In the comments to yesterday’s post on Barack Obama’s declaration on Sunday that Iran, Venezuela and Cuba do not pose a “serious†threat to the US because they are “tiny countries,†much smaller than the Soviet Union (followed by his declaration on Monday that Iran was a “grave threatâ€Â), there was a general discussion of the whole “negotiation vs. appeasement” debate Pres. Bush put on the table with his weekend speech in Israel.
As I noted that Obama’s example of Kennedy’s “negotiations†with Khrushchev was inapt in light of the rather bad example of their Vienna Summit, I further note that Rich Lowry also covers that summit in his latest column, as well as the Reagan precedent cited by Obama and his supporters:
So when, in a speech in Israel, President Bush characterized trying to talk adversaries out of their hatreds as appeasement, Obama and his supporters reacted as if he had been skewered to the core. The Obama Doctrine had been attacked! On foreign soil! They countered that the act of talking is, in itself, not appeasement. True enough. But neither is talking a substitute for strategy.
Consider President Reagan, another president invoked by Obama supporters. Reagan believed in personal diplomacy, but concluded upon taking office that it was pointless to talk to Soviet hard-liner Leonid Brezhnev. In stiffening U.S. defenses and pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative, his administration sought to convince Moscow, in the words of Secretary of State George Shultz, that restraint “was its most attractive, or only, option,†while pressuring the tottering Soviet economic system.
When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, the administration thought it had the strategic upper hand, and a man it could work with. Reagan met with his counterpart in Geneva and Reykjavik. Keenly aware of his inability to keep pace in a high-tech arms race, Gorbachev wanted any deal contingent on prohibiting SDI. Reagan said “no.†Out of his weakness, Gorbachev eventually gave the Reagan administration the kinds of arms cuts it wanted and openings in the Soviet system. The Cold War was about to end.
Although folks should RTWT, Lowry could also have applied the notion of “trying to talk adversaries out of their hatreds” to his final example:
President Clinton had Yasser Arafat to the White House more than any other foreign leader, and his secretary of state, Warren Christopher, spent long, bootless hours with then-Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. When Clinton tried to pressure Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak into a deal that wasn’t there near the end of his second term, the second intifada erupted. It wasn’t appeasement; it was just foolish.
On this point, a November 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Survey is instructive. People in various nations, as well as the Palestinian territories, were asked, “Which statement comes closest to your opinion? (1) A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of; OR (2) the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists?” The sadly predictable results were that — other than Israel — the nations in the Mideast, as well as the Palestinian territories, picked the second option by large margins.
Accordingly, when Obama tells New York Times columnist David Brooks that Hezbollah and Hamas need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims,†while recognizing these terror groups are not going anywhere, it is hard to avoid seeing Obama’s position as either hopelessly naive or double-talking gobbledygook. Just seeing Obama’s face is not going to cut it, either. Obama needs a vision and a strategy before anyone should take his talk of talks as anything more than ineffectual at best and dangerous at worst.
But they are such little countries. And cute. Harmless little things, they are. Like puppies. And Kittens.
I’ve mentioned this before but David Ross, Clinton’s chief Middle Eastern Negotiator, paints just this sort of cautionary tale about Yassir Arafat.
Remember that Ross had yanked out of Israel the deal of the century, everything that the Palestinians could have hoped for. With pitched excitement Ross sat with Arafat and laid out the Golden Egg.
And Arafat punted.
Ross came to realize that there would be no lasting peace deal with Arafat because he was, by nature, a warrior in his mentality. He simply couldn’t bring himself to make the transition to leader of a nation.
Well that and the transcendent corruption.
Substitute “jihadist by nature” and you have our current situation. Talking isn’t appeasement but the level of talks does represent a kind of acknowledgement of status that is undeserved. Neither Hamas, Hezbullah or Iran have given any indications that they are prepared to make the transition from formenters of terrorism to players on the world diplomatic stage.
In other words, step up and attempt to make yourselves part of the diplomatic “grownups” and then talks can proceed.
Tiny countries, but Texas ought to be nuked off of the map.
Just so we keep things in proportion.
I beg to differ, JD, puppies are far from harmless.
Or kittens, to hear my co-worker tell it.
Of course, Reagan’s idea of diplomacy with Iran involved a Bible and a cake.
I wonder if Obama also wants to bring back the idea of “arms for hostages” and that whole Iran-Contra thing ? Ollie North might have to give up his day job at FoxNews to fill the opening and it would look bi-partisan.
It seemed to me that in talking about how little Iran is, and implying that America is allegedly invincible also because of our nukes, and about how MAD worked out, Obama was essentially conceeding to Iran the success of its intent to acquire nukes – and also making a foolish, propagandistic appeal to “fighting the last war”; and, therefore, in an indirect but obvious way simply granting Iran increased power over any Country it might want to threaten or attack – especially even in the case of a non-nuclear war or terrorist process of destabilization and conquest, not to mention the increased leverage Iran would then have in an economic assault merely involving oil.
Or did I miss the part where Obama said he would nuke Iran on the occasion of any further aggression on its part as either actor or sponser?
Therefore, I claim that Obama is indicating that he will do exactly the kind of thing which Bush was referring to in his statement to and about Israel, only worse, in that President Obama would then essentially be pursuing a policy of Unilateral Appeasement – giving Iran something without getting anything whatsoever in return. Which also happens to be similar to what Obama already says he will do in the case of Iraq, where he will essentially withdraw/surrender in return for, at most, some uninforceable promises.
So, it appears that Obama already thinks he can get “peace” oso diplomatically in return for surrendering in Iraq, = Appeasement. And if he thinks it’s ok for Iran to have nukes, that’s clearly Unilateral Appeasement.
What strikes me about all this is the prodound level of bullshit this represents, even if O! is seriously trying to negotiate a new and lasting peace. Our Lord could talk Ahmanutjob out of his drawers, and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference with regard to Hezbollah et al.
They’d make a deal, and then reneg on it, and when they did so, the UNuchs would insist upon another deal. We’ve seen this movie.
Obama = the
half-black Jimmah. It’s going to be an entertaining few years if he wins.The trouble with politicians is that they got where they got on their powers of persuasion. They therefore think it would be no hard thing to charm the leaders of these itty bitty nations into seeing things our way.
What people like Obama fail to recognize is that people like Ahmadinejad, Saddam, Assad, Castro, Chávez, et al. are charming sociopaths, even psychopaths, and can out-charm and disarm any American politician any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. They lie as easily as they breathe, and they can fake sincerity and willingness to cooperate better than the devil himself.
The left thinks that these tin-pot dictators hate us because they feel threatened, so if we show them how harmless we are, they’ll back down. But, like in a canine hierarchy, when you roll over and show your belly, you’ve just told the other dog that “you da man.”
The only way to persuade these sociopaths is to put a gun to their heads, and to pull the trigger the first time they break their word (which is about 10 minutes after you land in Washington).
JD, I am aware from your previous comments that reading ain’t your bag, but you can listen to Barrack say (as Karl noted) they are “tiny countries” in relation to the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and yet, he goes on to point out, we spoke with various Soviet leaders, including our brave Republican President at the time offering to completely rid the world of nuclear weapons (an offer rejected by his cabinet). Try reading (or youtube), it’s fundamental.
Meanwhile, Karl, this continual ax you grind vis a vis Obama is worrying to me. Are you going to be able to carry it for four years (or even eight!)? Constant negativity on the scale of attacking a popular movement everyday would seem to wear on one’s pysche (see Jeff Goldstein). I’ll grant you have all the tools of a Karl Rove, but as Illinois and the country trend more liberal and all you have is JD and the other sheep encouraging you, will you be able to keep it up for 4 years?
You’re already sliding off into a Grandpa Simpson “old man yells at cloud” irrelevancy. Four years is a long time to call the President a liar, parse his words and call him names, misrepresent his religious beliefs as Marxism, take John Boehner press releases and claim he hates allies, etc. You need to slow down a little. At this rate you and Sean Hannity will need a spa treatment and a skiing vacation by August. Ahh, a week without race-baiting and judging other religious faith and just parsing the words of the wait staff will recharge the hate for the convention! But, realistically, who wants to hang out with Hannity, who worships Ollie North and Mark Levin?
That’s your path, though. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll burnout and go do martial arts or stalk an ex-girlfriend on google or something.
P.S. Maybe, you should talk to some of the Kos folks about their “BDS”, because, my friend, you are seriously suffering from ODS.
lolcountries! “I can has nookular weppens?”
Oh come on there, Mr. Doyle! Where’s the bite? Where’s the sting? As a critique that was all fairly scathe-less. Granted it had length going for it, but very little style, and we won’t even talk about substance. I’d give it a 5/10 for length and effort (and the clever Simpson’s reference.) I’m sure you’ll improve with time and effort.
And my comment has been every bit as relevant to Karl’s well-thought post as yours.
John D. Boyle,
You’re already sliding off into a Grandpa Simpson “old man yells at cloud†irrelevancy. Four years is a long time to call the President a liar, parse his words and call him names, misrepresent his religious beliefs as Marxism, take John Boehner press releases and claim he hates allies, etc.
You should know best. The left did type of thing and worse to President Bush for 8 years, did it to Bush I for 4 years b4 that, and did it on a grand scale to Reagan for 8 years plus all the years until his death, at which time the left (who history proved wrong while proving Reagan correct) suddenly finds that Reagan was a great president after all.
If Obama wins, I certainly hope that the right can come close to matching the lying, hate, and vitriol that the left served up to President Bush for 8 years. After all, it would only be fair.
Senor Doyle – The day I take reading comprehension lessons from you is the day that I volunteer to take Thor’s position on the Baracky campaign as Fellator-in-Chief.
Ahh, a week without race-baiting and judging other religious faith and just parsing the words
You cannot just assert these things. Proof, you poofter. Proof. Hint. You do not have any.
BTW – Y’all are racists, homophobes, bigots, and sexists.
Dicentra nails it well here. For Obama to think he can treat with the likes of Ahmadinnerjacket, Chavez or the like he is either a Marxist sociopath like they are, or the biggest fool who ever drew the breath of life.
I well remember Clinton’s last-gasp attempt to get himself a legacy other than “President Blow Job” with that farce of a Camp David session involving Arafat and Barak. Barak (a Leftie dimbulb himself), with Clinton’s arm-twisting, was on the verge of giving Arafat everything he claimed he wanted (short of every Jew in Israel lining up with a big X painted on their chests and letting the PLO use them for target practice). But every time they offered Arafat another concession, even though they were things he’d been claiming for years he wanted, he kept saying no, that he had to have more.
They even got to the point where half of Jerusalem was about to be offered up to that rump-rangering raghead when Barak’s phone rang. It was the gang back in Tel Aviv asking what in the FUCK did he think he was doing? Clinton laid it on the table anyway, and Arafat said no, I’m done, I’m going home now, and as soon as he got back the intifada started up and it’s been going on ever since.
And these are the sorts that Baracky wants to “talk” to?
Huh, this works here too.
Shorter Doyle: KARL SUFFERS FROM ODS AND DOESN’T SEE THE HOPEY, SHINEY, CHANGEY, UNITY AND ITS A MOVEMENT THAT WILL CRUSH YOU AND YOURS SO LIGHTEN UP AND BUNNIES AND IT’S UNSTOPPABLE! JD IS TEH ILLITERATE ‘THUGLICAN HE DOESN’T EVEN WATCH SHINEY HOPEY ON U TUBE!
O! (noes)
In other words, Doyle, not an argument on the facts as presented to be found in your little misdirection. I know, pay no attention to the Chicago machine politician behind the curtain.
My comment #2 and Cavebear’s #15 refer to the same situation.
“John K. Doyle”; another idiot heard from. Will someone explain to him what “negoiating from a position of strenth” means. After he finishes his “Reading is FUNdamental” course, that is.
Hate to break it to you, Ace, but the sad simple difference between the KozKidz and their BDS and the people you find here is that the latter (such as Karl) actually have facts and logic to back up what they say about (in this case) Obama. Whereas people like you have your….Feeeeelings….and nothing else.
Better luck next time…:)
Comment by BJTexs on 5/20 @ 12:30 pm #
My comment #2 and Cavebear’s #15 refer to the same situation.
******************************
Quite so, BJT. I was just putting up my take on that particular situation.
JDD,
I am amused that you seem to find me obsessed with Obama, given how obsessed you seem to be with pw bloggers.
However, you don’t seem to read what gets written very carefully. For example, your point about Reagan is refuted in the initial post. Second, you seem to have missed my extensive, similarly negative coverage of Hillary Clinton here as well. And if you run a site search for my posts on McCain, they aren’t much better. Perhaps that speaks to an unhealthy obsession with Obama on your part. It’s called projection. Look into it.
[…] Protein Wisdom – A Barack Obama “tiny countries†update [Karl] […]
Cavebear: Gotcha!
Also it’s ambassador Dennis Ross, whose book The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace is highly recommended.
This is lending credence to the idea that the Democrat party is made up of completely stupid pod people.
Clones of stupid people.
Barry Obama: the first Affirmative Action Presidential candidate
What could Macedon do to the mighty Persian Empire? Oh, wait…
You know, when I first saw this headline, I thought it said “Barack Obama – Titty Countries Update”. I was immediately intrigued.
Titty countries? You mean getting improved relations with nations like Brazil? I’m in favor of that diplomatic initiative. But dissing Colombia kind of makes me wonder, considering what Colombian women look like…
(As they say at AoSHQ, I’ll be in my bunk – and then beg for forgiveness. It is always easier to get forgiveness than permission.)
but you can listen to Barrack
Snicker.
Might want to learn to spell the name of your Lord and Personal Savior, there, Doyle.
Try reading. It’s fundamental.
Heh.
JDD:
He’ll be in his Barrack.
…or vice versa, I can’t keep track.
Shorter Karl: I have enough hate to go around*
*At least for everybody to the left of me. of course,at last count that was everyone except Glen Reynolds (ooh, I’ve had a crush on him forever) and the 23 gobsmackers/PW regulars tittering with glee over my witticisms.
Well, Karl, good to see you’re in it for the long haul.
P.S. I hear “catch-and-release” is quite entertaining! Or you can call Greenwald a fag. Either is acceptable here in the right wing fever swamp.
You just nurture that hate, Mr.Doyle. I hear it helps keep you warm.