The election of Barack Obama was greeted by many in this country as a paradigm-busting event. Even those of us who could not vote for him because of policy differences have cause to be pleased. Whatever you think of his politics, Obama is a leader with class, a guy whose words are balm to the ear and who knows how to dribble his way right down the diplomatic center court, despite the offensive guards rushing at him from the opposing side.
In the recent spat over what seems to have been serious electoral fraud in Iran, Obama struck an initial tone which managed to keep us on the side of the angels, at least in the eyes of most of our traditional critics. When the ruling Ayatollah and "Supreme Leader" Ali Khameini, and his "re-elected" flunky Mahmoud Ahmadenjad, accused the U.S. of meddling in their affairs, few on the world stage seemed prepared to grant them much credence because the American president's words had been so measured and judicious. Not for him the line drawn visibly in the sand and the challenge that presents to those on the far side of it. As a result, the poor Ayatollah was reduced to picking on a lesser "Satan", this time, our friends the now hapless Brits, when he could get no traction blaming us -- outside of the rallying "Death to America" chants of the Faithful, that is.
Obama's smooth talking style effectively defanged the Iranian tiger that used to scratch so regularly and with such effect at our national door. There's something to be said for a president like this, a guy with enough aplomb and panache to teflon-coat this country after all those long years of finding ourselves in the sights of third world crackpots and their enablers in Western Europe. Because he's perceived as being on the proper side of the pressing questions of the day (in sync, that is, with the left), because he has a "third world" mystique (a man of color with a Muslim middle name) and, finally, because of the mesmerizing power of his artfully cadenced baritone, rabble-rousing elements around the world and America-detesters everywhere are now having a tougher time than usual scoring points on us.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, having initially blamed the U.S. for the recent coup against Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, when that leader tried to ram through a constitutional convention to re-write his nation's term limits clause so he can "run" for office indefinitely, is now left looking rather foolish since the American president has come out against the coup himself. When Chavez' fellow countrymen tried a coup like this against him a few years back, the Bush administration did much the same thing, of course, because they were afraid of being tarred as meddlers -- or worse. But they stuck by their word and saw Chavez reinstalled in the presidential palace in Caracas. Big mistake!
Chavez' return to power opened the gates for him to use the democratic institutions of his country to do away with any real semblance of democracy. He went on to stack his nation's courts with judges safely in his own pocket, he replaced the military leadership with cronies, expropriated private property, shuttered the opposition press and hounded and arrested his political opponents. Of course he also re-did his nation's constitution to allow him to run for president indefinitely just as Zelaya has now tried, and so far failed, to do in Honduras. Had Zelaya succeeded in his putsch to call a constitutional convention, there's no reason to think he wouldn't have gone the rest of the way in his mentor Chavez' already well-trod footsteps.
But the Honduran Supreme Court ruled his proposed convention illegal because that country's constitution gives the legislature alone the power to call it. When Zelaya instructed his nation's military to implement the vote for the convention on his say-so alone, the Honduran justices overruled him on constitutional grounds. Pulling a rabbit from his Chavez-style hat, Zelaya promptly fired the army chief of staff, thereby setting his nation on course to a constitutional crisis. With the Honduran president lined up against that nation's congress, judiciary and military, a coup -- or something worse -- was all but inevitable.
The Obama administration, facing yet another test (where's Joe Biden when you need him?), must now carefully navigate these shoals because we sure don't want another mini-Chavez south of the border. But neither can we be seen as interfering. On the other hand we dare not do what the Bush administration did in its rush to placate its critics by facilitating Chavez' return to power. Bush wanted consistency and he was supporting democracy around the world wasn't he? How could he call for democracy in Iraq but allow it to be flaunted so much closer to home?
Obama, though, appears to be cut from a different cloth. Always on his game, America's First Center on the international court of hoops seems to know when to take his best shot and when to play defense. Condemned for being slow out of the box on the Iranian electoral travesty, he still managed to keep the ayatollahs off-balance and looking weaker than they've ever looked before. No one now believes they have done anything but oppress their own people and few on the world stage are prepared to argue otherwise (even if rogue players like Russia's Putin and his puppet Medvedev are still pulling for them).
Whether this administration will now repeat the last administration's boneheaded play, when they pushed to restore a dethroned Chavez in the interests of "democracy," remains to be seen. But if the evidence of Obama's recent feints on the court holds, I'm guessing he'll mostly offer a bunch of fine words about the importance of the democratic process and the need to restore ousted presidents, but that little will be done as Honduras moves to its next legitimate presidential election, now only a few months away. There's something to be said for a bit of realpolitik and strategic thinking instead of hanging one's prospects on the one-note principle of 'all democracy/all the time'.
Bush had the ideas right, but not the execution. Obama's drive down center court, finessing his way around opposing offensive guards, may gain us a few points yet on the international playing field. At the least, we have the right to hope he'll nail it when he jumps to make that all important down court hookshot. Now if he'd only get some better plays on the domestic side of the court, too. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 850
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (24)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , July 01, 2009
actually, Stu, the title of this piece should have been "BRICK!" Obama hasn't even drawn iron as of yet in the international arena.
I couldn't disagree with your analysis more than I do right now.
"When the ruling Ayatollah and "Supreme Leader" Ali Khameini, and his "re-elected" flunky Mahmoud Ahmadenjad, accused the U.S. of meddling in their affairs, few on the world stage seemed prepared to grant them much credence because the American president's words had been so measured and judicious."
So you think that the goal of American diplomatic efforts are to be liked by Iran? Or more accurately to avoid being the source of demagogic blame by a corrupt administration in Tehran?
you said,...
"Obama's smooth talking style effectively defanged the Iranian tiger that used to scratch so regularly and with such effect at our national door."
...So the avoidance of orchestrated protests by dictators is now considered a diplomatic success?
I was always of the impression that when leaders of countries disregarded the rule of law, we'd call it as we saw it - not use watered and/or beautifully delivered dumbed-down language that does nothing to point out America doesn't stand for the oppression of people who want to be free.
If you were an Iranian citizen yearning for freedom and for their leaders to follow the rule of law in Iran, how would you feel? If you were the opposition leader, how would you feel if Obama chose not to use the power of the Presidency of the strongest and most free country in the world to condemn the actions of this military coup?
funny, but when you said this about the Republican Bush referring to Chavez' re-installment as President...
"But they stuck by their word and saw Chavez reinstalled in the presidential palace in Caracas. Big mistake!"
I don't understand the connection to the present situation as if we wanted to avoid another so-called "Big Mistake!," we'd have come out against the coup in Iran. Instead, we've deferred making a decision and abdicated our leadership role in the world.
"Bush had the ideas right, but not the execution. Obama's drive down center court, finessing his way around opposing offensive guards, may gain us a few points yet on the international playing field."
To give credit to Obama in the international world for any successes is ridiculous. Do you think he's doing well with North Korea? How about Russia? Maybe Africa? Now Central America?
And what about Israel, which it's clear Obama beautiful rhetoric is ignoring significantly. Israel needs military allies, not flowery spokesman. Because of Obama's actions, or lackthereof, Israel is headed back to it's internal hawkishness again - something Bush, even with constant terrorists attacks in the middle-eastern country, was able to maintain for a good period of time - which came close to producing a relatively peaceful situation that could have led to peace.
Maybe if Obama was in there while Hamas was lobbing missiles deep into Israel for no reason, he would have offered some more prose to heal the wounded....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 01, 2009
Jay wrote: "So you think that the goal of American diplomatic efforts are to be liked by Iran? Or more accurately to avoid being the source of demagogic blame by a corrupt administration in Tehran?"
Nope, but I think that Obama's approach is worth trying since Bush's didn't work.
By the way, I think Bush's could have worked if he'd been able to line up and maintain global support but he gave up on that in the face of international obstreperousness. It is at least arguable that his approach never had a chance to work because America is just not strong enough to go it alone. If so, then an approach which plays the angles and undercuts the opposition is wiser and more likely to succeed. So far Obama's scored some early points but whether his approach will carry the day either remains to be seen.
What would "carry the day" consist of? Best would be winning the hearts and minds of those who oppose us so that they no longer oppose us. Second best would be encouraging enough of an opposition to change the regime over there. Third best would be to weaken that regime. Ideally we end their drive for nukes but I would settle for a change in attitude for the better on their part since it seems unlikely we can use force to end the nuclear impetus in Iran.
Jay: "I was always of the impression that when leaders of countries disregarded the rule of law, we'd call it as we saw it - not use watered and/or beautifully delivered dumbed-down language that does nothing to point out America doesn't stand for the oppression of people who want to be free."
It would be nice just to call 'em as we see 'em but that didn't work. Reagan had some success applying that approach to a tired, sclerotic regime in the U.S.S.R. but that regime was tottering from within already and Reagan was manifestly leading the U.S. in a resurgence which only highlighted Soviet weakness. Iran is a more insular society, less dependent on its relations with the rest of the world as it drives toward regional hegemony via a revival of the Shia apocalyptic spirit. We need to reach the Iranian people and you can do that better with openness and nuance than by shaking swords at them (especially when you're not in a position to actually use those swords).
Jay: "If you were an Iranian citizen yearning for freedom and for their leaders to follow the rule of law in Iran, how would you feel? If you were the opposition leader, how would you feel if Obama chose not to use the power of the Presidency of the strongest and most free country in the world to condemn the actions of this military coup?"
I'd probably want the U.S. to stay as far away officially as possible lest it taint my movement in the eyes of fellow Iranians who have years of anti-American propaganda plus some genuine negative history to leave a bad taste in their mouths.
Referring to the situation in Honduras, Jay wrote: ". . . if we wanted to avoid another so-called "Big Mistake!," we'd have come out against the coup in Iran. Instead, we've deferred making a decision and abdicated our leadership role in the world."
The point I was making is that Obama has the tendency to speak in feel-good terms but to act with a realpolitik edge. If he makes nice about not supporting military coups but prevents or at least fails to support an effort to reverse this one, then the upcoming legitimate elections in November will work everything out. If, on the other hand, he genuinely lines up with Chavez then he will have done the same foolish thing the Bush administration did when they enabled Chavez' return to power after the coup against him. I'm suggesting that talk is part of Obama's game and he's good at it. We'll soon see where his real sympathies lie though, I suppose.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 01, 2009
Jay wrote:
"To give credit to Obama in the international world for any successes is ridiculous. Do you think he's doing well with North Korea? How about Russia? Maybe Africa? Now Central America?
"And what about Israel, which it's clear Obama beautiful rhetoric is ignoring significantly. Israel needs military allies, not flowery spokesman. Because of Obama's actions, or lackthereof, Israel is headed back to it's internal hawkishness again - something Bush, even with constant terrorists attacks in the middle-eastern country, was able to maintain for a good period of time - which came close to producing a relatively peaceful situation that could have led to peace.
"Maybe if Obama was in there while Hamas was lobbing missiles deep into Israel for no reason, he would have offered some more prose to heal the wounded.... "
There is just so much we can do militarily. A lot of American clout comes through moral claims and our military choice re: Iraq after 9/11 undermined that, rightly or wrongly. I think Obama is aiming to right that particular ship, going forward, by reclaiming the "high ground." That means being morally unassailable (in the minds of others in the world community). That doesn't mean, however, that he is throwing over American interest. (At least I hope it doesn't in his case. But he just looks too smart to be such a fool.)
Israel has to stand on its own -- always did! America can't be its sugar daddy and, if you're taking something from someone else (as Israel is doing) then you've got to listen to their views and trim your sails accordingly. I believe Obama is right to demand the Israelis ratchet back the settlement process.
Unfortunately he is probably wrong in thinking it will make a difference but, certainly, Israeli recalcitrance in such matters muddies the waters. If the Palestinians are going to continue on a violent and bellicose path, it is better for Israel to be clearly cut from a different cloth. At present, since Begin and Likud took power there back in the seventies, Israel's moral credibillity has been drastically eroded.
Israel cannot expect America to stand behind her 100% forever, expecially if she is not abiding by her patron's wishes or making things worse by throwing up roadblocks to any kind of agreement (which is what Israel does every time it refuses to halt the settlement process -- whatever the nuances of that refusal).
My guess is that Obama would have talked the right talk to please and placate the international community if he had been present during the recent Gaza or Lebanese conflicts but would not have interfered all that much or handled the on the ground American response much differently from the Bush people.
That said, Israel had its best friend ever in the White House in President George W. Bush and American Jews who care about Israel are damned fools to have forgotten that in the rush to elect a Democrat. But people vote for lots of reasons and I guess loyalty to a liberal agenda trumped anything else for most American Jews. I doubt Obama will ever back Israel to the extent Bush did. On the other hand, maybe his shrewder rhetoric will prove better for Israel in the long run.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , July 02, 2009
"By the way, I think Bush's could have worked if he'd been able to line up and maintain global support but he gave up on that in the face of international obstreperousness."
That's the most interesting point about this discussion - neither way works.
Talk of diplomacy and openness, like Barack has done, empowers these rogue leaders and gives them the confidence to defy international law more, even though we have the world and western Europe strongly on our side.
The ending of diplomacy and the threat of conflict, like Bush tried, forces the rest of the world away from supporting us and, therefore, makes untenable, unilateral action the only course, which we end up passing on.
This is why your praise for a "new direction" with Obama is very overstated...this too will "go nowhere" and it's morally wrong as well. I'd prefer we stay strong to our convictions about freedom and abiding by the international rule of law and not deal with those who violate those principles because it doesn't matter which direction we go - nothing positive will come out of it when dealing with the likes of those leading in Iran and North Korea...
"Iran is a more insular society, less dependent on its relations with the rest of the world as it drives toward regional hegemony via a revival of the Shia apocalyptic spirit."
I don't believe that's correct. From what i've heard, Iran's economy is in terrible shape - unemployment is very high. Iran also depends completely on oil sales to support itself and the last time I checked with my friends at Greenpeace, we're the ones using it all...
"I'd probably want the U.S. to stay as far away officially as possible lest it taint my movement in the eyes of fellow Iranians who have years of anti-American propaganda plus some genuine negative history to leave a bad taste in their mouths."
I would tend to agree with that point, but that makes Obama's so-called "outreach" to make diplomacy work pointless. If Ahmadinejad finally decided to enter into diplomacy with the U.S. or the West at large, he'd be overthrown as leader.
Like i said, there is no good or right way to deal with this issue. Best to stay on the sidelines and protect our homeland...
"...but to act with a realpolitik edge."
Please give me ANY example of that "edge," Stu...
"I'm suggesting that talk is part of Obama's game and he's good at it."
I think you meant to say "talk is Obama's ONLY game." I see nothing else...
"...our military choice re: Iraq after 9/11 undermined that..."
I don't agree with that statement, especially considering that we will be leaving Iraq in MUCH BETTER shape than we left it - both politically and economically. Plus, the fact that we will have invaded and LEFT will reinforce our moral position in the world as a country that helps people be free, not a country that is looking to create an "empire" as many on the Left and in the Muslim world accused us of...
"But he just looks too smart to be such a fool."
Jimmy Carter was one of the "smartest" Presidents we ever had...
"That said, Israel had its best friend ever in the White House in President George W. Bush and American Jews who care about Israel are damned fools to have forgotten that in the rush to elect a Democrat."
Very true. And American Jews, especially in NY, never seem to make note of that fact...
The concept that "rhetoric" will work in any way is wrong at the outset, Stu. It reminds me of a Woody Allen movie quote...
Woody Allen: "Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Ya know? I read it in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, ya know, get some bricks and baseball bats, and really explain things to 'em."
Victor Truro: "There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times – devastating."
Allen: "Whoa, whoa. A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it."
Helen Hanft: "Oh, but really biting satire is always better than physical force."
Allen: "No, physical force is always better with Nazis."
...and that's how I feel about guys like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il - Baseball bats and bricks are the only way to get your point across. Words are just words - and they do nothing to thugs like them, especially when the people they rule over never hear them...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 03, 2009
Referring to sweet talking diplomacy (so-called soft power) and tough talk (up to and including the use of force if needed) when comparing the Bush approach to that of Obama, Jay wrote: ". . . neither way works"
Well, in fact we don't know that. Certainly either way works sometimes but neither way works all the time. Moreover, the Bush administration, under pressure from its political and international opponents, vacillated a lot, especially during the second term. Obama's way may, in fact, not work this time. But its worth a try in light of the inability of Bush to resolve many of the issues now on the current administration's plate. We dare not wed ourselves to one way only for every problem, a one size fits all approach!
Jay went on: ". . . This is why your praise for a "new direction" with Obama is very overstated"
I don't know how "overstated" but I personally think the Dems and the media gave Bush an exceedingly hard time. I believe it's incumbent on us to be fairer than they were and give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he deserves it and I believe he does, thus far, in the present case. I remain largely opposed to his domestic agenda (not that it matters much since the Dems seem to have a veto-proof majority and Americans are still leery of Republicans). But he has made some decent moves and some which, while not necessarily the way I would have gone, still look like they may work. Why should we be like the sour Dems who for eight years (and still counting) nursed a bitter partisan grudge against the Bush administration for twice defeating them at the polls?
Jay wrote: "If Ahmadinejad finally decided to enter into diplomacy with the U.S. or the West at large, he'd be overthrown as leader."
I doubt that but maybe, if we're lucky, he'll be tossed out anyway. The Iranian people need a real alternative but we can't create it for them. We can't hand it to them because 1) then they'd have little to no investment in it, 2) have their national pride undermined and 3) be vulnerable to charges that theirs isn't a homegrown movement!
In response to my comment about Obama's acting with a "realpolitik edge", Jay wrote: "Please give me ANY example of that 'edge,' Stu... "
Not sure what you mean Jay! I meant that what he says seems to be part of a larger game of realpolitik (the "edge" refers to the cutting edge on his geopolitical tools, i.e., the approach that places realpolitik concerns and actions over professions of principle.
I wrote: "...our military choice re: Iraq after 9/11 undermined that..."
o which Jay responded: "I don't agree with that statement, especially considering that we will be leaving Iraq in MUCH BETTER shape than we left it - both politically and economically. Plus, the fact that we will have invaded and LEFT will reinforce our moral position in the world as a country that helps people be free, not a country that is looking to create an 'empire' as many on the Left and in the Muslim world accused us of..."
My point, Jay, was that we were unable to do what we set out to do smoothly and easily in Iraq which ultimately led to the unravelling of Bush's presidency and the ascension of Democratic majorities throughout the national government. Assuming that we now leave behind a stable, democratic country able to defend itself and allied with us, this will be to the good (except in the minds of those critics for whom any positive outcome for America is to be deplored).
Jay wrote: "Jimmy Carter was one of the 'smartest' Presidents we ever had..."
Now THAT looks like an old wives tale if ever there was one!
Jay wrote: "The concept that 'rhetoric' will work in any way is wrong at the outset, Stu. It reminds me of a Woody Allen movie quote..."
Rhetoric is sometimes useful and sometimes it's not. Certainly it's worth having it in ones chest of tools to draw on as needed. Bush was VERY weak in the rhetoric department. Obama is correspondingly strong (one of the strongest in recent history compared to Bush who was one of the weakest presidential rhetoriticians in our recent history).
As to the bit about the Woody Allen movie, well I didn't get it so I guess I'll just leave it alone!
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 03, 2009
"Why should we be like the sour Dems who for eight years (and still counting) nursed a bitter partisan grudge against the Bush administration for twice defeating them at the polls?"
We shouldn't be sour. I agree with that. But I don't think the avoidance of "sour" implies that I have to agree that 2+2=5...
"My point, Jay, was that we were unable to do what we set out to do smoothly and easily in Iraq which ultimately led to the unravelling of Bush's presidency and the ascension of Democratic majorities throughout the national government."
I don't know what "easily" means in relation to this part of the conversation, Stu, but the Dem's said we would NEVER get out of Iraq, they said we'd leave it like we left Vietnam, they said we went in for "the oil," they said that we'd be attacked repeatedly because the muslim world would revolt against our actions in Iraq....NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.
I think it is clear that our pro-active view, or "pre-emption" if you will, worked in Iraq. It also drained terrorist resources around the world that would have been used against us here at home.
This all occurred while Democrats and liberals incorrectly stated what was going to happen and disingenuously accused the administration of things that were never true. I think our policy in Iraq DID work - if the Dem's feel different now they certainly aren't talking about it...
Woody Allen's point is that "satire" dished out by the pacifist Left, like Obama and the NY Times, doesn't work against terrorists or Nazi's - baseball bats do. If you didn't fully get the correlation, maybe that's why you think Obama's tough rhetoric is a great political and diplomatic tool....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 06, 2009
Jay said: "We shouldn't be sour. I agree with that. But I don't think the avoidance of "sour" implies that I have to agree that 2+2=5..."
The problem, Jay, is that this isn't mathematics and the levels of certainty available in that game simply are not available in matters of political discourse, economics, social matters, etc. There are lots of opinions, lots of nuances and lots of uncertainties. We don't know what will work most of the time before we try it and so are guessing, speculating, trying. In math, if that's how you do your figuring, you've got big problems. In ordinary life and politics, that's just how it is.
Jay added: "the Dem's said we would NEVER get out of Iraq, they said we'd leave it like we left Vietnam, they said we went in for 'the oil,' they said that we'd be attacked repeatedly because the muslim world would revolt against our actions in Iraq....NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. . . . I think it is clear that our pro-active view, or 'pre-emption' if you will, worked in Iraq. It also drained terrorist resources around the world that would have been used against us here at home. . . . This all occurred while Democrats and liberals incorrectly stated what was going to happen and disingenuously accused the administration of things that were never true. I think our policy in Iraq DID work - if the Dem's feel different now they certainly aren't talking about it..."
I admire your conviction, Jay. And, indeed, I think an argument can be made that the Iraq invasion to replace Saddam with a democratic regime was successful in that very specific objective. But you have to consider the bigger picture, too. It cost Bush his presidency (in the end he wasn't able to do anything else because of his constant fight to defend his Iraq decision from his critics), he lost credibility and became so weakened from the accumulating electoral losses that he was incapable of effectively managing at the end.
His administration was leaking like a sieve. He was afraid to use the bully pulpit for fear of getting slammed. When he did try he was ineffective. Perhaps, too, they took their eye off the economic ball for all the effort to defend the Iraqi call. Certainly, Bush failed to lead his party and the Republican Congress, thereby losing the majority in Congress and contributing to the overall weakening of the GOP nationally. It also weakened us in the eyes of other nations while adding to the destabilization of the region.
And this says nothing about the lives and treasure expended. I was one of those who strongly supported Bush's decision to act but I think, in retrospect, it would have been wiser to take a more judicious approach despite the provocations of Saddam and the terrorism that was leaking out of the Middle East. Had the effort been quick and surgical like Reagan's Grenada excursion or Bush senior's Panama action, and the results were Saddam's removal and a new democratic regime in the region, then I would agree this worked.
But Iraq was always bigger and more of a challenge than those other countries. I should have seen that at the time but I allowed my sense of loyalty to the administration to convince me this could be done and that it needed to be done. The collapse of the case for wmd undermined the claim that it needed to be done. The evidence in 2009 indicates that it couldn't be done easily and within the levels of tolerance Americans were prepared to live with.
If I were Bush I'd be kicking myself for making such a destructive decision. On the other hand, done is done and I don't have the sense he's the kind of guy who kicks himself for what can't be changed. Moreover, as you rightly point out Jay, the ultimate result is not truly awful for us, at least not as of now!
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , July 06, 2009
This is a complete fantasy, Stu. You're infatuated with President Obama.
Obama's foreign policy is easy to understand: he want to shrink our military dramatically to provide money for his ambitious domestic programs. Those programs are government takeovers of three industries so far, with more to come.
Obama's policies are completely coherent, and consistent with his long-range goals. Because I believe in a robust U.S. military, and smaller government rather than larger, more expensive government, I disagree with them. Long-term U.S. allies are bound to be disappointed. Long-term U.S. enemies are bound to be delighted, because the U.S. no longer will oppose them, preferring instead to appease them.
Are Obama and his allies correct? I'm skeptical, but we'll know that by next year, ore when the first North Korean nuclear-armed missiles hit Hawaii, whichever comes first.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 06, 2009
Infatuated with Obama? Hardly, but I always believe in giving even the devil his due. I deeply disagree with Obama's domestic policies but I think he's one smart cookie and quite impressive to watch. More, I think that so far he has demonstrated great smoothness in navigating international waters. If he capitulates to the Chavez-Castro axis and moves to reinstate Zelaya, I will change my opinion of his efforts thus far in the Honduras matter. But that remains to be seen.
And I agree with you about his hostility to national defense policies we favor though I don't think he's quite the namby-pamby some of his fellow Dems are.
I doubt North Korea is a serious threat to Hawaii but they are a real problem because what they are doing can lead to serious threats to us in the future including greater global instability, proliferation, etc. But Bush had no success with North Korea. Why not try the Obama approach?
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 07, 2009
"I deeply disagree with Obama's domestic policies but I think he's one smart cookie and quite impressive to watch."
Yeah, QJ. That qualifies as "infatuation."
"But Bush had no success with North Korea. Why not try the Obama approach?"
I have a problem with that question, Stu. Are you saying that you don't believe this method will work, but because we tried "bush's" way already, we should just try Obama's now? I would think you would have a more logical reason for supporting a complete reversal of our nation's diplomatic strategy rather than "we we tried his way, now let's give this guy a chance."
"Obama's way," if that means openly negotiating with terrorists, thugs, oppresive dictators, violators of International Law and, most importantly, threats to the people of the United States, is the WRONG WAY.
Bush was not a great leader, but his overall view of the world defended American interests in the long run. If things continue down the same path, I don't think Obama, Pelosi and Reed will be remembered in the same light...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 07, 2009
Jay wrote: "Are you saying that you don't believe this method [Obama's] will work, but because we tried 'Bush's' way already, we should just try Obama's now? I would think you would have a more logical reason for supporting a complete reversal of our nation's diplomatic strategy rather than 'we we tried his way, now let's give this guy a chance'."
I don't think this is a matter of "complete reversal". Bush himself backpedalled in his second term in the face of substantial international and domestic criticism and the failure to bring Iraq under control as speedily and cleanly as hoped. John Bolton eventually was cut loose and became disaffected publicly. Nor has Obama completely eliminated national defense or an assertion of America's interests.
There is much nuance here which it pays to attend to though that is hard to do, I know, when we are in our highest partisan dudgeon. I think we owe it to ourselves and the country to stand apart at times and try to take a broader view, even if our Democratic opponents largely failed to do that during the Bush years. Should we behave as they did and treat everything as partisan meat? Should we disregard the nation's interests for partisan advantage?
Though I find myself often disagreeing with the Obama administration's choices, he WAS elected president and is our nation's leader, nor has he demonstrated that he is not up to that. In fact, he has repeatedly shown his skill and capacity to manage complex and difficult issues. No, I still don't like his bias toward ever larger and more intrusive government and big spending. But let's be realistic here. THAT's what the voters of this country wanted when they chose him.
Of course they didn't have much of a choice since McCain was such a godawful candidate and the Republicans had virtually self-destructed during their years in power. Yes, they had a hostile media arrayed against them and amplifying the Dems' partisan message. But for god's sake man, they didn't have to hand them issue after issue (giving up fiscal responsibility, moral probity and, finally, skillful management of the economy by abdicating responsibility for this in recent years).
Anway, Obama's president, the Democrats have all the control and we gave it to them by losing our way. At the least we have an obligation to step back and recognize Obama's strengths along with his weaknesses!
Anyway, no, I think Obama's method might work. In the early eighties I was still a Democrat and didn't think Reagan's approach would work. But I was wrong and it did. I think we have as much obligation to the truth to give Obama and his team the same chance to prove what they can do.
Besides, as our duly elected president, that's now his prerogative and our responsibility is to wait and see, criticizing when warranted but also granting successes if and when they occur. I do not believe in doing what the Democratic partisans did to Bush and other Republicans when our side was in power. We are, and must be, better than that!
Jay wrote: "Bush was not a great leader, but his overall view of the world defended American interests in the long run. If things continue down the same path, I don't think Obama, Pelosi and Reed will be remembered in the same light..."
Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? So far there's no evidence Bush will be remembered as we think of him, someone whose basic policies and instincts were right, even if his execution was sometimes flawed? At the moment contemporary opinion still, on balance, is anti-Bush and anti-Republicans even if we live in hope that time will vindicate us.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 07, 2009
"Should we behave as they did and treat everything as partisan meat?"
No, Stu, but "we" shouldn't force ourselves to agree with policies that are wrong just to demonstrate some level of respect for the other side. This isn't about "partisan meat." It's about advocating for right and wrong.
I will take that a step further as you well know that I personally don't think everything "Republican" is right and everything "Democratic" is wrong. For you to frame my criticism of Obama's policies in that view is quite inaccurate, as I think I work hard at not being partisan and trying to call them as I see them.
Obama's policy to negotiate with those who have repeatedly demonstrated they don't respond to such tactics is a mistake, irregardless of what Bush did or did not do...
"In fact, he has repeatedly shown his skill and capacity to manage complex and difficult issues."
You and the main stream media keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Again, I ask you to provide any specific instance of where this President has been effective in the manner in which you say he has...
"...our responsibility is to wait and see,"
No, Stu. He has a responsibility to us and I, like all citizens of the U.S., can be as critical as we want. it's OUR country, not his...
"At the moment contemporary opinion still, on balance, is anti-Bush and anti-Republicans even if we live in hope that time will vindicate us."
Where did you find this "contemporary opinion?" If it's in the editorial pages of the NY Times, you need to start buying a different paper...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , July 07, 2009
Stu, this is from Herb's recent piece on the topic of Iran...
"Since the use of force has been rejected as an option and since our European allies will probably not countenance the use of sanctions on refined petroleum, the U.S. delegation has only one option at its disposal: talk. Some would argue that “jaw jaw is better than war war.” But suppose jaw jaw without teeth leads to war war based on miscalculation. Suppose our enemy doesn’t believe we have the will to act decisively and, as a consequence, over-reaches. Surely this is a scenario that cannot be ruled out."
...I believe that the above is an accurate description of our policy with Iran and very accurately describes the risk to this policy of appeasement. I will add that Israel, in an environment where the U.S. steps back from it's recent role in the Middle-East, would be more prone to attacking first as well - leading to a more destructive and wider confict in the region.
Our interests are not served by this "negotiation at all costs" policy of the Obama Adminstration, no matter how eloquent Barack is...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 08, 2009
Jay, "war war" is a very bad option and almost always to be avoided. Talk isn't always successful but it is usually worth trying, especially after we've seen how messy and uncertain war can be when we undertake it. My regard for Obama's eloquence and even handed rhetoric, of course, is not a blank check for that approach, only an expression of a willingness to try something different, especially after a more radical approach proved so problematic when we tried it.
Sometimes, of course, we have no choice but to fight. But Iran is likely to be far worse a theater for regime change or even pre-emptive strikes against a growing nuclear capability than Iraq was. Moreover we are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Is it wise to act militarily in yet another theater?
Moreover, American military might is an irritant to the rest of the world. They look at the force we can deploy and are either jealous (Britain, France) or fearful that we could some day use it against them to get our way. While it's true we're still the most powerful state on the planet, we are not all-powerful. Irritating the other states and peoples by acting unilaterally and aggressively will quickly turn the world against us and leave us at a very deep disadvantage, especially now that our economy is no longer the indispensable global engine.
Do we really want to stir the world up against us or embark on a massive military campaign that could blow sky high in unintended consequences or further drain our resources in a scenario for which there may be no easy exit?
There's a time for "war war" and a time for "jaw jaw". I think Obama's rhetorical gifts and shrewdness are worth a tumble here. Why prejudge a failure before one has happened? And maybe, just maybe, Obama will surprise us.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 09, 2009
"Moreover we are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Is it wise to act militarily in yet another theater?"
Maybe not, Stu, but sometimes you don't have the luxury of choice.
Was it "wise" to fight in both the Atlantic and Pacific regions during WWII? I'm sure if we had our choice, we'd have fought in one at a time - but national security concerns don't appear in such a convenient fashion.
If Iran continues to produce the technology to develop nuclear weapons, we'd be insane to only use diplomatic force - even if that means our forces are stretched too thin.
"Moreover, American military might is an irritant to the rest of the world."
That's the apologetic garbage the Left loves to espouse - and the reason why your support for Obama exists, to a large degree.
Sure it's annoying to rogue nations that we've used our military might against them. Who is it irritating? North Korea. Muslim extremists? Please, stu, America isn't the evil nation our enemies say we are. If you believe their rhetoric or even care what they think, you are way off base here...
"Do we really want to stir the world up against us or embark on a massive military campaign that could blow sky high in unintended consequences or further drain our resources in a scenario for which there may be no easy exit? "
No, Stu. But do we "really want" Iran to build the technology that can threaten our's and Israel's and the world's oil supply's security?
The world doesn't fit into such a neat box that you get to chose from either of those extremes.
"Why prejudge a failure before one has happened?"
Because it HAS already failed. For some reason, you just believe "the one" can do it better than anyone before him, when i don't think our enemies care how eloquent America's leader is...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 09, 2009
Jay wrote: ". . . sometimes you don't have the luxury of choice. Was it 'wise' to fight in both the Atlantic and Pacific regions during WWII? I'm sure if we had our choice, we'd have fought in one at a time - but national security concerns don't appear in such a convenient fashion."
But every situation we face is not going to be the same. During World War II we were faced by an aggressive empire builder to our east and to our west and the one to our west attacked us, depriving us of the power to choose whether we were going to fight. The one to our east then declared war on us, further closing out our options to do anything but fight. Of course we could have declined, hunkered down behind our oceans, withdrawn ourselves to a Fortress America and hoped for the best. But few but full blown pacifists and extreme isolationists would have counseled that after Pearl Harbor.
But World War II was devastating in lives and treasure. Do we need to bring such an event on ourselves again if we don't have to? Moreover, attacking Iran will look like aggression to much of the world just as Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor looked like that (and was that) to us. Do we want America to be seen as a global aggressor?
Jay further wrote: "If Iran continues to produce the technology to develop nuclear weapons, we'd be insane to only use diplomatic force - even if that means our forces are stretched too thin."
I suspect we can only pull this kind of thing off with a large part of the world behind us but I see no prospect that will happen. Thus, we can act but are unlikely to pull it off without problems and vastly increased global instability. The one real solution for now seems to lie in an accelerated effort at missile defense. Unfortunately the Obama administration seems to be on a different wavelength.
I wrote: ". . . American military might is an irritant to the rest of the world."
To which Jay responded: "That's the apologetic garbage the Left loves to espouse - and the reason why your support for Obama exists, to a large degree."
Whether the left loves it or not, there is no denying that this is how much of the world feels and this perception helped do in the Bush administration, as right as many of us here thought thir policies to have been.
Jay wrote: "Sure it's annoying to rogue nations that we've used our military might against them. Who is it irritating? North Korea. Muslim extremists? Please, stu, America isn't the evil nation our enemies say we are. If you believe their rhetoric or even care what they think, you are way off base here..."
Be that as it may, it is clear that the world envies and resents us and Obama has demonstrated an ability to diminish the resentment somewhat. Besides, this isn't about being "annoying to rogue nations" but about providing fuel for resentment across vast swaths of the international community. Moreover, if we act to increase global instability by acts, which under other circumstances and performed by others we ourselves would consider acts of war, then the issue is not just others' perception of us but that, in fact, we have become the aggressors.
This, Jay, has nothing to do with denying that we are an "evil nation" to the likes of North Korea or al Qaeda but to not acting in a way that will prompt others who should be our friends to fear and resent us more than they already do. There is some wisdom to be found in pursuing subtlety and nuance.
Jay wrote: ". . . do we 'really want' Iran to build the technology that can threaten our's and Israel's and the world's oil supply's security?"
Nope, nope and nope. But attacking Iran without a full international consensus behind us is only likely to stir up more trouble and the resentments that breeds while failing to fully eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities.
Jay wrote: "The world doesn't fit into such a neat box that you get to chose from either of those extremes."
Good advice, Jay. I suggest you think about its implications for your own position on this!
I wrote: ""Why prejudge a failure before one has happened?"
and Jay replied: "Because it HAS already failed. For some reason, you just believe 'the one' can do it better than anyone before him, when i don't think our enemies care how eloquent America's leader is..."
No Jay, I don't believe he has succeeded merely by suggesting we wait to see if he does! I am just suggesting we give Obama the benefit of the doubt before piling on, the same thing we continuously asked of Bush's critics during his administration but which they refused to do.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 10, 2009
"But few but full blown pacifists and extreme isolationists would have counseled that after Pearl Harbor."
Many are saying that exact same thing now, Stu. The terrorists "declared war" on us and, in many ways, so did Iran's present government. Yet, you and Obama's supporters on the Left want to "negotiate" with our enemies.
There should be little or no difference between how we treated those who were responsible for Pearl Harbor and those who were responsible for 9-11. Both are avowed enemies of the U.S. and both killed American citizens...
"But World War II was devastating in lives and treasure."
Surely in "lives" the war was devastating, but in "treasure" as well? I think you need to re-check the post-WWII period economy - America became the powerhouse of the globe after WWII. As a nation, the war and the resulting economic expansion due to the lifting of oppression around the globe benefited the U.S., not "devastated" it...
"Whether the left loves it or not, there is no denying that this is how much of the world feels and this perception helped do in the Bush administration, as right as many of us here thought thir policies to have been."
We should always be as diplomatic as possible, Stu, but "what the world thinks" only matters if it is not in conflict with our own national and economic security. If you don't agree with that, I'd be surprised...
"Obama has demonstrated an ability to diminish the resentment somewhat."
Really, and you base this fact on...??????
and the "global instability" you talk of is just a few hundred protestors with black masks on who make up a tiny portion of the population in the muslim world. They are only there because the extremist leaders of these nations stage them to do what the liberal media represents as "widespread protests." This is garbage and we NEVER should be deciding our foreign policy based on this small group of dissenters...
"There is some wisdom to be found in pursuing subtlety and nuance."
Tell that to the victims families of 9-11 or our the families of our servicemen and women overseas...
"But attacking Iran without a full international consensus behind us is only likely to stir up more trouble and the resentments that breeds while failing to fully eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities."
These are false choices, Stu. If you mean the "international community" as being the U.N., then we will never be able to defend ourselves. Just because the world cowers and a majority of the U.N. resents our power, even if they don't condone violence against us, and wants to see us taken a few notches down. If your views rule the day, it America is hurt...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 10, 2009
Jay wrote: "The terrorists 'declared war' on us and, in many ways, so did Iran's present government. Yet, you and Obama's supporters on the Left want to 'negotiate' with our enemies."
Hmmm, I must have missed something. Where did I say anything about negotiating with terrorists? As to Iran, I said that we don't have a lot of choice short of aggressive action which could have seriously dire consequences and should be avoided if at all possible. Absent a strong international coalition it would be unwise, on my view, for us to act unilaterally via military force against Iran. Of course, this would not apply should Iran attack us in the way the Japanese did or declare war on us as Hitler did.
Jay wrote: "There should be little or no difference between how we treated those who were responsible for Pearl Harbor and those who were responsible for 9-11. Both are avowed enemies of the U.S. and both killed American citizens..."
Again, nothing I've said suggests we shouldn't act militarily against al Qaeda. THAT isn't the issue.
Jay wrote: "Surely in 'lives' the war was devastating, but in 'treasure' as well? I think you need to re-check the post-WWII period economy - America became the powerhouse of the globe after WWII. As a nation, the war and the resulting economic expansion due to the lifting of oppression around the globe benefited the U.S., not 'devastated' it..."
My reference was to the cost of the war not the aftermath where we were the last nation standing so to speak still in good shape re: infrastructure while everyone else had to rebuild. That rebuilding and our capacity to tap into our returning manpower to produce to meet the demand created enabled us to surge ahead in the early post war years. Later, of course, our infrastructure was much older compared to the post-war capacity built up by other nations and so (driven by that and some other reasons) they began to pull ahead of us. So are you suggesting we should choose war as a means to kick-start our currently listing economy? Might be better than Obama's stimulus packages in some ways but I do see a few drawbacks!
Jay wrote: "We should always be as diplomatic as possible, Stu, but 'what the world thinks' only matters if it is not in conflict with our own national and economic security. If you don't agree with that, I'd be surprised..."
Not true, I'm afraid. Our interests demand that we have others' good will if we can get it because, if we don't, they will consistently line up against us, undermine us, etc. I certainly don't think we should knuckle under to bullies or blowhards in other lands, but sometimes it is wise to steer a more nuanced course. One of Bush's failings (and as you may recall I was one of his strong supporters here) was his tendency to be bluntly impolitic, to smirk and pronounce, rather than soothe and charm. Obama's got him beat there and, frankly, that's good for this country.
I hope in future years we Republicans learn this lesson. We need to pick our leaders as much for their charm and eloquence as for their policies. Otherwise we lose because policies can't be adequately implemented and pursued if you can't win over and lead the nation and, sometimes, the world.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 10, 2009
(Picking up from the previous post):
I wrote: "Obama has demonstrated an ability to diminish the resentment somewhat."
And Jay responded: "Really, and you base this fact on...??????"
Look!
Jay wrote: ". . . the 'global instability' you talk of is just a few hundred protestors with black masks on who make up a tiny portion of the population in the muslim world. They are only there because the extremist leaders of these nations stage them to do what the liberal media represents as 'widespread protests.' This is garbage and we NEVER should be deciding our foreign policy based on this small group of dissenters..."
I wasn't referring to protesters, numerous or not. I was referring to wars and conflicts. An attack on Iran will further destabilize a barely stable Middle East as well as other global hotspots.
I wrote: "There is some wisdom to be found in pursuing subtlety and nuance."
Jay responded: "Tell that to the victims families of 9-11 or our the families of our servicemen and women overseas... "
A different issue. Certainly though we don't and can't be expected to carry on foreign policy across the globe the way we went after al Qaeda after 9/11. Surely you're NOT suggesting THAT!!!???
I wrote: "But attacking Iran without a full international consensus behind us is only likely to stir up more trouble and the resentments that breeds while failing to fully eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities."
Jay wrote: "These are false choices, Stu. If you mean the 'international community' as being the U.N., then we will never be able to defend ourselves. Just because the world cowers and a majority of the U.N. resents our power, even if they don't condone violence against us, and wants to see us taken a few notches down. If your views rule the day, it America is hurt..."
No, Jay, these are not "false choices". Your prescription for foreign policy by bluster and aggression is certainly a mistaken choice though, which will cause us great harm should anyone be foolish enough to follow such recommendations. America cannot advance her interests in today's world by sabre rattling and threats.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 10, 2009
"Of course, this would not apply should Iran attack us in the way the Japanese did..."
so you think we should "sit and wait" to be attacked before attacking them? We made that mistake before under Clinton and 3000 people are dead because of it. I think we should not wait around and allow an Iranian Dictator to develop the technology to create nuclear weapons material...
"So are you suggesting we should choose war as a means to kick-start our currently listing economy?"
No. I was just correcting your point that war would be devastating to our economy. It clearly would not.
"We need to pick our leaders as much for their charm and eloquence as for their policies..."
I agree with that, Stu, but I would not take it so far as to elect a guy like Obama who is all "charm and eloquence" and not much of a principled leader. You'll say I don't know that to be fully the case, and maybe you are right, but that is for history to decide...
"Look!"
I am "looking," Stu. I'm looking at a North Korea that is shooting missiles and defying the international community. I'm looking at an Iranian military coup stamping out democracy. I'm looking at the same in Honduras and the rest of central and south America. I'm looking at an Israeli election that moved their parliament into a very hawkish position and no change of position from the Palestinians.
Nothing "looks" good since Obama has taken office. Again, I ask for what you are positively referring to besides a few crowds coming to watch the President speak in cities like Berlin....
"An attack on Iran will further destabilize a barely stable Middle East as well as other global hotspots."
Maybe, but don't you agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons capabilities is even MORE destabilizing?
"Surely you're NOT suggesting THAT!!!???"
No, I'm not suggesting exactly that, but if you want to talk about "results," one can't argue with 8 years of no attacks, right? Obama would be very pleased to have that be HIS record...
"Your prescription for foreign policy by bluster and aggression is certainly a mistaken choice..."
That wasn't my prescription, Stu. My prescription would be to negotiate and use diplomacy as often as possible - even in areas Bush didn't see fit to. My complaint about what you are supporting in the President's prescription is that he's really taken "aggression" OFF the table BEFORE we've started these diplomatic efforts.
"Sabre rattling" is part of the diplomatic process. Saying you will not do it under almost any circumstance weakens your diplomatic hand...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 10, 2009
Jay wrote: "so you think we should 'sit and wait' to be attacked before attacking them? We made that mistake before under Clinton and 3000 people are dead because of it. I think we should not wait around and allow an Iranian Dictator to develop the technology to create nuclear weapons material..."
Not pursuing al Qaeda when they had declared war against us and had already attacked us is a different issue. Whatever Iran has done against us in that way has been covert, not easily traceable to them and not certain in any event. It is speculation. Should we attack them pre-emptively absent such provocation? Are there not a whole lot of dangerous rogue regimes out there who threaten us? Are we to pre-emptively go after them all merely because we believe they will some day attack us?
Your notion here is remarkably unrealistic, Jay!
Jay wrote: " I was just correcting your point that war would be devastating to our economy. It clearly would not."
I hadn't said it would devastate our economy though, certainly, the outcomes of any war situation are highly unpredictable as well as being highly consummatory of resources.
Jay wrote: "I agree with that, Stu, but I would not take it so far as to elect a guy like Obama who is all 'charm and eloquence' and not much of a principled leader. You'll say I don't know that to be fully the case, and maybe you are right, but that is for history to decide..."
That is a mistake to say he is "all charm and eloquence". For god's sake man, the guy was a law professor. Moreover, it takes real brains to be that eloquent because it is not just that he can turn a pretty phrase, is glib and has a skilled rhetorical delivery. He is quick on his feet, manifestly nuanced and complex in his thought processes, etc.
Is he principled? I suspect he is no more unprincipled than most politicians and no doubt more principled than some. He does seem rather too willing to pretend he is being consistent even when he isn't but all politicians struggle with that and he's just better at it than most. Moreoveer he does seem to have principles in that he is devoted to a left leaning agenda despite some soothing words he is willing to offer the wider electorate to the contrary.
Would that George Bush had had some of that skill and capacity in the pursuit of our preferred agenda!
Jay wrote: "I am 'looking,' Stu. I'm looking at a North Korea that is shooting missiles and defying the international community. I'm looking at an Iranian military coup stamping out democracy. I'm looking at the same in Honduras and the rest of central and south America. I'm looking at an Israeli election that moved their parliament into a very hawkish position and no change of position from the Palestinians. . . .
Nothing 'looks' good since Obama has taken office. Again, I ask for what you are positively referring to besides a few crowds coming to watch the President speak in cities like Berlin...."
The leadership of our allies around the world seem much happier with him and the anger of the populations of Europe has much abated against us. So too has the anger and angst in the much talked about "Arab Street." Has Obama solved all problems? Of course not. However he is doing no worse vis a vis North Korea or Iran or Venezuela than Bush did with his more blunt, confrontational style. At the least, Obama has calmed the irritation of our allies. Was that worth electing him? I would say no. I voted for McCain (though McCain was by no means my first choice . . . or even my third or fourth)! But Obama WAS elected, he is now our president, and we owe it to him, as the Democrats owed it to Bush, to respect him and give him a chance.
Just because the Dems didn't do that for Bush is no license for us to act as they did toward Obama.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 10, 2009
I wrote: "An attack on Iran will further destabilize a barely stable Middle East as well as other global hotspots."
To which Jay responded: "Maybe, but don't you agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons capabilities is even MORE destabilizing?"
I think that it certainly can be but we don't know it will be. Had we taken Hitler out before he started World War II we would have looked like the war mongers and aggressors and Hitler would have gone down in history as a martyr for Germany's rebirth. Historians would have written about how the promise of National Socialism had been snuffed out at its birth. America would have been reviled. Who would have known what was averted?
Similarly, who can know, going forward, that the Iranian leadership, in possession of nukes, might not suddenly see things differently? Or that there might not be a change in the government and leaders there for the better? And who can know if an attack on Iran to pre-empt their nuclear acquisition might not set the stage for decades or more of anti-Americanism as the 1950's Eisenhower intervention there against Mossadegh led to decades of hatred of America in that part of the world? Or if it will set off a wider, global conflagration that will sap the lives of millions and we shall be blamed for it by future historians?
We cannot know the future but that is just the point. We cannot know that an intervention with military force against Iran now will successfully end their pursuit of nukes or avoid much more bloody consequences? As conservatives we routinely decry big government and those who support it for the hubris of presuming to outguess market forces and the free choices made by millions of individuals. We argue that no government bureaucrat can know enough to do that. Do you think that when it comes to foreign policy we are in a better position to guess and engineer the future?
Jay wrote: ". . . one can't argue with 8 years of no attacks, right? Obama would be very pleased to have that be HIS record..."
Agreed and maybe he will have it and maybe he won't. But there were, unfortunately, other failures of the Bush administration, not least of which was the decision to press forward in Iraq (which I supported at the time and so was as mistaken as the administration was).
Jay wrote: ". . . My prescription would be to negotiate and use diplomacy as often as possible - even in areas Bush didn't see fit to. My complaint about what you are supporting in the President's prescription is that he's really taken 'aggression' OFF the table BEFORE we've started these diplomatic efforts."
Maybe. But the point of my original article above was to note that Obama is apparently using his rhetorical talents to play the angles internationally, paying lip service to political sensibilities and the appearance of legitimacy while gaming the system to enable the Honduras coup to run out the clock. If I'm wrong on this, if I've misjudged him time will tell and I will be the first to admit my mistake and backtrack!
Jay wrote: "'Sabre rattling' is part of the diplomatic process. Saying you will not do it under almost any circumstance weakens your diplomatic hand..."
Overreliance on it is a mistake of equal or worse proportions. It is better to speak softly and hide the big stick until we absolutely have no choice but to wield it.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , July 10, 2009
"Your notion here is remarkably unrealistic, Jay!"
People said the same thing about Iraq a few years ago. In both the western and Muslim world today, Iraq is only a topic of conversation in a positive light. I we had listened to the advice you are dishing out here, those people would still be being tortured by their dictator AND the region would be a place where instability originates. Leadership on issues like these is difficult, but it can be done with some courage and foresight...
"For god's sake man, the guy was a law professor."
And an ACORN "organizer." Which one do you think he was more of?
"...he is doing no worse..."
doing "no worse" is not an improvement and leadership on these issues could make things worse before they get better. Iraq is a perfect example of that and your's and our president's view on these topics would have guaranteed that Iraq NEVER would have improved...
"But Obama WAS elected, he is now our president, and we owe it to him, as the Democrats owed it to Bush, to respect him and give him a chance."
We don't "owe Him" To the contrary, just as i've been a longtime critic of Bush and Pataki and Bloomberg, etc...Americans owe NOTHING to their elected officials. They are there to serve us and I'm obligated to make my views clear and heard...
"Who would have known what was averted?"
6 or more million Jews would still be alive. That FOR CERTAIN would have been avoided. If that made some on his side complain and get a PR advantage, I'll take that problem over the death of millions of innocent people. You don't agree???
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , July 10, 2009
Jay wrote: "In both the western and Muslim world today, Iraq is only a topic of conversation in a positive light. I we had listened to the advice you are dishing out here, those people would still be being tortured by their dictator AND the region would be a place where instability originates. Leadership on issues like these is difficult, but it can be done with some courage and foresight..."
And 4,000+ Americans wouldn't have died over there and Iran would still have Saddam to worry about and keep them busy and the U.S. would not have earned international opprobrium, losing international credibility, and a very large number of Iraqis wouldn't have died from the internecine violence that followed our intervention and the Bush administration might have avoided the fatal weakening that years of the Iraqi conflict produced, and . . . . well you get the point!
With reference to Obama I wrote: "For god's sake man, the guy was a law professor."
And Jay replied? "And an ACORN 'organizer.' Which one do you think he was more of?"
Why does it matter? We know he has a left leaning agenda. That is not in dispute nor is it something either of us favor. But being a community organizer is not in itself a bad thing or a commentary on anyone's intelligence. Being a law professor, on the other hand, clearly does say something about one's brains.
Re: Obama I said: "...he is doing no worse..."
And Jay replied: "'doing 'no worse' is not an improvement and leadership on these issues could make things worse before they get better. Iraq is a perfect example of that and your's and our president's view on these topics would have guaranteed that Iraq NEVER would have improved..."
No, I was for the surge. I was also for the invasion though, in retrospect I now think it was a mistake. If I were Bush I'd be kicking myself for that decision now!
As to "doing no worse", my point was that we supported Bush but you want to oppose Obama for doing no worse than Bush did while manifestly attempting a new approach in many areas. That makes no sense.
I wrote: "But Obama WAS elected, he is now our president, and we owe it to him, as the Democrats owed it to Bush, to respect him and give him a chance."
Jay wrote: We don't 'owe Him'." To the contrary, just as i've been a longtime critic of Bush and Pataki and Bloomberg, etc...Americans owe NOTHING to their elected officials. They are there to serve us and I'm obligated to make my views clear and heard... "
You mistake the meaning of "owe" here as I used it. I didn't suggest we owe such individuals our allegiance or agreement or loyalty. I suggested that we owe whoever is our president 1) the respect due anyone who holds that office and 2) the benefit of the doubt by not prejudging the decisions they make before the facts are in. Any or us are free to criticize and no one is presuming to stop you. This is not a leftwing site! But the fact that we are free to criticize does not mean there are not moral obligations that affect us including to be honest with ourselves and others, to be fair in our comments and to treat others as we'd want to be treated. If Bush should have been given the benefit of the doubt (and credit for the many good and successful things he did) so, too, should Obama.
I wrore, in reference to the unknowns surrounding the future and what would have happened had we pre-emptively acted against Hitler: "Who would have known what was averted?"
Jay responded: "6 or more million Jews would still be alive. That FOR CERTAIN would have been avoided. If that made some on his side complain and get a PR advantage, I'll take that problem over the death of millions of innocent people. You don't agree???"
Who knows how many other deaths have been avoided in other circumstances? Certainly if 6 million Jews had never been slaughtered by the Nazis, who would ever believe such a thing could have happened in the twentieth century? And if no one believed it could have happened, no one could have claimed credit for averting it!
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
