I’m still digesting the news reports; my first reaction is that it went about as well as could be realistically expected as far as engaging other countries is concerned – there wasn’t any real possibility that he’d do better than he did. And I worry about people who think that our interests and the world’s would be magically aligned because we suddenly say we’d like them to be. But he made some critical mistakes which are going to hurt him domestically.
Bowing to King Abdullah was stupid, and the damage to Obama as the video circulates remains to be seen. For the defenders who suggest that GWB holding his had as they walked was equally bad – no it wasn’t. Peers in Arab societies may hold hands. Peers don’t bow to each other.
I don’t know who’s handling Obama’s protocol, but they need to be replaced, like today.
And I was – and still am, on consideration – a little fuddled by his over-nuanced take on American Exceptionalism. This is a profound issue for me, which I am going to spend some time worrying through.It reads as though Obama carefully threaded a needle on this; I want to sleep on it for another day or so, Here’s the exchange I’m thinking about:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that’s been going on this week — the G20, here at NATO — and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.
I read it once and he’s standing with Lincoln, and I read it again and he’d backing away. I know where I want him to be…
–
Do what better? I mean, what is he trying to do?
If he’s trying to rein in the North Koreans, he picked the wrong time to leave the country. Besides, I thought the Dems were all for a bilateral approach to the Norks, but maybe I’ve missed the last six or seven back-flips.
More commitment to Afghanistan? That’s a bust, and no wonder – that’s something you do with quiet diplomacy, not public campaigning.
Spend more money on “stimulus”? The Euros have already stimulated themselves to death.
Give a major address in a Muslim capital? I remember him promising to do that within a 100 days, and now he wanders the earth looking for one. Did he imagine he would be allowed to give a public address in Riyadh to anyone except the king’s men? If he meant Ankara or Istanbul, his people have belatedly realized that calling either of these a Muslim capital is a sure way to piss off both secularists and Islamists.
I’m still puzzling over parts of it, myself.
Specifically, the interplay between:
1) Obama’s call to eliminate nuclear weapons (but not in his lifetime)
2) Obama’s decision to press forward with Central European BMD (unless, maybe, the Iranian nuclear program is completely dismantled, and even there, he didn’t really promise, I don’t think)
3) The (failed but still important) missile launch from North Korea
All of those happened in the space of a few days. Now, up front and in the clear, I am ecstatic that Obama went back on his campaign promises to reconsider BMD. (Or at the best, he “reconsidered” and came to the conclusion that Bush was right after all.) Not surprised, but happy nonetheless.
But something about the play between all three of them is bothering me… in a good way. I still need to think about this, but I think Obama just challenged Russia to do something I believe they are manifestly unable to do– rein in both North Korea and Iran, in a verifiable and non-reversible way. Which I think leaves Russia looking weak in several ways– they didn’t get us to accede to their demands, and they’re almost certainly going to fail with North Korea and Iran (if they even try) and they’re going to end up with Amerian troops on Polish soil, building up the Polish military. All the while, Obama gets to look good on the national stage, being seen trying to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely.
I think, in a certain sense, Obama just used Iran and the North Korean launch to tell the Russians to get screwed, and we’re going to do what we wanted to do, anyway. I’m not willing to call this genius, but if he did what I think he did, I’m willing to call it clever, and this from someone not overwhelmed by Obama’s foreign policy to date.
Also, we added Croatia and Albania to NATO, and still held the door open, for Ukraine and Georgia…. eventually.
Prediction: Russia will be pissed.
For the defenders who suggest that GWB holding his had as they walked was equally bad – no it wasn’t. Peers in Arab societies may hold hands. Peers don’t bow to each other.
As a former supporter of GWB, I’d guess that his hand-holding display was more disappointing because GWB falsely marketed himself as an opponent of the people who sponsored 9/11.
Watching him skip through the wildflowers with the Saudi king was like watching Eliot Ness kiss Al Capone, or like watching Sen. McCarthy slow dancing with Stalin.
Also, there was the fact that while they were nuzzling, Abudullah’s good friend Sheikh al-Luhaidan declared war against the US in Iraq. And the Bush administration did nothing to stop this. In the course of the Iraq war, the Saudis continued to be our good friends.
And there’s the fact that when Abdullah returned to Saudi Arabia, al-Luhaidan was promoted and Saudi suicide bombers proceeded to murder thousands of people.
Obama’s bow was horrific, but it is just another sign that our obesquious alliance with our enemies continues.
What maryatexitzero says is right.
I dunno. I’m not sure yet if the bow was a big deal or not — don’t know enough about the protocol to say. I do think there’s a bit of “when in Rome” thing at play, though. If protocol is you bow to the King when you’re in his capital, then maybe it was the right thing to do regardless… because otherwise now you’re just being insulting.
I mean, if in my house the rule is that everyone takes off their shoes and my neighbor comes over, I still expect him to take off his shoes too, even if at his place he has an “all shoes, all the time” rule. So what if he’s a little ticked at me because my I don’t mow my lawn fast enough for his taste and I have other friends he doesn’t like who come over, too, sometimes. It’s my house, my rules. Maybe at some point down the road he decides my faults outweigh everything else, at which point he no longer feels compelled to give a crap what I think and doesn’t worry about disrespecting me. But until then, I’m still expecting those shoes to come off when he steps through the door…
_”I do think there’s a bit of “when in Rome” thing at play, though. If protocol is you bow to the King when you’re in his capital, then maybe it was the right thing to do regardless… because otherwise now you’re just being insulting.”_
Two things- first, there are longstanding presidential protocols that have already been established. One is that our leader does not make himself subservient to other leaders, and that is what that gesture entails. Our president doesn’t bow to the Queen, he should certainly not bow to Abdullah.
Secondly, I suspect you don’t require your guests to prostrate themselves before you when they visit. If a guest is asked to do _as_ his host does, that is appropriate. If he is asked to do something specifically to display himself as being less than his host, not only does this stand hospitality on its head it doesn’t win any friends.
This was a foolish unforced diplomatic error by Obama. Not all that much in itself, but these errors are compiling and making him not only look like a rube, but, worse, weak.
I have to disagree about this trip- it was done from a position of weakness, hat in hand, and nothing gained. The world simply saw Obama as a supplicant, which is bad enough. But worse he seems to be willing to play the Carteresque game of giving away things for free (particularly to our adversaries) in the hopes of reaping some benefit down the road. Good luck.
I think we’re already seeing quite clearly that all the nonsense about the sensitivities of Europe vis Bush was indeed nonsense. Nations have no permanent allies, just permanent interests. What was only lost on Obama and the Dems is that Europe isn’t playing ball with us, not because they don’t like us, but because they don’t feel _it’s in their interest to do so._
Leadership isn’t about making friends and hoping for favors to be returned (interests dont change because of owing favors!) Leadership is convincing or cajoling others into recognizing that their interests are the same as yours in the right plane. Great leaders know how to manipulate circumstances to _make_ that so. So far Obama has shown me no signs that he can actually lead, by that definition. Reagan wasn’t loved by Europe, but they ultimately went along with him to the good of the world. Obama may end up well liked but not respected. And i don’t know that that isn’t the endgame a lot of our own leftists unhappy with American exceptionalism are hoping for.
I guess we’ll keep that in mind when it becomes the protocol in Washington.
Saudi Arabia is the rotten stump of what used to be a civilization, and is now a literal medieval horror; albeit, a medieval horror with expensive shoes and all the latest cell phone technology.
The Romans would have taken that king to Rome and paraded him through the streets in chains. Pretty harsh, but that was their protocol, so it must have been the right thing to do.
“I don’t know who’s handling Obama’s protocol, but they need to be replaced, like today.”
That responce is a little tardy, has there been ANY protocal issue that has not been a total cluster so far this year?
Glen and mark,
“Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is the disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people’s social laws or etiquette.” (from Wikipedia)
In other words, who gives a crap what’s rude to you, or what your protocol is? When you’re in someone else’s home it’s what’s rude to *them* that matters. As previously noted, I have no idea of what plays over there, so I’m not in a position to judge either way.
I will posit, however, that those who fail to understand that critical point don’t get invited out much (and certainly not a 2nd time).
The bow is both a big deal and not a big deal.
It’s a big deal in that it was, quite clearly, a breach of long standing protocol and etiquette. I would not bow to that tin-plated sonofabitch. I would not bend knee to the Queen of England– special relationship or not– nor would I kiss the Pope’s ring.
Civis Americanus sum. I am a free man. I am no one’s subject. I am no one’s inferior. I just won’t do it. It galls the hell out of me to see my President do it. It is a big deal in that regard.
That being said, the fact that we do need to associate with, and (more than) occasionally ally with unsavory characters will come as no surprise to any student of history, and those who regard themselves as being in the game to win the game all eventually get over that aspect of it. Do recall, folks, we won World War II by allying with Stalin, then won the Cold War (in part) by warming up to Mao Zedong. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to acknowledge that even the United States has constraints that force unhappy alliances.
Even if we have to deal with that sort of country, let’s not kid ourselves. Of course we’re negotiating from a position of strength with respect to Saudi Arabia. Obama could have a change of heart on the plane home and have the entire Saudi civilization – indeed, the entirety of the physical territory, not that most of it is worth wasting a nuke on – reduced to smoking lumps of glass before Air Force One made it back to US territory.
Even if we discount the nuclear weapons, there’s no end to the ways in which we can ruin the Saudi regime. Their continued sovereignty rests entirely on the US’s desire to play by the rules of polite international diplomacy… and the house of Saud has abused our self-control more than a little.
I don’t blame Obama for not, y’know, mentioning such inconvenient facts of life; good diplomacy is not often advanced by observing that, gee, practically everything burns at fusion temperatures. But it’s important that he remember that himself. If the President doesn’t have a proper image of the power that the US wields – even if we do so largely by not waving it around – how is he going to apply that power to meet our objectives?
we won World War II by allying with Stalin, then won the Cold War (in part) by warming up to Mao Zedong
We won World War II by allying with Stalin, who was not financially or ideologically supporting Hitler.
If we used the same ‘strategy’ we’re using in the war against terrorism/man made disasters or whatever, we would have allied with Hitler to fight the Nazis.
You can win a war by allying with bad people, you can win a war by making unhappy alliances, but you can’t win a war by allying with the people you’re supposed to be fighting.
Yes, there’s no end to the ways in which we can make the Saudis suffer, but it is an unpleasant fact of life that if Saudi Arabia falls to radical Islam– and before you say it already has, I assure you, it could get far, far worse– then our oil supply is crippled.
Until we get off oil, we simply need at least one of Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia as an ally and a source of oil. No, Iraq does not cut it today, because it is not stable enough to rely on, and its oil production has been degraded over the decades. Iran could flip tomorrow and it would be in the same category. Ten years from now, Iraq may be stable and productive enough to allow a substitute. Maa-aa-aa-ybe even five years from now. But until that great day, then, no, we need Saudi Arabia like they need us.
Complaining about it may be viscerally satisfying, but it doesn’t change the energy politics one bit.
Oh, and Mary?
The Cold War started during the Spanish Civil War in the 30s, and until 1941, the Soviets and the Nazis were allies under Molotov-Ribbentrop. No sensible person was under any illusion that the alliance would last a heartbeat longer than it had to.
Much like the Saudi-American entente. Recall that al-Qaida has attacked them directly since 9-11, as well.
(And for that matter, much like the Pakistan-American entente. I note with some irony that Obama is doing there precisely what he ridiculed McCain for suggesting– he’s going the international approach and shoring up Pakistan.)
I don’t have to like any of this, but I’ll refrain from criticizing too loudly when I know all the alternatives suck more.
Marcus,
You don’t really think the Saudis could mount a serious defense of their oil fields if we decided we’d rather manage them ourselves, do you? I’m not seriously advocating such a thing, mind you, even though leaving the House of Saud with a rump state consisting of Mecca, Medina, Jiddah, and the mountains in between would be so richly deserved it’s kind of hard not to want it. But if we decided to make that move, what could they really do?
_But if we decided to make that move, what could they really do?_
“Blow it up.”:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer I don’t buy the rumors that the Saudis have small nukes at their main terminals, mainly because they could wreck their oil infrastructure with regular explosives quite easily. Also, infidels seizing oil from the sacred soil of Arabia would attract Islamists like nothing we’ve seen yet, there’d be too much to protect to keep the oil flowing.
Yes, there’s no end to the ways in which we can make the Saudis suffer, but it is an unpleasant fact of life that if Saudi Arabia falls to radical Islam–
Saudi Arabia IS radical Islam. The leadership in the KSA allows fewer religious freedoms than Iran. The Taliban are more tolerant than the Saudi leadership.
After 9/11, 95% of all educated Saudis supported bin Laden’s goals. According to people I know there, people who had misty-eyed, multi-culti delusions about the KSA, after 9/11, everyone was celebrating Saudi Arabia’s victory over America.
..and before you say it already has, I assure you, it could get far, far worse– then our oil supply is crippled.
I agree that we need to get off oil, but America gets less than 20% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. We get more oil from Venezuela and Canada than we do from Saudi Arabia.
If Obama or Bush bowed before Hugo Chavez, how would you feel? Our alliance with the KSA is even worse than that. For all of his sins, Chavez didn’t murder thousands of American civilians on 9/11, and he didn’t ignite a war against America in Iraq that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I don’t buy the rumors that the Saudis have small nukes at their main terminals, mainly because they could wreck their oil infrastructure with regular explosives quite easily. Also, infidels seizing oil from the sacred soil of Arabia would attract Islamists like nothing we’ve seen yet, there’d be too much to protect to keep the oil flowing.
The majority of Muslims hate the Saudis because they consider them to be “parasite usurpers” who have no right to rule the holy lands. The Sauds have also destroyed many religious relics.
I’ve also heard rumors that the Saudi royals keep their planes fueled, because their biggest fear is that America will wise up. Without us to defend them, they’re toast.
Mark Steyn had a reasonable plan for what to do when we wise up:
Reforming the House of Saud is all but impossible. Lavish economic engagement with the West has only entrenched it more firmly in its barbarism. ‘Stability’ means letting layabout princes use Western oil revenues to seduce their people into anti-Western nihilism. On the other hand, blithely burning it down offers quite a bit of hope, given that no likely replacement would provide the ideological succour to the Islamakazis that Saud-endorsed Wahhabism does. My own view – maps available on request – is that the Muslim holy sites and most of the interior should go to the Hashemites of Jordan, and what’s left should be divided between the less wacky Gulf emirs. That should be the policy goal, even if for the moment it’s pursued covertly rather than by daisy cutters.
Borders are not sacrosanct. The House of Saud is not royal; they are merely nomads who found a sugar daddy. There’s no good reason why every time a soccer mom fills her Chevy Suburban she should be helping fund some toxic madrassah. In this instance, destabilisation is our friend.
_”In other words, who gives a crap what’s rude to you, or what your protocol is? When you’re in someone else’s home it’s what’s rude to them that matters. “_
So the First Lady should be garbed from head to toe and walk 3 feet behind her man?
First of all- you seem to have hospitality ass backwards. Where I come from you make the guest feel comfortable, not vice-versa.
Secondly, somehow every president from Washington to GW managed to not bow and scrape to foreign kings. I don’t see why we need to start now.
When you’re in someone else’s home it’s what’s rude to them that matters.
I agree with earlier posters that this comparison is completely inapt. I’d like to add that Obama bowed to Abdullah in London.
Maybe it’s BooPear’s contention that the UK is a part of Dar al Islam these days, and thus part of Abdullah’s house anyway.
OMG, I can’t believe I’m even having a discussion about this.
Look. #21, I think if you did a little search for previous comments I’ve made on this site you would have no doubt where I come down on on all this. I haven’t been around here for awhile, though, so I’ll give you a hint: it ain’t in favor of the Saudis or Islamists.
So, erecting strawmen such as “Maybe it’s BooPear’s contention that the UK is a part of Dar al Islam these days, and thus part of Abdullah’s house anyway” (bgates) or “So the First Lady should be garbed from head to toe and walk 3 feet behind her man?” (Mark) and then knocking them down is rather pointless because you’re countering arguments I did not make and attributing opinions to me that I do not hold. Maybe that’s fun for you, but it’s kind of an absurd way to have a discussion, and the use of such tactics are certainly no reflection on me.
You and mark may feel free to disagree with me all you like about how *you* behave in *your* homes based on your own cultural values and norms. How is that in *any* *way* relevant to my point? We’re not talking about what *you* think is the proper way to behave, are we?
Again, from Wikipedia: “The specific actions that are considered polite or rude vary dramatically by place, time, and context. Differences in social role, gender, social class, religion, and cultural identity may all affect the appropriateness of a given behavior. Consequently, a behavior that is considered perfectly acceptable by one group of people may be considered clearly rude by another.”
How is it you fail to understand that? Have you ever visted a foreign country or met someone from a different culture?
One last example to rather prove my point: mark, you are a regular, long-time and frequent contributor to the comments on this site. Thanks so much for your hospitality when I came back to visit.
Somehow, there is irony here.
Regardless, BooPear I understand your point about being gracious and accepting of foreign cultures when visiting them. Of course! But what you aren’t mentioning is that there are limits. Not all cultures are equal. Misogyny, subservience, racism, homophobia… these are things I do not accept and will not be a part of, regardless of the context. Obviously if I was in someone’s home that insisted I behave in such a manner, I would leave hastily. A diplomat doesn’t have that luxury, when invited on official business to represent their nation they must hold the standards and expectations of their _employers_ in some regard.
When we have a female president, I would be horrified and angered if on a trip to the Middle East she was treated as the local females are. Even if Hillary were required to climb into a burqua, it would be disgusting and I would never support it.
I don’t buy into cultural relativism when it comes to prejudice and such. People that treat others like chattel are not equal to those of us who don’t. Their traditions don’t excuse their behavior, and certainly shouldn’t compel our leaders and spokespeople to show tolerance for that kind of behavior.
Moreover you haven’t addressed the rather critical point that Obama was not Abdullah’s guest. They met on neutral ground.
Mark,
You are right, both about the inherent irony and about my NOT mentioning that there are limits to protocol-related behavior. The former is obvious, the latter is because I actually don’t know what those limits are nor what they should be – I’m not a diplomat and (fortunately) I’m not in charge of trying to manage Obama’s (perceived) need to repair American relations with the rest of the world. If I were… who knows? Probably best we never find out.
As it happens, you and I are 100% in alignment with regards to “cultural relativism and such”. All cultures are NOT created equal. I happen to believe that “Western” culture is superior to all others for a host of reasons. I wish everyone else across the planet agreed. Maybe someday. That said, it should never be forgotten that America stands on top of the hill, everyone else knows it, and this fact does not always have to be shoved right there in everyone else’s face, you know? A little soft-peddling sometimes goes a long way, and it’s absolutely no skin off Obama’s (or America’s) nose to do it. So why fuss about it?
With regards to your final paragraph, I never addressed the point that Obama was not Abdullah’s guest because, well, I wasn’t fully paying attention and this escaped my notice, to be frank. My bad. Given it *was* neutral ground, the bow was fantastically inappropriate and I retract my previously stated waffling. Had it been done in Riyadh, well, maybe… but on neutral ground, clearly it takes “unproductive obsequiousness” to whole new levels.
Marc,
While I tho’t the presser Q&A was the main thrust of your post, seems everbody else thinks it was the bow.
IMO, protocol/etiquette or whatever, the majority of Amercicans don’t like the sight our President bowing to a foreign Monarch. Period!
That said, while you were a little “fuddled” by the presser answer, I was totally befuddled by the answer. Remove the question and nobody would know WTF he was talking about. Hope you have time to further comment on your ambivalence?
Marc,
Unrelated, but it’s been quite some time since I commented here so I’m curious as to when you & Joe went to ZULU time?
Inquiring minds and all that BS.