcical considering the security gains the surge has secured. Furthermore it would be a simple matter for the parliament to, err, you know, VOTE to send us packing. Which they have not.
Mark: I don’t see how anyone can get all worked up over something pretending to be journalism that doesn’t contain – much less name – a single source. ‘The Weekly World News’ had higher journalistic standards than that. It may all be crap, but lacking sources it at least made some up, quoted some liars, or something. Seriously, how in the world can you take sort of crap seriously and still claim any amount of intellectual rigor?
Besides which, Cockburn is a well known socialist writer writing another anti-American hit peice, only this time he doesn’t even bother to backup his claims with as much as hearsay and ancedotes. I mean, sheesh, normally you can filter crap for bias and still get at the underlying facts, but Cockburn doesn’t bother to put any facts in. Basically, he’s taken some spin on the existing situation sexed it up with some conjectures and outright fabrications. Geez.
Shorter Version Cockburn: Secret plans leaked only to the Independent, which are already being condemned by Iranians, Iraqis and Arabs, are being foisted unwillingly on Iraqis whose Parliament is expected to approve it and are in direct contravene with the plans of Americas unelected, but rightful leader, Barack Obama.
Today’s WaPo answers Mark’s questions. Bush is trying to end run Congress.
An Iraqi spokesman gives an interpretation of the Americans’ draft on all fours with Cockburn’s article.
Maliki knows the agreement is DOA in the Iraqi Parliament.
I agree with Mark that there isn’t a consensus in the Iraqi Parliament for us to leave this instant (although that appears to be the plurality opinion among Iraqis at large). However, we are less and less welcome, and our long-term goals as articulated in Bush’s SOFA are unattainable.
_Why? Because we don’t want to legitimize terrorism, violence against Israel and violation of important treaties._
You know, that’s a great stand to make, and if we actually approached foreign policy that way, it would make sense to continue that tradiditon. But it’s pretty clear that this administration does deal with terrorists, although usually under limited fanfare, and after they rename these groups to a friendlier, fuzzier, peave-loving title.
This administration has clearly dealt with North Korea (even after it dessiminated information claiming that no deal would ever be made). They dealt with Sunni insurgents in Iraq. They dealt with Shia insurgents in Iraq. They dealt with the Afghani warlords, who are now helping the taliban to slip back into the country, and forcing habibs on women with threats and violence. We’ve even dealt information with the Sudanese, despite their well known tendency towards genocide.
And this is just the current administration. There’s also McCain two years ago, saying “They’re the (Palestinian) government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with (Hamas)”. Obviously McCain has changed his tune now that he wants to “act tough” for the presidency.
Obviously it’s a difficult decision for any administration to decide which groups can be bargained with and which would be fruitless. However, to claim that we always follow a clear-cut set of rules in this regard is bogus. We talk with whomever if we think it will work. If we don’t think it will work, we call those that want to talk “terrorist-appeasers”.
ON a last note: Just as I think Obama is intentionally overplaying his negotiations hand, I think McCain is overplaying his “bomb Iran” personality. I think both of these men will act closer to the center than either will admit. But both men are trying to seperate themselves in the election, and going farther to the left/right than necessary.
The status of forces agreements are common and don’t require Congressional ratification (as the WaPo link states). Secretary Gates was questioned about these issues to the “Armed Services Committee”:http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=1110 in February:
bq. _First of all let me say that we do not want, nor will we seek permanent bases in Iraq. I don’t know the specifics about the signing statement except that I suspect it was more on Constitutional grounds than it was on the substantive issue of of the bases in Iraq because the President and Senator Rice and I have all been explicit that we do not want and will not seek permanent bases. I would also tell you that the status of forces agreement will not contain any commitment, any security commitment to Iraq . . ._
…
bq. _And I’m told that the Declaration of Principles that was signed in November was not considered by our government to be a security commitment._
It looks, from the Cockburn story, as if Secy Gates is up against Dick Cheney. I would bet on Cheney.