The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.
These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.
No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There's no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he's a "realistic idealist." Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a "pragmatic neo-Wilsonian." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist."
Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman's administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush," he told The New York Times's David Brooks in May.
Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.
Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.
Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative," wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. "There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good."
As important as what Obama says is what he passes up -- a series of obvious cheap shots against Bush. He could bash him for coddling China's dictatorship, urge him to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics or criticize his inaction in Darfur. In fact, Obama has been circumspect on all these issues, neither grandstanding nor overpromising. (This is, alas, not true on trade policy, where he has done both.)
Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely -- Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward.
Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. "I don't do nuance," George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a "League of Democracies," expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.
Obama's response to McCain's proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. We need to cooperate with both countries in order to solve significant global problems, he told me last week, citing nuclear-proliferation issues with Russia and economic ones with China. The distinction between Obama and McCain on this point is important. The single largest strategic challenge facing the United States in the decades ahead is to draw in the world's new rising powers and make them stakeholders in the global economic and political order. Russia and China will be the hardest because they are large and have different political systems and ideological approaches to the world. Yet the benefits of having them inside the tent are obvious. Without some degree of great-power cooperation, global peace and stability becomes a far more fragile prospect.
Obama and McCain are obviously mixtures of both realism and idealism. American statesmen have always sought to combine the two in some fashion, and they are right to do so. A foreign policy that is impractical will fail and one that lacks ideals is unworthy of the United States. But the balance that each leader establishes is always different, and my main point is that Obama seems -- unusually for a modern-day Democrat -- highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms.
In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology -- temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.
Comments (147)
After reading this article, frankly one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind was, "I wonder which Obama the author was interviewing that day?" Honestly, I find that neither candidate gives me a woody or ,warm and fuzzy, but it is what it is and come November either McCain or Obama will be the next President. Big whoop! On the one hand you have this young guy, who happens to be the first black ever to get this close to being the president and for the most part I'm sure most people caught up in all that hoopla couldn't really care less what his stand is on any of the issues real or not, he is history in the making and history is to be made! Or, so they say. On the other hand, you have this guy who has given and dedicated the majority of his life to protecting and serving this country of ours, but who many see as too old and antiquated to be effective as the next president; When you think about it, in many ways McCain is history...living history. So whom do we choose? The guy who wants to make history and will pander to anyone including the author of this article to sell himself as the best candidate or the guy who is history, who has proven time and again that when the chips are down he can be counted on to cover our backs.
The author paints a nice even keeled picture of Obama and his stance on foreign affairs and depicts McCain as the bull in the proverbial china shop, but isn't the opposite more the truth? Isn't it more likely that McCain having been tested in battle, who, having viewed first hand the horrors of war would be more willing to tread lightly and still carry a big stick in protecting our interests and keeping those who would love to see us roasted on a spit at bay? Honestly, what can we reasonably expect from Obama? First off there is not much of a track record to go on is there? One term as a senator, right? There are those who would argue that there have been presidents with less experience, and that is true, but then the world was less sophisticated then as well. Wouldn't you agree? Obama, as young and promising as he appears, in my mind needs more seasoning. He has already shown a great penchant for waffling on issues and backtracking on his statements; neither of which are positive qualities. What kind of leader is that likely to make him? If he is that spineless in the national arena, Is that likely to make him any more effective as a world leader? Is he the kind of leader we want negotiating treaties and agreements with our enemies and foreign trading partners? Would he not appear so lame that those he would be required to deal with would see him as easy pickin's? Would they not be salivating at the prospect of walking away from the table having gotten the best of us because we took no clear positions or no standing of our ground on any issues? I shiver at the very thought!
No, I'm not at all happy with the choices we are left with, but in considering the two, I don't believe in change just for the sake of change, and I like a track record that can stand on it's own. I like a personal resume that says these are all the things I have accomplished with my life and based on that I have proven that I can get the job done. In that light, there really isn't much of a choice...is there?
Posted August 21, 2008 3:26 PM
Posted on August 21, 2008 15:26
John McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war.His sophistication rises to the level of " bomb, bomb, bomb,bomb-bomb Iran."He believes that invaders win civil wars.We are witnessing the resurrection of the dinosaurs,and after the neocons the last thing we need is someone who is dillusional in the White House.The world is far too complex for simplistic, unrealistic solutions. We have already created a mess of monumental proportions, and we can not have a hubristic bull in the china shop making it even more unresolvable.
The situation in the Caucasas calls for calm and reasoned diplomacy.We have militarized the former satellite members of the Soviet Socialist Union, installed " Star Wars " in the Czech Republic, threatened to encircled Russia with the NATO alliance, recognized Kosovo, and meddled in the " Stans". Is it a wonder that Russia ,given it's history, feels threatened and insecure?
We can not deal with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the last thing we need is an idealistic crusader getting us into more problems. The only winners in this scenario are a military-industrial complex that imposes a real " death tax " on our civilization or oil grubbing dictatorships who trample on the hopes and aspirations of their people and fill the coffers of those who would paint the U.S. as the scapegoat for the evils of the world and who seek to destroy us.
To resolve the crisis in Iraq we needed the communist government of China. To denuclearize weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of terrorists that would use them and to resolve the dillemas in the Middle East, Russian help is indispensable. We need dialogue to deal with global warming, world hunger, water shortages,world hunger,and genicide to name a few.Messianic idealogues need not apply to settle the challenges of the 21st century.
The world must awake,reason must prevail, and the press should start doing it's job. Mr Zakaria's comments are a goood start.
Posted August 10, 2008 9:09 PM
Posted on August 10, 2008 21:09
Mr Zakaria, what Mr. Obama says about Iraq is what the majority of Americans wants, to leave the Iraq, but the ground reality is totally different. There is not even 5 % chances that Iraq different consitiuents will come to a political solutions in near future. If the so call son of Iraq, the Suni group, on the American pay roll is not merged in Iraq's Army or police force, I think you are the best person to know the consequences. Shia Govt. will do the same thing what Saddam Hussain did to them to remain in power, but Suni will fight back.What will be the moral responsibility of Obama's and Decmocrats. Once America starts removeing the combat troops, it will not be easy for Obama to send them back.
Posted August 10, 2008 1:08 AM
Posted on August 10, 2008 01:08
Sadly, McCain squandered his hard earned, well deserved status as a true American hero by:
sucking up to the Bushes even after he had refused the kool-aid earlier.
It was:
stupid,
ignorant,
and
immoral.
Shame and pity on him.
Sincerely,
Providence Candlelight
Posted July 23, 2008 8:37 PM
Posted on July 23, 2008 20:37
Amviennava asks: "What rules are you talking about?"
The same ones that the US and the international community have demanded. And belatedly, Obama.
Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by past agreements.
As Obama said in his June 4, 2008 speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference:
"We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
Just a few weeks ago.
Rules to live by. But then again, Obama might change his mind.
He is the candidate of change, isn't he?
Obama speaking nicely to AIPAC. Hilarious!
The left must be having a hernia or something.
Posted July 23, 2008 4:25 PM
Posted on July 23, 2008 16:25
zqll: "Yes, Hamas, was democratically elected, but once elected they failed to play by democratic rules." What rules are you referring to? As soon as Hammas won we decided to sever all contact with them. We then proceeded to declare the loser of the election, whom we had ignored for years before, as the legitimate partner for negotiations!
Bush has tried the tactic of not talking to the other side unless they agree with him first. Well, he has stated talking to Iran. We will talk to Hammas before long, just as Israel is. That is the only way to accomplish anything lasting.
Posted July 23, 2008 7:09 AM
Posted on July 23, 2008 07:09
nacl: "In short Obama has forgotten that it was not Afghanistan or the Taliban who attacked us." I neither know nor care what Obama forgot. I DO remember that the attack came from organizations based in Afghanistan with full support by the Taliban. Who, by the way, are making a comeback. All this means is that we perhaps have 1 more opportunity to do what we should have done 7 years ago: eliminate the leadership of AlQaeeda and the Taliban. Bush was (and is) too incompetent to do it in 2001, and frankly we are setting ourselves up for the same now.
As for vital interests, our primary one is to have the shipping lanes open. They were before we invaded Iraq and created millions of refugees, who I am sure nurse a grudge against us that will haunt us for a long time.
Posted July 23, 2008 7:03 AM
Posted on July 23, 2008 07:03
As I wrote much earlier, for those commenting "as if" Fareed Zakaria is somehow a leftist for calling Obama a foreign policy realist, the comments from a readily recognizable, quite right-of-center pundit, David Brooks (in February 2008 at Claremont McKenna college) should scotch that particular suspicion. Perhaps people get too worked up over the labels, since the realist label makes Obama appear the more world mature, and the idealist label makes McCain look more the world dreamer. I took from Zakaria's comments something a little less ad hominem: that Obama is less likely to enter the US into more open-ended conflict out of caution, and McCain is probably more prepared, as was Bush, to let loose hell and ... then ... just see. It seems that anyone in this debate can agree or not with the suitability of more or less military activism in our foreign engagements and yet agree that Zakaria's characterization of the habits of mind of each candidate to be a reasonably astute observation!
As I also read the comments, I discern some who find ultimate justice in our pre-occupation (pun intended) with Iraq rather than Afghanistan to be based on a type of utility separate from the terrorism, namely, the crucial utility of Iraq were it only to provide for the vast American dependency on foreign provision of oil. It is hard to imagine ANYONE disputing our staggering dependency (which, of course, is shared by almost all OECD countries). But it is even harder to ignore that we, as a nation, have done essentially nothing to address our profligacy during the Bush II years (nor before Bush II, when we were of course building up this dependency quite relentlessly).
Among the commentators on this column, some "hard power" foreign policy types seem to be owning up that the Iraq war is of course a resource war we needed to conduct and that the public arguments about terrorism as the motivator in this conflict were necessary principally to secure patriotic support. Without granting them their assumption that we needed to conduct a resource war, it is hard to see how they are wrong about the need to explain the war in terms of terrorism. If, after all, we Americans had to acknowledge that the sacrifice of thousands of our fellow citizens and the crippling of many more had as an ultimate rationale a simple mercantile payback, this unpopular war would have almost no support. The prioritization of combat in Iraq over combat Afghanistan and the wild lands of Northern Pakistan is pretty compelling evidence of the bait-and-switch!
To come full circle, the Obama critics, I think, see his refusal to go along publicly with the terrorism rationale for war in Iraq as damningly naive about the real rationale: resources. Not quite conversely, support for McCain by the same folks do not require that McCain actually agree with them on the mercantile reason; it only requires that he embrace the subterfuge for the war as very, very real. Put simply, McCain's support for the Iraq war is what makes them publicly badge McCain as experienced and realist in matters of the world and Obama neither experienced nor realist.
Posted July 23, 2008 12:24 AM
Posted on July 23, 2008 00:24
Mr. Zakaria, it sounds like you saw in Obama yourself or what you wanted to see or what he wanted you to see or what choices America has left which are both McCains and Obamas choices or really all anyone cares to articulate at this moment which really cannot be anything other than both pessimism and optimism and which is anybodies choice. A piece of writing for anyone to see in it anything he or she wants to see...but it was pretty good.
Posted July 22, 2008 7:45 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 19:45
Serena, it only takes one ignorant statement to discredit everything else you have written. For example you say:
"There is much more to democracy than casting a vote. Bush forced the Palestinians into holding early elections, after which he did not like the outcome. Despite Hamas being democratically elected, to this day, Bush still refuses to talk to them because he says Hamas is a terrorist group. Yet secretly in Iraq and elsewhere the US has been training and paying monthly salary to militias listed as terrorist groups."
----
Yes, Hamas, was democratically elected, but once elected they failed to play by democratic rules.
Even Obama recognizes what Prez. Bush and the International community have long held as appropriate for a democratic government for the Palestinians. As Obama said in his June 4, 2008 speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference:
"We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
By failing to abide by these basic principles Hamas has isolated itself with only the sea at its back. Not a very good place for a terrorist organization to find itself in.
Please keep up!
Posted July 22, 2008 5:13 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 17:13
Richard wrote:
"There is not a single monolithic entity as the 'Islamist'. There are many peace loving individuals, there are quite a few aggressive and terrorist minded individuals. If you bag those into one, you surely have them into one."
Yes there are. Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt), Jammat-i-Islam, Al-Qaeda, Taliban are Islamist in the sense they are close to the Salafist or Wahabist positions/interpretations of Islam. The Salafis and Wahabis are fundamentlist Islamist parties, even according to Khalid Abou El Fadl who teaches Islamic Jurisprudence at UCLA.
Read the famous book MILESTONES by Sayyid Qutb to know what these fundamentalist theocratic doctrines of Islam mean in real terms.
Posted July 22, 2008 5:06 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 17:06
Chatterjee
Dont you know in American politics no one will answer - "hypothetical questions or scenario"
Silly Wabbit Hypotheticals are for Kids like you
Posted on July 22, 2008 13:15
Deb Chatterjee:
To all those Obamacons on this blog:
Well, fellow bloggers, I have a question framed on a hypothetical scenario for your Dear Leader.
Posted July 22, 2008 5:01 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 17:01
AMviennaVA
You do some checking. Check out what would happen if we caught Osama bin Laden and 20 of his closest lieutenants tomorrow. Would that affect our national security? It would help our morale, but it would not make us safer. Because Al Qaeda is nowadays operating via autonomous units without any direct contract with Osama. Their financing is self generated or comes from Saudi Arabia, not from Osama. He is afraid to make a telephone call. No terror operation since 9/11 has been traced back to Osama. Not the one in London's subways or in the Madrid railroad station, etc.
Furthermore, check out this: None of the 9/11 attackers came from Afghanistan. None were Taliban. They were mainly Saudis.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the mastermind of 9/11 was a Kuwaiti and he was not in Afghanistan when the attack occurred.
Osama and his lieutenants were from Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not from Afghanistan. Before making their base there they operated from the Sudan. Now the CIA thinks they are operating from Pakistan's badlands, but they might be in Yemen or Lebanon, Mauritania or the Philippines, and God knows where.
You can hmmmm all you want. It is lunatic for Obama now to decide America's military must concentrate on Afghanistan. We have no vital national security interests in Afghanistan. Killing every last Taliban would not enhance America's security.
We have an interest in a stable Pakistan because they have a nuclear arsenal. But that stability won't be secured via a US army chasing Taliban into Pakistan's badlands. In fact that may well destabilize Pakistan.
That a crowd in Iraq cheered Ahmadinedjad is a ridiculous non sequitur. Last year while visiting the UN he was cheered by crowds in New York, including at Colombia university.
In short Obama has forgotten that it was not Afghanistan or the Taliban who attacked us. He has forgotten, or never underestood where our vital interests lie. We have none in Afghanistan. Our interests lie in a friendly oil rich democratic Iraq whose example has the potential of transforming the oppressed Arab world.
Posted July 22, 2008 4:37 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 16:37
Deb Chatterjee:
There is not a single monolithic entity as the 'Islamist'. There are many peace loving individuals, there are quite a few aggressive and terrorist minded individuals. If you bag those into one, you surely have them into one.
You cannot conquer terrorist activities with a military approach, you can contain it for a while. They will lose if they lose their backing in the populace, their support environment. They lose if they cannot recruit for their thoughts anymore.
If you bag them into one, you are exactly pushing folks into their arms. That is the no-win situation.
Posted July 22, 2008 4:13 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 16:13
NACL:
"The truth is Iraq is vital to our power position in the M/E."
"And did Zakaria ask, what Iraq is a distraction from? What is more important than securing a democratic Iraq that is friendly to America and a challenge to the entire Arab world"
Pretty revealing. Our position in the ME, 'democratic Iraq that is friendly to America'
Why's that needed? We're not the masters of the world. Oh, yes, it's the oil. A pretty short sighted view, however Look back:
Maybe if the CIA hadn't overthrown Mossadegh years back we would not face an unfriendly fundamentalist Iran these days, like the Mullahs.
Afghanistan, to my view, is different. There we have a militant, fundamentalist Taliban to keep in check. 9/11 was emanating from Afghanistan/Taliban, right? Or was it Iraq? Wrong.
I think Mr. Zakaria is indeed right on.
Posted July 22, 2008 4:05 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 16:05
Hmmm ... 'nacl' wonders why Afghanistan rather than Iraq is important. As I recall, we were attacked from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Those who attacked us are hiding somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, about 1000 miles east of Iraq.
Last time I checked, Ahmadinedjad was cheered by the crowds in Iraq, whereas our politicians have to sneak in and out, unannounced.
So, to sum up: (1) we have strengthened Iraq's ties to Iran; (2) we forgot those who attacked us. Why change policy indeed.
Posted July 22, 2008 3:03 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 15:03
What a twisted, dishonest wiggler Fareed Zakaria turns out to be.
He describes Obama's foreign policy as "steely" Because Obama still insists, "Iraq is a distraction" and believes, "the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better."
The truth is Iraq is vital to our power position in the M/E. It is of supreme importance that the victory in our grasp, for which so much blood and treasure was expanded is not now hastily lost. This victory, incidentally, would not be available had Obama's not so "steely" counsel, not to attempt the Surge but to start withdrawing in January 2007, been followed.
It is also true that Obama is a championship flip flopper who brandishes whatever position serves him at any given time. One moment he is opposed to NAFTA, the next he lets the Canadians and Mexicans know he doesn't really mean it. One moment he wants a hard and fast withdrawal time table, the next, changing conditions on the ground would require adjustments. He tells the Jews, he supports a united Jerusalem; his next audience hears him support a shared Jerusalem. He was ready to meet with any leader, including the worst rogues, without preconditions, but now some prerequisites must first be met. For meeting McCain in Town Halls he is not steely enough.
And did Zakaria ask, what Iraq is a distraction from? What is more important than securing a democratic Iraq that is friendly to America and a challenge to the entire Arab world?
Afghanistan is what is important, according to Obama. That is where we should have committed our military from the first, and he still wants us to take that tack. The Soviets spent 9 years chasing the muhajidin with a 125,000 man army. They got a humiliating defeat and 20,000 dead Russians. But that is where the steely Obama wants us to invest our blood and treasure. For what purpose?
Zakaria says, "his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist."
What are our national security interests in Afghanistan? Even if we killed every last Taliban, how will that advance our national security? Osama bin Laden has moved from Afghanistan to the badlands of Pakistan and could base himself in a dozen other places. Al Qaeda operatives in any event work autonomously, independent of Osama who fears to make a telephone call.
Zakaria, with this editorial, has revealed a mush filled, mealy mouthed weasel. He is not worth reading.
Posted July 22, 2008 2:55 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 14:55
Ooops !
In my last post the line:
"In contrast the players of the film THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST did not kill Martin Scorcese, or Willem Dafoe or others. I have not known any such incidents.)"
should be replaced by:
"In contrast, the players of the film THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST including director Martin Scorcese, or Willem Dafoe or others, were NOT killed by Christians. I have not known any such incidents."
The error is regretted.
Additionally, continuing with the same thread, judgement from a US President on this hypothetical yet plausible scenario, is bound to have a Foreogn Policy impact. How the world views USA can be understood/gauged from this incident.
Posted July 22, 2008 1:15 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 13:15
To all those Obamacons on this blog:
Well, fellow bloggers, I have a question framed on a hypothetical scenario for your Dear Leader.
According to Fareed Zakaria, Senator Obama comes across level-headed and realist on Islamic extremists and Islam. Fareed implies that the Clash of Civilizations between West and Islam can be artfully avoided by Senator Obama and not Senator McCain (who has been labeled as a potential candidate in continuance as a "war president" by Fareed).
I contend that such a euphoria over Obama's candidacy is a hogwash and the candidate's convictions have not been vetted. We don't know how he flip-flops quickly. I believe that Senator McCain would be the best to uphold the "core values" enshrined in the US Constitution. I am of the opinion that Senator Obama would pander to populism to stave off any political inconveniences - even if that means "fleshing out" the rights and privileges of average "blue collar Joe Sixpack". (Of course I am assuming that the job of a US President would be to uphold the "core values" of the US Constitution. Perhaps I am wrong here ?)
To prove my point I am framing up a hypothetical scenario which is quite plausible and solicit your opinions on the same. It concerns Obama's stand on the First Amendment. (I know that a visible number of Americans in recent times may think that such a privilege to exercise offensive speech is unwise in a politically correct world, but like it or not such a trait distinguishes America from the rest of the World. France has (?) similar values, but I am not aware if it is in their Constitution. However, French are well known for secular, liberal attitudes and recent denial of French citizenship to Ms. Fazia shows such traits.)
We know the outrage over the Danish cartoons. We are all aware of the death-threats with Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and even Tasleema Nasreen on their "outrageous" (?) remarks on Islam. (This came from the "peace-loving" Muslim folks against the authors/artists/cartoonists.) In contrast the players of the film THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST did not kill Martin Scorcese, or Willem Dafoe or others. I have not known any such incidents.)
If someone did print such cartoons or had a scathing/very offensive article on Islam and Prophet Muhammad, how would Senator Obama react to the outrage if he became the next president ? Will he clamp down on those (right wing) "loonies" exercising their Constitutional rights to Free Speech, or, tell the agitating Muslims to shut up, or, worse still will he try to find a "middle path" (bend laws to pacify both sides) ? Fareed Zakaria calls him a "optimist", "realist" and that is not naive. So, how do you Obamafan bloggers, think Dear Leader react to such a call ?
Posted July 22, 2008 1:07 PM
Posted on July 22, 2008 13:07
Fareed I am so impressed with your column! What a breath of fresh reading!!!!! I am a strong supporter of Obama! I knew that Obama has a deeper understanding of world views and human race period! He is exactly what is needed to transcend America and the world!! A good leader always has the peoples best interest at heart! Not his Ego! Obama will most definately be that Leader! God help us all if Mccain is ever elected! I dont believe he has that deeper understanding that is needed! He clearly would lead by his Ego! That is what gets us into trouble always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted July 22, 2008 11:22 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 11:22
Nicely done...you are starting to prove to me that there are still some journalist left in America and not the tabloid reports we are so used to seeing in press and on tv.
I think Obama's approach of looking at the world has to do with the fact he lived in more than one country during his younger days. If early education is the foundation for success later on in life, than I must say the impact of seeing the differences of First World Countries and Third World Countries has shaped his realistic approach that Obama projects in his opinions and statements.
On the other hand, an average American or so called "Blue Collar Workers" that forms the base of Republican party are only educated till High School that too because of Govt policy to educate citizens free and until recently have never left the pond they grew up in. How can we expect them to considered what is a "Foreign Policy"?
Posted July 22, 2008 10:50 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 10:50
It is the most intelligent comment, I read about Obama. But this doestn`t mean very much,since I read only German press only beforehand on this topic.
But German press guys missed the most important things, I guess.
Posted July 22, 2008 9:37 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 09:37
Deb Chatterjee posted "Maybe. But, do Christians practice those "awful" things today ?" Unfortunately, a bunch of self-styled 'Christians' started a war of choice (aggression actually) in Iraq (leave alone that they encouraged Israel to rain mayhem on Lebanon in 2006 ... the birthpangs of a new Middle East?). The Iraq fiasco has caused more than 1 million lives already and created 5 million refugees!
Stupidity and barbarism are not the exclusive property of Muslims as you must recognize.
Posted July 22, 2008 9:29 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 09:29
As I agree with you ,some of your opinion about Mr. Obama's foreign policy thougths. My comment is to get back the American credibility around the world they must elect or America elected Mr. Obama.
Posted July 22, 2008 4:16 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 04:16
uh...there already is a "league of democracies." it's called the Community of Democracies and is establishing its secretariat in Poland. I'm guessing the speechwriters on both sides, used to focusing on domestic issues, haven't bothered even to google the subject.
Posted July 22, 2008 4:14 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 04:14
Fareed, I respect your opinion and do, more often than not, agree with you.
Perhaps McCain is an idealist, but he believes in using military force to accomplish "his" goals. On a regular basis McCain exaggerates threats against America. The clarion call for more war is the lynchpin of McCain's foreign policy. For him Iraq is all about never surrendering, but winning and achieving victory, not democracy. Presumably, McCain's exuberance might be better explained as a desire to command the largest military force at war. Meaning no disrespect, I wonder if McCain isn't still fighting the Viet Nam war?
Bush was never interested in bringing democracy to Iraq. Based on the events that have since unfolded, getting rid of Saddam, taking control of the oil and furthering corporate power drove Bush's juggernaut to use military force in Iraq. If Bush agreed to a timetable the energy conglomerates would be left without protection -- a job fulfilled by our military.
Bush is not spreading democracy establishing military tribunals, indefinite imprisonment, torture, extraordinary renditions, breaking international treaties, etc... he is spreading tyranny and acting like a dictator.
Furthermore Bush never once showed interest in the Iraqi people whatsoever. Before leaving Iraq, Bremer enacted 101 Orders into law that had nothing to do with setting up democratic institutions or protecting Iraqi businesses, but everything to do with protecting and furthering foreign interests and corporate power -- at the expense of the Iraqi people.
There is much more to democracy than casting a vote. Bush forced the Palestinians into holding early elections, after which he did not like the outcome. Despite Hamas being democratically elected, to this day, Bush still refuses to talk to them because he says Hamas is a terrorist group. Yet secretly in Iraq and elsewhere the US has been training and paying monthly salary to militias listed as terrorist groups.
Neither the Bush administration nor McCain have shown even a fraction of sensitivity to the suffering the US military forces brought to the Middle-East. This is no trivial matter and by ignoring it only makes matters worse.
It is not surprising the world disdains us for our hypocrisy and fears us for our stupidity.
Even though the battleground is not on US soil war is destroying our nation. We are the frog sitting in a pan of water about to boil.
Yet trapped in the 20th Century mind-set McCain is unwilling to budge from his militaristic approach to solving world problems. Because he is quick to anger makes him prone to over-react in terribly destructive ways. McCain [mistakenly] believes -- claims -- Islamic extremism is a threat to our very existence, but is blind to the fact that US military action in the Middle East is exacerbating the situation. To continue is insanity.
Obama's pragmatic and nuanced approach to worldly affairs is very much 21st Century. The fact he recognizes the nature of the problems in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world gives me confidence he will deal with situations in a measured and appropriate way.
While the US is mired in an occupation the world is changing rapidly. So we can either change along with it or continue to spin spin our wheels going nowhere fast while the world moves forward into the future leaving us behind.
Idealist or realist? More to the point: McCain and Obama offer two completely different foreign policies: respectively one more dangerous and less likely to succeed, the other promises change.
Posted July 22, 2008 2:12 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 02:12
Michael:
"Great column Fareed, you try to look at this situation in a fair and realistic way, which I believe Obama is also doing. Dwight writes that "Obama is a fool" He probably likes bush and cheney and his comment shows his ignorance and lack of writing skills.
This administration is full of intellectual pygmies and the sooner they are gone the better. Bush believes that Armageddon is just around the corner and that he has helped it come sooner, what an idiot to believe that we can have any effect on such spiritual matters.
Obama is by far the better candidate in this race, he's not perfect, no one is, but unlike bush he will learn as he goes.
bush and cheney should be tried for treason"
=============
I don't see where you have any room to criticize Dwight's writing. Whether or not you think he was correct he was at least clear and succinct, spelled everything correctly, and was consistent in his use of punctuation and lack of capital letters.
Your writing on the other hand rambles and jumps from one topic to the next, and your conclusions are no better supported than Dwight's. If you are going to quote someone with the intention of refuting them, then you need to focus on that rather than leaping to a conclusion that is not in evidence ("He probably likes bush and cheney...") and then going off randomly about this issue, which is off-topic by any definition of the term. You ended up looking like a fool in response to a drive by troll.
Posted July 22, 2008 2:11 AM
Posted on July 22, 2008 02:11
Andrew wrote:
"As for your Quran quote, well, I can go thru the Old Testament and find many, many awful things that are said, yet I still am a believer. "
Maybe. But, do Christians practice those "awful" things today ? A large section the Muslim society is held hostage to fundamentalists/radical ideologies and you think Obama will liberate them through his "realist" policies ?
I don't smoke what you do.
Posted July 21, 2008 10:46 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:46
ZQLL wrote:
"If you want more softheaded diplomacy, by all means vote for that great "realist" Obama. He won't disappoint."
No digs on this one.
Posted July 21, 2008 10:42 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:42
Sure miss Fareed as host of Foreign Exchange!
Sadly, it is much easier to criticize the written word.
Those responding do so through the lens of their bias.
People seem to have strong biases.
As John Edwards exited, with my donation, I struggled to choose Obama or Clinton.
I felt scolded by Clinton, so I gravitated to Obama HOPING he would, at the very least, uphold the Constitution and provide some relief for "the little guys".
Perhaps it is an unavoidable glitch that causes presidential candidates to become mercurial.
I am left, as an average American, to view McCain as a cranky war-lover and Obama as a difficult-to-read Democrat.
Thanks Fareed.
Posted July 21, 2008 10:40 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:40
This is what Kissinger the realist had to say about W's foreign policy in 2005:
"Extraordinary advances of democracy have occurred in recent months: elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and Palestine; local elections in Saudi Arabia; Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon; the opening up of the presidential election in Egypt; and upheavals against entrenched authoritarians in Kyrgyzstan. Rarely have conditions seemed so fluid and the environment so malleable. This welcome trend was partly triggered by President George W. Bush’s Middle East policy and accelerated by his second inaugural address, which elevated the progress of freedom in the world to the defining objective of American foreign policy.
The progress of democracy did not occur entirely under its own momentum. Circumstance was as important as design. Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were made possible by American military victories over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein; the Ukrainian election grew out of the collapse of Soviet and Russian power in Eastern Europe; the Lebanese upheaval reflected the isolation of Syria after the Soviet collapse; and the Palestinian elections were made possible by the death of Yasser Arafat and the defeat of the second Intifada."
-----
If you want to see realist policies look back at the pre-Reagan era: MAD, Containment, peaceful coexistence, appeasement Eastern Europe under Soviet domination, threat of nuclear holocaust, etc.
Liberals, Demos and Western Europeans were very happy with their "peaceful coexistence" bought with "realistic" policies, and peace bought on the back of others. Peace at any price. Just as long as that peace was paid for by others.
As for good and evil which Obama does not recognize, then he will not recognize problems with people like Kim Jong Il, Omer Hassan al-Bashir, hitler, Ahmadinejad, Islamic fundamentalists, etc.
If you want more softheaded diplomacy, by all means vote for that great "realist" Obama. He won't disappoint.
Posted July 21, 2008 10:22 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:22
Andrew wrote:
"All your trying to do is make people confuse the two, when simply put, neither McCain nor Obama will ease the pressure on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Sorry Andrew, you are clueless about McCain. McCain knows what he doesn't know, and hence is keeps quiet. Even Fareed Zakaria, the cheerleader for Obama, doesn't disagree with McCain's credentials. Has McCain flipped and flopped ? Yes. But, is McCain wrong on his views on war on terror ? NO. I am quite unsure and in fact very skeptical if Obama would really advocate hot pursuit of Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants inside Pakistan's borders if that need legitimately arises. I am indeed extremely skeptical, and given his past flips/flops I have an axe to grind.
"As for Islam extremism, Obama has a very good point. It's the exact strategy used by Petraeus in the surge."
Well, David Petraeus did not talk to Senator Obama prior to asking the increase in troop levels. So, obliquely crediting Obama on this sounds hypocritical to me.
However on the global scenario of Islamic extremism Obama is surely clueless (or else is a hypocrite). Again the flip flop. To snoop on homegrown sleeper cells, Bush govt. introduced the wiretapping legislation, which Obama initially opposed. He, however, voted for it this time when it was introduced. Bush played it smart on this score. He probably knew that Obama is a bleeding-heart leftist Democrat, but is also pragmatic. Hence in an election year, Obama would not risk voting against the wiretapping legislation - as he might come out as a "softie". And, that's exactly what happened. Isn't it ? Obama doesn't appreciate that snooping (regardless of how unpleasant it maybe) on terrorists talking to each other to blow up USA is a dire necessity. However he is also pragmatic, and hence doesn't mind the flip-flops he's done. More from him will come thru' as we near November 4, 2008.
Urban wrote:
"Have you heard the expression: more cathlic than the Catholics? tis a symptom of new converts!
"
Yes, I did. I also know born in the USA was John Walker Lindh and Adam Gadhan.
Posted July 21, 2008 10:17 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:17
Reply to ZZIM
We all know when someone is being derogatory or speaking in such terms. You were not being derogatory, you only spoke of which you heard, using the same exact terms. We all know what red necks, coons, stump-jumpers, all of those derogatory and inappropriate names.
If you don’t want any one to get het up, do not speak in such terms.
Now as to my comment on more leases, of course no more needs to be purchased. Did you not read the sentences that followed? telling of all the leases already owned and not being used. This country is a gold mine of oil and gas of which leases they already own. What I implied was the need was to drill on the leased property they already have before wanting to buy up everything they can get their hands on and then a monopoly will again be had only this time by the speculators instead of foreign countries.
We would then be under the gun again, only this time to the ones who has tied up everything in a tight noose around our own people, speculators though they are. The have’s always wants more, the have not’s only want to make a living a home and to be a bit comfortable unto themselves and their families. We the have not’s, usually take it for granted that we can earn what we need to live comfortably and be able to have a family and raise and be able to school them with out continually worrying if this can be done anymore because of the have’s who continually want more are never happy until they have made all beneath them squirm even more than they are already.
Posted July 21, 2008 9:57 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:57
Obama's popularity outside the USA would make him President of Germany or France if he wanted it. As for McCain, we can just say "ho-hum," just what new ideas can we expect to find with this one? At least Obama is willing to talk to other people and other countries, McCain only if they completely agree with us (the USA) first. How is this ever going to work?
Behind McCain you will find the neocons. Remember, the guys who gave us Iraq? And, let's not forget that Iraq is a salvage job now. Talk of the "surge working," is very likely just more smokescreen for bigger fireworks on the way. And, if McCain gets into the Presidential office and he quickly turns the guns on Iran, you can bet we will see bigger fireworks indeed. You have to vote for the guy with the best judgment and best chances of rectifying things. However, if you think Bush did a great job, vote for McCain. After all, it will be McCain who takes a page out of the GW Bush playbook. You know, the part where it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had WMD's. Next time, it will be a McCain who tells us it is a "slam-dunk" that Iran has nukes, and we all know what comes next!
Posted July 21, 2008 9:33 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:33
Interesting column except for one observation. The realists are the pessimists. The optimists are the ones who dont feel the world must wait for change. MM
Posted July 21, 2008 6:41 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 18:41
Deb Chatterjee:
First of all, to use an Obama flip-flop on campaign finance to somehow skew his foreign policy is pretty absurd. Then your comparing a policy of diplomacy with a sovereign state (Iran) with that of a terrorist group no American wants to negotiate with, period (Al-Qaeda). All your trying to do is make people confuse the two, when simply put, neither McCain nor Obama will ease the pressure on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Also, yes, Truman never faced al-qaeda, but we can learn from people of the past. President Lincoln never came up against a nuclear state, and President Jefferson never faced a fascist ideology, yet we continue to learn lessons from them. Most diplomacy is still done on the state level, even against terrorism, and it's important to learn from the past. You can go ahead and ignore the sovereign states, and see just how much they help you.
As for Islam extremism, Obama has a very good point. It's the exact strategy used by Petraeus in the surge. Rivalries in Iraq brought the violence up, and then he used them to bring them down. He got in contact with local leaders (most notably in Anbar province), promised them help and protection of their rights, and in return, these groups lost interest in Al-Qaeda and kicked them out of town. You sound like you might have read the Quran and maybe (MAYBE) know something about Middle East history, so you should know the historical hatred between Persians and Arabs, Syrians and Lebanese, Kurds and everyone else, Sunnis and Shiites, and the list goes on. Al-Qaeda only represents one form (Extreme Saudi Wahabbism), yet somehow people believe Shiites are going to join their cause (they have their own groups, notably Hezbollah). The whole point is that if you treat them all the same, you WILL unite them under one banner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you learn to sit down with each seperately and talk, however, then you can marginalize the really bad guys like Al-Qaeda.
As for your Quran quote, well, I can go thru the Old Testament and find many, many awful things that are said, yet I still am a believer. Many christians believe that unless people are baptized, they're going to hell, which is not a very nice thing to say, yet we (including me) still see the good in Christianity. I say you open your eyes, look past the faults, and see what Muslims has helped to give us in the past (Astronomy, Algebra, saving the works of Aristotle) and what contribution it can make in the future as well.
Posted July 21, 2008 5:33 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 17:33
Deb,
Have you heard the expression: more cathlic than the Catholics? tis a symptom of new converts!
Deb, citizenship means more than cheering the leaders. It seems you are doing just that!!
Posted July 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 17:27
First, a correction. Senator Obama was critical of Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Here are the relevant statements of Obama:
"In the absence of some sense of progress, in the absence of some sense from the Dalai Lama that there was progress, I would not have gone," the presidential candidate told reporters at a news conference.
....
Obama said he "would liked to have seen some more aggressive efforts to encourage progress and talks between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama.
"It strikes me that although some meetings have been taking place, that we were not aggressive in encouraging the Chinese government to make serious concessions there," he said.
(Associated Press, July 7, 2008 at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiBrIyL7WJ1mb_HZz3phioJvNatgD91P9VUG0 ).
Second, contrary to your analysis, so far Obama's comments and positions sound more like Zbigniew Brzezinsky, particularly in Brzezinsky's recent book "Second Chance" and not like either Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft.
Posted July 21, 2008 5:15 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 17:15
To those who believe the surge/escalation is working;
It works as long as the military pays Iraqi's $300/month not to fight.
New headline today: The troops are worried the house of cards will fold as soon as they are moved to Afghanistan.
But Hey, 4439 coalition troops killed and 30K+ wounded is but a cheap price to pay, as long as it's not a member of your family or a friend.
Posted July 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:51
Bite me, Jimmy.
Actually, it's nice to be recognized for effectiveness, even if it's intended in a snotty and underhanded way.
Many years ago I came off a football field feeling defeated and angry. I was a defensive lineman and had had a great first half (2 sacks, a fumble and lots of tackles) and then spent the entire second half of the game getting nowhere near the guy with the ball. The coach told me to cheer up, they were targeting me specifically because I had been so effective in the fiorst half. Which freed up my teammates to make tackles and sacks, etc. So I felt better.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment. I do this for free because I can't stand idiocy and enjoy confronting it head on. Keeps me busy, lol.
Posted July 21, 2008 4:45 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:45
ZZim
We, AIPAC, appreciate your work on these boards. Oops, I forgot that we were paying you to do this. Good job anyway.
Posted July 21, 2008 4:32 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:32
Carl:
"You are kidding right?"
NOPE. Mr. Carl Rove, you gotta be kidding yourself.
"An opinion article in NEWSWEEK - of ALL places - and written by FAREED ZAKARIA - of ALL people?"
MR. Rove, I assume your opinion counts more than Fareed’s! Please.
"Okay, I am going to be polite here..."
Mr. Rove, now you are the one kidding! Mr. Rove being “polite”, please! Do you mean that you can’t master anything meaningful to say.
"You do realize in the in the whole world, Newsweek Magazine and Fareed Zakaria are "in the tank" for Barack Obama more than anyone else, right? Even more than Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, and Brian Williams, right?"
Come on now, Carl. You sound paranoid! The whole country is conspiring against neo-cons? Please resume taking your medications…
"You may have well as simply posted a press release from the Obama campaign."
Mr. Architect, the house you have built is crumpling and it’s because of bad architectural blueprint! The train has left the station and America is praising for a better future. Bye bye, Carl.
Posted July 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:25
Urban wrote:
"Remember what Obama suggested: he would bomb the Qada hide out in East Pakistan without asking Pakistani government."
Yeah ??? Are you willing to bet your wager on that flip-flopper from Illinois - land of Abraham Lincoln ?
How sure are you about Obama on this ?
Asim wrote:
"Jihad is not terrorism, aggression or violence-it is fighting in self-defence."
That's from an educated, westernized Muslim like your nobleself. How do you (and your edeucated, westernzied likes) convince otherwise your fellow co-religionists like Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and similar ones ?
Posted July 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:23
Dwight posted July 21, 2008 8:09 AM
"in other words, obama is a fool..."
Maybe someone could read the article to you since your reading and comprehension skills are low.
Posted July 21, 2008 4:05 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 16:05
Hi Urban:
Reply to: “Obama suggested: he would bomb the Qada hide out in East Pakistan without asking Pakistani government. GW people pooh poohed that idea, just to have them do that five weeks or so after Obama suggested it as an option.”
Interesting that you bring this up.
We’ve been bombing Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan without getting permission to do so for years. We get away with it because the Pakistani government wants them bombed too, but can’t admit it publicly due to Pakistani domestic politics. So, ever hear the expression that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission? That’s what we do. We drop a bomb, blow up some bad guys, the Pakistan government squawks and protests publicly while privately telling us “nice shot”.
Obama’s announcement threatens this mutually beneficial charade. On the face of it, it’s a dumb thing to do, but it’s actually quite clever. As a candidate, he doesn’t face any repercussions from irresponsible comments. The President, on the other hand, has to play along with the charade and pretend we don’t bomb Pakistan. So, Obama’s a smart guy, he knows all this. So he says “bomb Pakistan” knowing with certitude that the President will say “no way” and then go do exactly that. Then Obama gets to claim that it was his idea.
People who are easily convinced will say, “Hey look, Obama said “jump” and Bush jumped! Obama has vision and he’s gutsy, too! Yay Obama!”
Posted July 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 15:57
Alance:
The issue is not the Iranian intentions-and so far they are intentions-the issue is israle's formidabe nuclear arseanl which is sacrring all states in the region including Iran to scramble for a defensive nuclear weapon;the US invasion accelearted Iran's concern.
If an apartheid racist miltaristic jewsih theocrcay with the longest occupation in modern history can have a nuclear weapon-why can not Iran or any other Arab state have a nuclear weapon.
US,UK,Germany and France have not said a single word about an actual existing israeli nucelar arsenal-not a single world especially France which built the israeli nuclear projetc in 1950/1960,s. Its nuclear fuel and development was stolen and sumggled by jews-similar to Jonathan Pollard the spy.
Posted July 21, 2008 3:06 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 15:06
ZZim:
I can't believe your positive assumptions re Bush!!
Obama has been telling GW to use the saw to cut the bolt; GW insisted on using steel wool to cut the bolt, ie, where to fight Qada.
Remember what Obama suggested: he would bomb the Qada hide out in East Pakistan without asking Pakistani government. GW people pooh poohed that idea, just to have them do that five weeks or so after Obama suggested it as an option.
Obama has vision; he is gutsy too.
Posted July 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 15:00
It's interesting that you classify Obama as an Optimistic Realist and McCain as a Pessimistic Idealist. I think traditionally, the Realist desire for stability has been seen as rooted in a dire view of world politics that saw the potential for violence and upheaval around the globe. Similarly, idealistic foreign policies have generally been rooted in a faith in democratic and economic progress - the Bush administration, for example, assumed that democracy would flow naturally from our intervention in Iraq.
I think your characterizations of Obama and McCain are plausible, and are examples of how a particular disposition doesn't necessarily lead to a fixed foreign policy approach. Rather than avoiding large scale interventions solely out of a classically realist aversion to instability, an "Optimistic Realist" patiently awaits global convergence toward democratic norms.
Posted July 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 14:57
"Yup. Successful counter-insurgencies end with a whimper, not a bang. They sorta fade from sight. Drop off the front pages of the newspapers. Precisely like what we’ve experienced with Iraq in the past 6 months or so. It’ll still be there in the background, but not as much as it was when the insurgency was in full swing. Inattentive people will probably not be aware that the war is substantially over."
Just like the insurgency in Vietnam was going out with a wimper from 1968 - 1973. This is the problem, you are seeing what you want to see, not what is there; we won't really know the truth until years from now. It could be success, or it could be the insurgents withdrawing while we are on the offense, waiting to fight another day after we withdraw.
"Not true. It means that - because it takes 4 months to tally the quarter’s economic data - a recession can start without you being specifically aware of it. However, it also means that you CAN be certain when you are NOT in a recession."
No, you can be certain we weren't in a recession last quarter. If the economy declines this quarter, we are still technically not in a recession, but if it declines next quarter also, we will officially have been in a recession since the beginning of this quarter. But again, this is a label that is meaningless to the average person. It's not economic pessimism if the majority of average folks are suffering due to higher prices, stagnant wages, and increased joblessness just because the to pcompanies are doing well enough to offset those economic losses. This is the problem with neo-liberal economists- a pareto efficiency may look good on paper, but it doesn't work in real life.
"Apparently enough of us have enough willpower for us to have come this far. Plenty of Americans lack willpower though, and some of them vote. So they may have enough numbers to vote Obama into office. We’ll see."
It's not about willpower, it's about miltiary and economic reality. We don't have the manpower to sustain this ops tempo, and we don't have the money to wage it if we did without a drastic restructuring of our economic system- major cuts and major tax hikes. You want this war to keep going, be willing to pay for it in both blood and treasure. The American people said before the war in multiple polls that they didn't think Iraq was worth 1000+ American lives or $1 billion, we were promised it would be well under that in both counts. It's not about americans losing the will to fight after committing forces, it's about Americans being misled on the committment required and saying enough is enough in a manner that allows our allies the best opportunity for success.
Posted July 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Posted on July 21, 2008 14:57