Joy! Because if anything should be clear to us it is how keenly concerned with our interests, rather than their own, are, say, Belgium or Iran.
From the WSJ:
President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy will focus on wooing longstanding U.S. adversaries while rebuilding alliances in Europe strained during the nearly eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Mr. Obama and his advisers are studying ways to engage Iran and Syria, countries that are viewed as central to American hopes for stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq and forging a broader Middle East peace.
President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers are looking at how to engage Iran and Syria, which are deemed critical to the U.S. goal of stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Obama camp also is developing plans to heal tensions between the U.S. and the broader Muslim world. Aides said Mr. Obama may make a major speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
Good for him. But short of signaling that he’s cutting bait with Israel, the gesture will be simultaneously showy but meaningless. If in fact Obama is a Christian convert, he is, the majority of truly faithful Muslims, a traitor — and so carries may actually make matters worse.
At any rate, I should think much of the tension from the conveniently-representative (and largely mythical) “Arab Street” has been eased by Iraq’s liberation — and by efforts on the part of the US to stay and finish the job in that country, something we did not do under Bush Sr. Similarly, in the wake of troop drawvdowns in Iraq, turning our efforts back to routing the Taliban in Afghanistan — where their leadership is already calling for a removal of US troops as a “gesture of peace” — will do more ease tensions than a lot of “engagement” with marginalized political parties given to stoning women in soccer stadiums.
And Obama, as a student and friend of Edward Said, should know that — should know, from the perspective of Said’s pernicious attempt to re-imagine the Enlightenment epistemological paradigm, that as an American Other he has no standing to presume to understand the Afghan culture, and that to attempt to intervene in the affairs of Afghans (particularly without recourse to the philosophical ideals of the Enlightenment) is a continuation of American cultural imperialism, and Obama the embodiment of the continuation of American hegemony.
President Bush’s philosophy is grounded firmly in Enlightenment epistemology; Obama, on the other hand, faces a struggle — particularly among his true believer in the progressive base — to balance a show of multicultural sensitivity with a desire to convince many of our enemies to surrender, through talk, some of the most dispositive markers of their national or religious identity.
And he has to do so without the requisite philosophical referent justifying the argument — that is, if he is to appease the leftwing academic types who have grown fat on Orientalism and post colonial theory.
Good luck on that.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama pledged to make a sharp break from the Bush administration’s interventionist and often unilateral approach to the world — an approach that was honed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The president-elect alluded to that pledge in his acceptance speech Tuesday night. “To all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world…a new dawn of American leadership is at hand,” he said.
Mr. Obama also has vowed to move beyond the Bush administration’s hostility toward the United Nations and other international bodies that stand to check U.S. power, such as the International Criminal Court.
Again, fine sentiments. But what is missing here is any acknowledgment that the “hostility” toward the UN has been entirely justified — and that the current design of that body has become a largely US-financed backdoor way to check American power in the selfish interests of countries who, to use Iraq as an example, were profiting from a business relationship with the now decomposing Hussein family.
Or to put it another way, it has become a largely American-subsidized check on American interests. Reforming the body, under threat of withdrawal of financing, would be the proper way forward. Instead, we will be essentially apologizing for such an attempt to demand that we refuse to finance a body that has proven to be largely interested in nothing more than hamstringing US power.
As for the I.C.C., any concession made to that body is a surrender of sovereignty and is Constitutionally unacceptable (and illegal). Americans should not be subjected to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats whose hostility toward the US hyperpower is born of their own countries’ impotence. The last thing we need are international show trials and US scapegoats offered up on the altar of transnational progressivism.
Sovereignty is not some antiquated notion. And we should never enter into any agreement that doesn’t provide “the rights and privileges contained in the U.S. Constitution and the American judicial system –including trial by jury. Nor will the United States participate in any international body that hinders the ability of the United States to protect its national security,” which the ICC would do by giving, say, Russia and China, as member of the UN Security Council, an essential veto power over our ability to defend ourselves as we see fit, with the consequences of non-compliance being that US action not sanctioned by that body would be deemed illegal, and “every U.S. official involved in the operation, up to and including the President, could be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced merely for protecting U.S. interests.”
[Obama] is likely to face myriad obstacles in his quest to reorient American foreign policy at a time of shifting global power centers, say U.S. diplomats and strategists. As a candidate, Mr. Obama applauded recent drives by the U.S. and its allies to use engagement and economic aid to end the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Those efforts have largely foundered, and the new president could face major proliferation crises in those nations during his first year, say Bush administration officials.
Obama advisers said in interviews during the campaign that engaging U.S. adversaries is important in part because the tactic shifts the onus for any failure onto the other side. “There’s no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed…but it strengthens your hands with other people” if it fails, said James Steinberg, a former Clinton administration official who has been touted as a possible national-security adviser under Mr. Obama.
Uh huh. But take that out of diplospeak, and here’s what you have, in plain terms: “it allows us to cover our asses in the event of some kind of aggressive attack. Of course, this requires that we be reactive, but hey — at least we’ll have some claim to the high ground among the “world community” with whose opinions we are now so very concerned.
Better to be popular and self-righteous than safe and despised by those who, had they our abilities to protect themselves, would not for a moment hesitate.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden warned during the campaign that foreign powers or terrorists could challenge the new president during his first months in office, a statement that defeated Republican Sen. John McCain tried to exploit. Among the fears are that Tehran could seek to provoke a standoff with the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf or that North Korea could test-fire missiles.
Stalled diplomacy could pressure Mr. Obama to pursue some of the same hard-line tactics as his predecessors. On the campaign trail, the senator regularly said he would leave “all options on the table” in confronting the nuclear ambitions of Iran. And Mr. Obama said he maintained the right to use unilateral military strikes to hunt down al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistan.
“Many people think that the Bush administration is leaving and it’s back to the good old days…but its problems were also a symptom of changes in the world,” Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the New York-based nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said before Tuesday’s vote. “Some things will change, but many won’t.”
Interestingly, my wife and I had this very conversation last evening: do progressives really believe that Obama, a man whose desire for power is a driving force, will surrender any of the power the Bush Administration wielded effectively to keep this country safe?
I tend to doubt it — and I look forward to the attacks on the Obama administration from outraged progressives and “conservative civil libertarians” like Glenn Greenwald(s) when Obama, fully briefed, determines that the system in place now has been effective enough to largely debilitate al Qaeda and prevent further attacks against US interests, and that he won’t be rolling back that power.
I don’t think for a minute he will — because if he does, he will immediately show himself to be a very dangerous choice for CiC, and I think his advisors realize such, and have been preparing the ground for his series of revelatory capitulations.
[…]
Mr. Bush had greater success building ties with Asian powers. Trade with China has surged during his two terms, and he sealed a nuclear deal with India. Some Asian countries are watching Mr. Obama with concern because he has expressed skepticism about free-trade agreements.
Just like Pat Buchanan!
Far left meets far right. The circle will remain unbroken.
Somewhere, Salvidor Dali denounces the surreal as hopelessly bourgeois…
(h/t Terry H)
Some things will change, but many won’t. But some will. Things will partially change is what I mean. Wait, no. I mean the parts where our foreign policy is tied to a narrow pursuit of our national interests, ok that will change is what I mean. All that democracy and freedom stuff, very much on the things that will change list. But there’s stuff that won’t change. The UN has nothing to worry about is what I mean.
Would you like a cup of tea?
Obama has way too much faith in his ability to talk.
Foreign heads of state generally frown on teleprompters in closed-door meetings.
Yeah, the Muslim world loves the liberation of Iraq. Is this satire or are you really this fucking stupid?
Straining European ties? They are moving just a little further to the [relative] right (Germany, France). Or are our strongest allies with a weak PM (UK).
Reaching out….. engaging… how about defending and kicking terrorist ass? The Man is weak… you can see it in his ears.
because we’ve never actually tried that before. CYA indeed, unless of course people that don’t like you decide it wasn’t enough.
apparently I’m still living in bizarro world, because I would swear we’ve “engaged” some of these countries before.
I know, I know, this time it will be different!
I still hold out what I call the “Hillary hope”. Barack Obama is a ruthless, Chicago-style politician. There is a lot he can do on the domestic front to bolster his base without affecting his power, in fact, he can increase it. On the foreign policy front? Not so much. Basically, Barack lied to his supporters about foreign policy stuff to get elected, and now, he is going to continue the grand presidential tradition, both Republican and Democrat, of asserting executive privilege against encroachments from the legislative branch. Also, he is going to realize that the American people as a whole are not going to take well to watching the President lower our status internationally by unilaterally giving in to tin-horn dictators. At the end of the day, to protect his own “legacy”, he is going to dress up Bush-like actions in pretty words and invade or attack. The difference is he will have the enthusiastic support of all the media, who will be cheering on the One.
Democrats own it all now. It will be fun to watch the gyrations as “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” becomes the new mantra for all but the Cindy Sheehan kookleft.
It promises to be an entertaining, albeit in a gallows humor sort of way, four years.
David
Well, I’m sure now that we’ve elected the first President of the World, diplomacy will be a TON more successful. PTL the world loves us again. Yea us!
So Josh is unable to differentiate between Muslims and AQ. Idiot.
I’m kinda hoping that an Obama presidency will bring an end to the over-, and mis-, use of the word “unilateral.”
Josh needs to turn on some of his emo music, and call his ex-girlfriend(the football team was just a fad).
Carin – Unilateral action is fine under Barcky, as we will all be united behind Teh One.
As a practical matter, how would this dirty little Socialist go about getting us under the purview of the ICC?
They’re all swarthy, JD. So what!
Dali rather celebrated the surreal — or the “paranoiac-critical”; it’s Dali — as hopelessly bourgeois. Because his delusions weren’t that one. So that’s a(n incredibly obscurely) bad example.
Unless you’re referring to Dali’s dismissals of the not-Dali things that wound up being officially ruled “surreal.” In which case — DON’T BE TROLLIN’ ME.
That’s not what happened. He lied about his position. Both of it.
Two days into the Reign of O!, two new names for his lying-ass ass’s lying-assness: “thoughtful curiosity” and “skepticism.”
Good times.
Here’s a prediction. Should we see (and we will) another attack even approaching the magnitude of 9/11 during the term of President Jesus, it will be followed by a series of executive orders and legislation limiting civil liberties that will make the Patriot Act look like a local “No Loitering” ordinance.
It appears that investors have already decided there is no pony in the manure pile.
Our only hope is that Barry’s over-developed ego is counter balanced by an acute self-awareness of his manifold limitations. That would let him move cautiously. However, if this is missing, and he surrounds himself with sycophants (as narcissists are wont to do), we will stumble from one crisis to another, never anticipating, never taking any action pro-actively.
I’m not sanguine about the prospects.
Good to see you, ‘feets: The other side of the beat-the-dirty-socialist coin is beating dirty socialisms. Like I’ve been saying, the S-word is finally on the table. And Biden was broken-clock right: Obama just inherited his worst nightmare, as egotists typically do. It’ll show soon enough.
Next up, dialogue on (1) stopping the fairness doctrine and thereby, (2) finally ending state managed school, medicine, welfare, speech, and thought.
As acted out by our new socialist masters (and many more before them) philosophy is religion. As far as I’m concerned, if a program ain’t national defense, it’s not constitutional.
lets rassle!
killer kowalski?
george the animal steel?
midget rasslin’
Aides said Mr. Obama may make a major speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
Tehran would be historic indeed. I’m sure they can guarantee his security with a massive advance roundup of “dissidents.”
psycho, thanks for reminding me of the two days. The stock market is down again as of 11:32am CST, and there better be a g*ddamn welfare check in my mailbox when I get home.
Also, where’s my cookie bouquet from the “international community,” congratulating me on the U.S. rejoining the world’s enlightened souls?
EPIC FAILURE, O!
Anything O! does in regard to foreign policy, and fails, can easily be blamed on George Bush. His excuse will be that Chimpy McKatrinaburton fucked things up so bad, that unilateral action was the only option left.
February 1, 2009if not sooner, will be a bitchlist of all that George Bush did wrong, innoculating O! for any future mistakes foreign or domestic, he may make. The only possible way that O! will be able to fix all the problems that exist, is to grant him a second term.
george the animal washington. The dude stood thirteen foot eleven or something.
And that was besides all the now decades-dead eloquence.
Josh really needs to read some books. Start with Bernard Lewis, then work your way through Charles Allen, Robin Wright and Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon. Finish up with one or two from Robert Spencer.
Come back and post again after all that.
The Papers of George Washington.
The Papers of Barack Obama.
Given the gravity of the American Presidency, good thing only one of them lived in times of great national peril.
You forgot Chief Jay Stongbow, and hailing from parts unknown, the Executioner! Sorry for the poor grammar in my last post. I was too busy yelling at Skip Bayless on ESPN.
Save for one very, very big thing here, my advice is to keep our outrage in check and the powder dry.
if all the “pretty girls” abroad want to snuggle up to us now that Obama is POTUS fine…some might even bring some frankensense and myrrh.
and if he wants to talk a little sexy to them to get their transnational progressive hearts fluttery….eh.
that’s politics.
one thing we forget is how important rhetoric is to these international leader sorts; they could give an absolute shit less about most deeds and action, as long as it’s done on the down low. The precise opposite of how most Americans think.
The ICC though–that’s the bridge too far. I know some Clinton-era Dems, from the Richard Clarke set, who thought it was an absolute horsehit idea then. It hasnt aged well.
I think this is a trial balloon.
It would be awful politics and the greatest gift to the right since Clinton’s healthcare buffoonery in 93.
Think: A social conservative coming in and on his first day trying to overturn Roe V Wade…the stuff of some RW wet dreams, but guaranteed to set up a Stalingrad like 4 yr battle with the left. Ceaseless, remorseless.
then again, in 93, there were republicans who could make life hard on Clinton. Obama has little to worry about on that front.
Reactionary leftists:
Breathtaking naiveté concerning the world’s realities or cynical hatred of America?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The political and religious establishment in other Arab countries certainly do not love the liberation of Iraq, because they are deeply threatened by it. How can you be so blind/obtuse/partisan not to recognize the obvious, Josh?
It will be a fun 4 years throwing the chicken hawk argument right back at em.
“So when you signing up under Sergeant O! to go kick some terrorists ass”
I dunno, JHoward. Opposing the doctrine of Fairness would put us foursquare on the side of Unfairness. People are watching us closely for that sort of thinking. Sounds awfully reactionary to me I think.
It’s interesting to watch the Arab countries maneuver in times of uncertainty, particularly Saudi Arabia. SA has announced it will be “giving” Pakistan $4 billion, and a year’s supply of oil, payments deferred, to fend off a Pakistani financial crisis.
Just spreading the wealth, I guess.
Maybe somebody should actually propose an Unfairness Doctrine. The spectacular reaction from the Obama campaign and the media (but I repeat myself) would be pretty damned entertaining.
JBean: The Saudis have an enormous investment in Pakistan because of the thousands of mosques and madrassa schools they have built since the mid seventies, the last time Pakistan went bust under the late Bhutto’s utterly corrupt and clueless father. We can thank him for the complete collapse of the state educational system which allowed the the Saudis to build all of those Wahhabi institutions of hate and jihad. It certainly has made the world a better and safer place n’est pas?
Four billion and a year’s worth deferred payment oil is chump change considering the size of that historical investment, both economic and religious.
I hope Josh is paying attention.
Listening to weasel faced Chuckie Shumer talk about the Fairness Doctrine caused my skull to shrink.
It was very unpleasant.
Chuck U. Schumer is a Fascist in all but name.
“Dissent” in the Age of Obama is no longer “the highest form of Patriotism”, but surely “racist” and probably criminal.
Somebody needs to tell Obama that these are the bad guys. The only kind of engagement they’re are going to understand involves bombs and missles.
If Obama was 1936 president-elect, I’m sure he would be looking for new ways to engage Germany and Italy.
My biggest complaint with Obama and his legion of foreign policy advisers is the one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to diplomacy and it’s application. It reminds me of the proper mocking that John Kerry got in 2004 when he suggested that the first thing he was going to do as President was call for a peace summit in the Middle East.
Both Obama and his advisers seem to be stuck in a meme that only the aggresive application of diplomacy solve everything and only high level, without preconditions diplomacy has any validity. Part of this misguided view had to be lodged in the assumption that Religious Jihadist Radicals have legitimate historical complaints with the US similar to the template grievances of other “social justice” left-outs: Economic imperialism, cultural hegemony, power resentment, Israel, etc.
It is a fallacy. Those groups have their own, insular, non-state understanding of their grievances and they are based upon the narrowly radical reading of their scripture and their white hot belief in the ascendancy of their religion. It is not like other types of diplomacy, not even like North Vietnam, who never bargained in good faith. These extremists believe in only two things when it comes to diplomacy: either it is a sign of weakness or it is a convenient lever to buy time until they are strong enough to continue the jihad.
I’m deeply concerned that neither Obama or the bulk of his advisers understand this critical difference with traditional diplomacy.
Just for Jughead:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/11/eusi/ho_1987.465.htm#
BJTexs —
The Saudis have an enormous investment in Pakistan because of the thousands of mosques and madrassa schools they have built since the mid seventies, the last time Pakistan went bust under the late Bhutto’s utterly corrupt and clueless father.
Wahabbism is a major Saudi export, but it’s not entirely driven by religious fervor, considering that their Shia neighbor across the Persian Gulf is in a financial world of hurt right now. Add to that the uncertain future stability of their land neighbor, Iraq under the coming US administration, and the opportunities Iran and her minions in Syria might exploit.
But it is certainly hopeful that Barack thinks yet another “major speech” will change the course of history in the middle east. Hope.
Obama has way too much faith in his ability to talk.
Ya think? He didn’t seem to get that Khrushchev beat Kennedy to a bloody pulp in Vienna. But then, he is a product of public education. Shewt, I didn’t even know about it until this year.
Obama got where he is on his glib charm. He honestly believes that he can charm his enemies into submission. Because, after all, they only hate us because we weren’t culturally sensitive enough. A little well-placed genuflection is all it takes.
Our only hope is that Barry’s over-developed ego is counter balanced by an acute self-awareness of his manifold limitations.
Not a chance. The hallmark of narcissists is that they have absolutely no capacity for self-awareness or self-evaluation. They are always the innocent party while all around them are to blame.
My guess is that he’ll blame Sarah Palin. She dragged down the McCain ticket, after all.
Next up, dialogue on (1) stopping the fairness doctrine
I have to agree with Ric Locke on this:
Oh, BTW, Jeff. Love the little PW in the URL line. It’s about time you got one.
It’s his favicon, ya might say.
A little well-placed genuflection is all it takes.
It sounds like Yugo Chavez is engaging in foreplay.
“It will be a fun 4 years throwing the chicken hawk argument right back at em.”
Hell, I want to know when all these Silicon Valley multimillionaires are going to renounce their high-falutin’ jobs and go into “public service.” For $25K a year or so.
Damn chickencommunity activists.
We are freaking doomed.
Oh well, back to that 1.75 liter of Beam.
Snark taken.
Which goes to the point of the post directly above this one, I think. When the law is about to become the biggest ass in American history, it’s good and natural to go outlaw; it was the genesis of the country. The asymmetry of the political wheel calls for it — defending normal and right and good while arguing with lunacy on its terms is less than counter-productive. Now that the left also writes the PC and institutional bias that got us in this pickle, who needs it.
“…and we’re not gonna stand here and listen to you BAD-MOUTH the USA!”
An ally is someone you aid, and trust to come to your aid.
An adversary is somebody you tell to knock it off once, then you shoot them in the head if they don’t stop.
Which of the two above statements reflect MY opinion, and which one is Chicago political SOP?
defending normal and right and good while arguing with lunacy on its terms is less than counter-productive.
Very well put 6gun…you fucking OUTLAW YOU!!!!
Obama got where he is on his glib charm. He honestly believes that he can charm his enemies into submission.
Meanwhile, Putin and Ahmadinejad are putting their orders in for a nice chianti and some fava beans.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/200811620411903196.html
That’s sweet BMoe. Tehran offered Congratulations to an American President elect for the first time since the 1979 revolution.
There’s a tear rolling down my cheek.
He is a giver, lee.
Jeff wrote:
“[D]o progressives really believe that Obama, a man whose desire for power is a driving force, will surrender any of the power the Bush Administration wielded effectively to keep this country safe?”
The answer to this question is not so cut and dried. If you think that progressives resent attacks on our country in the same way that declared Republicans do, then your analysis is correct. Obama will maintain Bush’s array of defenses.
But, if you’ll allow that most progressives do not value the bounded republican nation-state, nor the accountability and personal responsibility inherent in individualist Western societies, and may actually sympathize with the perpetrators of domestic terrorist attacks, then your confidence in your analysis should wane.
I expect Obama to fiddle stealthily with Bush’s systems in a way that weakens them, cum Jamie Gorelick’s law-enforcement fire-wall.
“SA has announced it will be “giving†Pakistan $4 billion, and a year’s supply of oil, payments deferred, to fend off a Pakistani financial crisis.”
I read at ADVFN’s financial site that Russia is exercising its metals-cartel powers by cutting its production of key ores, TLTL (too lazy to link).
Should we be surprised that the same cartels that tried to jack us around during Carter’s years might be planning to take a second swing at us? Especially now that we’ve let our own environmentalists pull our pants down around our ankles, and the minerals-cartels, including oil’s, have got our figurative heads locked tightly under their sweaty armpits?
Somehow, we’ve put ourselves in a seriously compromised position. Maybe we shouldn’t have drank that dude’s GHB drink at “Club America” last night, huh?
I know, I know. It was fizzy, and… But…you know.
“…could be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced merely for protecting U.S. interests.”
And don’t forget imprisoned. But where? Hey, why not a rotating obligation, the way that say, chairing the Human Rights Council is rotated among such notable exemplary nations as Saudi Arabia? Wouldn’t that be delish? American politicos, arrested in American for protecting American interests, tried, convicted and sentenced in Holland, and imprisoned in SA? Is that a crazy idea?
Call it the “Top to Bottom Doctrine”:
“Whereas BOE (Before the One’s Era) US policy was to penetrate other nations militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically, US policy will henceforth pull out of it’s foreign military etc. obligations, turning around (so to speak) to allow the penetration of trans-national bureaucracy.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Too much?