MyDD :: UPDATED - Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy)

UPDATED - Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy)

by Falsehood, Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST

This is the first in a series of diaries comparing the positions of McCain and Obama, and their implications upon ascending to the Presidency.

One of the more measurable impacts of the Bush presidency has been the decreased standing of the United States in the world. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the two superpowers that had largely defined world politics became a single superpower left to enjoy its victory, along with a 10 year period of economic expansion.

The 1990s saw a United States that went on to play policeman, in a sense. Military spending continued to be huge (about 46% of all military dollars in 2006 were spent by us) We took back Kuwait and established the Iraqi "No Fly Zones." Other countries the US became involved in included Macedonia, Kovovo, Haiti, and Bosnia.

During this time, it was conservatives who provided the voice against some of the military intervention. John McCain had two statements that came up this year (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/26/mcca in-somalia-haiti/), but here are a few other quotes: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/ 161016/461)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Sound Familiar?

By and large, these conflicts involved few threats to the United States directly. Instead, the United States acted to protect Democracy (Haiti), help refugees (Kosovo), and to stop civilian massacres (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The US, as far as I can tell, enjoyed international support for its work - many of these conflicts actually involved NATO, and not the US acting unilaterally. The US also worried about terrorism and international drugs shipments.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Bush spoke on how the United States shouldn't be involved in Nation Building or imposing its will nationally. In this sense, Bush advocated a more Isolationist foriegn policy.

It is unclear, but probable, that Bush always intended to invade Iraq - this is the assertion of Paul O'Neil, his first Treasury Secretary. Regardless, 9/11 vastly changed the foreign policy equation - the United States was hit in a major city with a coordinated terrorist attack.

Other accounts have made it more clear that Bush was always set on using 9/1 to go after Iraq. The first action, however, was to invade Afghanistan, following the new Bush Doctrine of "Not distinguishing between terrorists and those who harbor them." The US did this with broad international approval.

Next, as w e all know, came the invasion of Iraq. This was done without international approval, and viewed by many as a preemptive war, especially since the case made (WMDs) ending up being completely debunked. Colin Powell's UN presentation is now an embarrassment to the former Secretary of State, and I don't need t go into a huge amount of detail in regards to Iraq.

The two choices offered now provide very different ideas on Foreign Policy, which is largely encompassed by the Iraq question: do we stay and ensure Iraq's long term stability, or do we withdraw? Complicating this is the idea that by withdrawing, we will actually move Iraq's security farther ahead than could be done by staying.

Obama offers what I believe to be the right choice, but another benefit. His election and international roots would be the single greatest act to restore America's moral standing in the world. Make no mistake, the world is watching this election: Obama's win in Iowa made major headlines across Germany, where I was passing though an airport at the time.

His presidency will be seen as a repudiation of Bush's policies, and will assist our "Soft power."

It is this diarist's opinion that Soft Power represents our greatest defense against Terrorism. Our actions in the middle east have killed many, many civilians, which has left many in the middle east unhappy with this country. However, when we make ourselves the unequivocal good guys, we can inspire citizens across the world to report suspicious activity or terrorists, instead of giving them shelter and aid.

Furthermore, the leaders of Terrorist organizations will lose an asset - suicide bombers - as our soft power increases. Without people who are willing to destroy themselves, Suicide bombings will slow.

Obama gives us a chance to stop going alone in the world, whereas McCain embraces that role. Under Obama, the US will be stronger. That's worth a vote in my book.

Other Links:
http://slate.msn.com/id/27730/ (Conservatives on Kosovo and more)
http://zfacts.com/p/136.html (Bush on Nation Building)

Update [2008-7-17 21:41:9 by Falsehood]: One more article here on foreign policy, penned by Obama. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Tags: Why Obama, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (none / 0)

The interesting thing is that Obama isn't just a 'soft power' advocate, and his experience in foreign affairs, in spite of the inaccurate 'naïve and irresponsible' narrative which has been hung on his foreign policy strategy, speaks of a 'realist' approach which avoids the long-standing division among Democrats of 'hawk' or 'dove' which is largely responsible for the perception that Democrats are often weak on national security. Obama is neither:

In 1981, Obama arrived at Columbia University, where he majored in international relations. He wrote his senior thesis on the North-South debate on trade then raging as part of the demand for a "new international economic order." But he says that he was never much of a lefty. Obama offers himself as the representative of a new generation, free of the dogmas that still burden the Democratic Party. "The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam," he said to me on the campaign plane, "which means that either you're a Scoop Jackson Democrat or you're a Tom Hayden Democrat and you're suspicious of any military action. And that's just not my framework."

[...] The foreign-policy figures whom he finds "most compelling," he says, are the archrealists who shaped policy during the cold war, including the secretaries of state George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson and the diplomat-scholar George F. Kennan. "What impresses me is not just the specifics of what they did," he said, "but the approach they took to solve the problem, which is, if we have assets or tools to deal with foreign policy, we know that the most costly is the military tool, particularly in a nuclear era, so we want to apply all the other tools that are less costly." Obama said that he also admired the worldly pragmatists who served the first George Bush, including Brent Scowcroft, the national-security adviser: "The whole Bush team, I think, was not entirely aware of the opportunities of this new world, but they had a very clear-eyed assessment." He has sought out the former secretary of state Colin Powell for counsel, and spoken with Scowcroft as well.

James Traub - NYT Sunday Magazine 4 Nov 07

Obama is attempting to define a new path for our foreign policy and for the Democratic party which is neither pacifist nor interventionist, which balances hard and soft power and calls for the use of either in appropriate circumstances. This goes a long way to explain the apparent contradictions of his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile states with no precondition but his insistence that the US would find it necessary to go after al-Qaeda unilaterally if our Pakistani allies were unwilling or unable to do so. He has proposed a reduction in the nuclear stockpile which would be welcomed by other 'great powers' at the same time as building up our conventional military forces whose capabilities have been eroded by the attrition of operational duty and neglect. These seem contradictory only because we are accustomed to defining our Democratic candidates on foreign policy in traditional and limiting roles.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:54:59 PM EST

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (2.00 / 1)

" Complicating this is the idea that by withdrawing, we will actually move Iraq's security farther ahead than could be done by staying "

- that really doesn't make much sense to me.

I realize Obama says that , and quite a few national democrats , I think even Clinton .

But it really never made much sense.

That was the case a lot of these folks were making even prior to the surge , if that position had been carried out I believe Iraq would be hell in a hand basket right now compared to what it is.

I haven't seen any logical explanation for the position.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:03:32 PM EST

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (none / 0)

This is probably predicated on the notion that our continued presence has a destabilising influence, partially due to the attraction it provides to 'fighters' against the US occupation, both foreign and indigenous, and more currently the perception that it undermines the authority of the Iraqi government on the grounds of political autonomy from an occupying power.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (2.00 / 1)

That assumes the only reason there is violence in that country is because of the US presence if that position was to be considered seriously on its merits.

Most reports I have read notes the violence there is perpetrated by different groups for different reasons .

Some groups even hate the Shiite led government more than they hate the Occupation .

Infact a lot of the violence has gone down as of now precisely because of the presence of more US forces and the various alliances we have made with some of these groups.

So the notion that if we withdraw or had withdrawn some how the security situation would have been better seems like an ideological position to me rather than one based in reality .

After a while both of our candidates actually stopped making that case , because the surge has proved it to be a misnomer .

It is important to point out that quite a few democrats had been pointing this out well before the surge and I always thought it made very little sense .Maybe borne out of a desire to find a way out of Iraq in the chaos after the surge.

I don't think that case can be made now.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (2.00 / 1)

I would think a better metric would be the readiness of the iraqi military/police apparatus in terms of containing security .

Most people would say the earliest time they could be ready to take over security is 2009 , so if thats the case coupled with the fact that all these groups are fighting for different reasons and often at cross purposes , how would the withdrawal of the troops all the way back in 05 as some folks were advocating for would the iraqi apparatus would have been ready to contain the violence or the security be better off ?

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (none / 0)

As for 2005, those metrics to which you refer were exactly the criteria on which a scheduled withdrawal was predicated. And for now the 2009 timeline fits neatly within the proposed sixteen months. Things are actually converging towards Obama's long-standing position. What's the problem with that?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (none / 0)

I never suggested it was the only cause of violence in Iraq, but it certainly seems a reasonable cause for most of the foreign fighter actions we have seen in the past. As you point out there is a wide variety of motivations for sectarian violence in Iraq, past and present, and that is just one of them.

As I indicated currently the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and factional jockeying among Shi'ites seems to be the significant friction point for conflict, never mind the continuation of Sunni/Shi'ite rivalry on sectarian grounds. In that context the continued occupation is perceived as undermining the legitimacy of the current leadership, which probably explains their recent manoeuvre of resisting a strategic forces agreement and stating a position which seeks to negotiate a scheduled withdrawal of US forces. On this point all Shi'ite factions, including Sistani, apparently agree.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama? (On Foreign Policy) (none / 0)

The argument here is that we're acting as a crutch to the Iraqi Gov't, and that our continued presence allows the politicians to delay instead of making the necessary deals.

A timetable/closed commitment allows for pressure on the various factions within Iraq.

by Falsehood on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Personally, I just like the fact that Obama probably won't bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Good enough for me. ;)

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:52:53 PM EST

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (2.00 / 1)

You realize that was a joke , right ?

On a substantial level what was/is the difference between John Mccain's position on Iran and the candidate you supported in the primary Hillary Rodham Clinton ?

I don't see much difference in their approach , except she emphasizes a little more diplomacy than he does.

Outside of that they actually hold similar views on Iran.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was an inappropriate joke, (none / 0)

much like his joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes. Oh, and that Janet Reno/Chelsea Clinton joke. Ha. I disapproved of Hillary's saber-rattling on Iran. However, her domestic platforms were better than Obama's, and Obama's are better than McCain's. That whole pulling out of Iraq thing is a good idea, too -- Hillary and Obama are both for that.

I think McCain's sense of humor is disturbing. I take it you don't, which is rather interesting.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was an inappropriate joke, (none / 0)

" I think McCain's sense of humor is disturbing. I take it you don't, which is rather interesting. "

- have met folks with much more bizarre sense of humor.

Sure I agree some of his " jokes " are inappropriate but it doesn't factor much at all in terms of my vote .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was an inappropriate joke, (none / 0)

have met folks with much more bizarre sense of humor

Are they running for president?

Sure I agree some of his " jokes " are inappropriate but it doesn't factor much at all in terms of my vote

I can't imagine what does factor in, lori, if it isn't policy. That's what I vote on, unless all other things are relatively equal.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was an inappropriate joke, (none / 0)

I don't get your last point , are you making the point that policy issues carry more weight in your decision as per your vote , if thats the case then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I am not sure what your point was in your last statement .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

You seem to defend McCain a lot. I wondered why you so frequently give him the benefit of the doubt. If you vote primarily on policy, as I do, then we'll probably be casting the same votes in November. If that's the case, I don't see why you feel the need to have McCain's back when he makes tasteless jokes. Some of his sexist jokes, in particular, reflect an underlying mentality which I find disconcerting.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

Oh I see your point .

" If you vote primarily on policy, as I do, then we'll probably be casting the same votes in November."

- Wrong .

I am on the conservative side of the ideological spectrum and hence I find myself more in agreement with a lot of what Mccain says on a lot of issues important to me from guns , fiscal restraint , fiscal responsibility , Iran , Iraq , spending cuts , balanced budgets , etc. On Immigration he is not tough enough for me , especially on border security , we have to have a more secure border before we think of granting any form of pathway to citizenship .

On cultural issues pledge of allegiance , the flag pin issue I am more in line with Mccain.

So if I was voting on policy " alone " I would more likely vote for Mccain , Obama is on the liberal side while I am on the conservative side and I am suspicious of liberal politician especially on policy issues.

That said I am from a family of Reagan democrats ( military family ) , if you come to a thanksgiving dinner with me , you would think Reagan was coming to the dinner with the conversation , I have always made the point that if Mccain was the nominee for the republicans this was as far back as months before Iowa caucuses on this blog , even all the while he was being buried , if he went up against Clinton it would be a tough one for me because those are two candidates I admire .

Of Course I would have voted for Clinton in the end but I would have found myself on both sides during the fight ,during the NH primary I was rooting for Clinton while my other folks were rooting for Mccain.

I have followed his career both in the military and the political scene for a long time now and that won't change.

That said he is wrong on choice and Obama is right on that , hence the election is only going to get more interesting for me.

I'll admit I don't know who I would vote for and probably won't until election night , I want to see how the election plays out.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That certainly clarifies things. (none / 0)

I think I disagree with you on almost all of those issues, except for choice; if you're not a one-issue voter (which you clearly aren't), then I'm not sure why anyone with your beliefs would ever choose a Democrat over a Republican at this point in time.

The flag pin issue is incredibly silly, IMO. I can't imagine why it matters.

There's no question that McCain is a hero. He served his country proudly. My admiration for what he did in the war is enormous, but it stops there. There are other aspects of his character which I find troubling, to say the least. Of course, I'm sure you feel the same way about Obama -- I know you strongly disapproved of TUCC.

I hope Obama can ultimately win your vote.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That certainly clarifies things. (none / 0)

" I think I disagree with you on almost all of those issues, except for choice; if you're not a one-issue voter (which you clearly aren't), then I'm not sure why anyone with your beliefs would ever choose a Democrat over a Republican at this point in time. "

- Believe me I am not in the minority in Tennessee or in dixie.

I have never been a one issue voter especially on the presidential level because it is not an uncommon practice to split tickets in these parts . Gore didn't win here his homestate , talk less of a democrat with liberal positions like Obama.

That said I have a favorable opinion of Obama , I just disagree with a lot of his positions and this could most likely be the year I become a one issue voter because I know the balance of the court is going to shift one way or the other and I don't negotiate or compromise on the issue of choice.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (2.00 / 1)

Concerning these issues that are important to you...

fiscal restraint , fiscal responsibility , Iran , Iraq , spending cuts , balanced budgets

With all due respect lori, how can you propose fiscal restraint, fiscal responsibility, spending cuts and a balanced budget and then mention continuing the war in Iraq (and the one Afghanistan) and a possible war in Iran which currently runs the US $10 billion/month? Sounds like a oxymoron to me...I don't see how you can have both.

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

I don't think I have advocated for a war with Iran ...

A successful conclusion to both wars are pretty important to me and would take precedence over the deficit as far as I am concerned.

I was just trying to illustrate a point in terms of where I am ideologically.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

Since McCain or Bush can't do it, maybe you can help them out and our country. Define success in Iraq and Afghanistan please.

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

A stable representative government that is able to defend itself and control its territory , is an ally of the west against issues of Terrorism and Nuclear proliferation and is not threatening to its neighbors i.e. Israel..

I believe these are achievable goals and in fact I think if we continue on our present course we are on the path.

If the politics of the war can be taken out of it , these are achievable goals , things are looking a lot brighter now than prior to the surge in our military forces and Gen . Peatreaus.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

Geez, most of the Middle Eastern countries are less than stable and have been that way for decades due to ideology. The problem is we are trying to force our type of government (Democracy) on countries whose religion dictates their policies. We are attempting to undo centuries of culture and religion by promoting and insisting on our policies. It doesn't work that way...Many Middle Eastners have and will continue to view our way of life as sinful and will continue to fight (to the death) to avoid it from coming to their countries.

I'm not arguing that the surge hasn't worked militarily, but it has done nothing politically in the region. Our occupation of the country will do nothing in terms of uniting the factions of Iraq. Right now we are only there to deter violence. They need to figure it out for themselves, even if it requires a civil war.

I'm tired of losing our men and women over there.

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

I don't think we have much political capital in Iraq now to enforce any form of our government on them .

The way I see it the most leverage we have is on the military front and in essence the surge was to create a safe security situation to allow them to sort out and work out their political differences and fashion out their political framework which they seem to be or not be doing in their own way .

The Bush administration definitely doesn't have much capital as can be seen in the collapse of the status of force agreement.

I think at the end of the day we are going to continue helping build up the security apparatus and continue helping keep the security under control while transitioning to a longer term presence with a changed mission overtime.

Of course stability doesn't mean there won't be incidences of violence , but not on the level of prior years.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:52:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was just wondering what you voted on. (none / 0)

I'm starting to wonder if the essential difference between Obama and McCain on Iraq might be this: McCain will be willing to spend $100 billion a year so the US can have long-term bases in Iraq; Obama will be willing to spend $100 billion so the US can withdraw w/o the country blowing up.

I don't think it's at all clear now that Iraq isn't headed for some sort of dictatorship (and here's the big problem, I have real doubts Maliki will be able to win reelection next year, or that Iraq, for that matter, will be able to create a new government with the constitution now in place).

And if something like that happens, whether the US stays or goes will probably depend upon what label the next president wants to put on these developments.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Isn't it interesting that the Bush administration has quietly dropped it's 'preconditions' criteria for diplomatic talks with Iran? I wonder whose idea that was, back when Hillary framed it as 'naïve and irresponsible?':

It may be too early to proclaim an end to the "Cheney era", but Washington's decision to participate in Saturday's nuclear talks with Iran and send diplomats back to Tehran is a very significant shift. It marks a nadir for the gun-toting neoconservatives who dominated the first Bush term and for their unofficial champion, vice-president Dick Cheney, the stealthy advice-giver also known as "whispering grass".

Simon Tisdall - Taming the hawk The Guardian 17 Jul 08

That marks the third foreign policy position of Obama's to which the Republicans, and others, have pivoted, including unilateral response to 'actionable intelligence' in Pakistan and reinforcing the US mission in Afghanistan. Yet you persist in seeing him as an 'empty suit' on foreign policy. Looks a lot more like 'ahead of the curve' to me, and not only that, he has influenced US foreign policy by merely campaigning innovate positions on the subject. Imagine what he might actually accomplish in government.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

The disagreement was over speaking directly to iran without preconditions on the " presidential level " , it was really never about direct diplomacy , at least not on Clinton's part.

Obama stuck to that position all thrrough the primary even after that , but i gather his position on direct diplomacy on the presidential level has now become muddled .

I am for as much direct diplomacy we can get with Iran without preconditions on the cabinet level , just not on the presidential level like Obama has suggested.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Wasn't it? Wasn't it about the long-standing policy of the Bush administration to punish Iran by refusing any talks unless they abandoned their uranium enrichment program, by any reasonable estimation a possible outcome of talks. And now this policy has been quietly and suddenly abandoned? I think you may have missed the point in all of the polemic criticism of Obama's original position which was largely political theatre for the electorate rather than about sober policy.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

In terms of the debate between Clinton and Obama , it was about direct diplomacy on the presidential level.

Obama took this position until recently .

i.e. he was the only major candidate that was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad as president without preconditions.

Clinton was always criticizing the Bush administration for not engaging in direct diplomacy with the Iranian's without preconditions , however she was unequivocal in her position to avoid that on a presidential level.

I am still not sure what Obama is advocating ,

Is he going to meet one on one as president without preconditions with dictators like Ahmadinejad.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (2.00 / 1)

His comment was directly addressing the Bush policy of denying diplomatic contact at any level without certain 'preconditions' being met. You are reiterating Hillary's campaign's framing in this case, but never mind. And he never mentioned Ahmadinejad, you should know by now that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei is the head-of-state of IRan and is the person with whom Putin, who participated in direct head-of-state negotiations with Iran last year, met. Ahmadinejad is a 'made man,' the presidency in Iran is largely a ceremonial post and there is plenty of evidence that he was placed there as a thorn in Bush's side and a sop to the domestic nationalists in Iran. He has been specifically associated with Iran's nuclear program so that if the real leadership chooses to change course he can be dismissed and along with this adversarial position. This is chess, Lori, not checkers:

The Iranian president is much criticised for his perceived mishandling of the economy amid continuing high unemployment, price rises and unchecked corruption. Additional EU sanctions against Iran's biggest bank, Bank Melli, and the decision by the French energy company, Total, to pull out of a giant gas field joint venture were serious, unexpected blows. They brought home the rising cost of the nuclear standoff.
Coincidentally or not, a series of positive statements about prospects for the nuclear talks in Geneva, notably from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, and Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister, have followed. Tehran newspapers also reported that Iran was considering changing its definition of uranium enrichment suspension to facilitate a face-saving agreement.

Simon Tisdall - Taming the hawk The Guardian 17 Jul 08

Do you see exactly that point in the above citation?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Putin has met with almost every leader in Iran , he regularly meets and hold hands with Ahmadinejad , Russia has pretty much a cordial relationship with Iran and I get the sense they would very much be willing to live with a nuclear armed Iran , China is in the same boat .

As long as politicians running for president on both sides of the spectrum agree that Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons , Russia is not a model to follow.

That said Obama has held the position of being willing to meet with these dictators without preconditions as president , if he is trying to change that now , it might be as part of the shift to the center , however to argue he never held that position is a revision of history .

I have been arguing for months now that , it is an irresponsible position.

Regardless of whoever he wants to meet in Iran , I don't regard it as a responsible policy to meet at the presidential level without some conditions being met . Cabinet level members can meet with one faction or the other , even Ahmadinejad but not the president .

I do not think the moderates in Iran have divergent views on the nuclear thing as it relates to the hardliners, they seem to be pretty much on the same page , thats why I don't see the " palestine approach " as a viable one in Iran especially on the nuclear issue in terms of meeting one on one with the president . I actually think it would serve to undermine the goals and allies in europe

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (2.00 / 1)

Well, as much as I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in depth I disagree, and I cite our nuanced change in approach as evidence in support. Russia is doing no more or less than we and Japan have done in North Korea in the past and they are no more comfortable with a nuclear weapon capable Iran than we are. You realise they are supplying the fuel for the reactor Iran is building in Bushehr with the IAEA's tacit blessing?

And what is his change now?:

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

Senator Obama - A New Strategy for a New World 15 Jul 08

Same stand, same position. Any confusion on this point seems wilfully self-inflicted.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Sure , we have both being discussing these things respectfully for a long time .

I appreciate that .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Ditto, and given the environment you describe as your background I admire your perseverance. Of all the votes I have courted on foreign policy issues this cycle yours would be the most satisfying to bring on board. Cheers.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (2.00 / 1)

I don't get how meeting with a leader of a dangerous country makes the US less safe...Someone please explain that to me. Seems like when Dubya adopted his policy of drawing the line in the sand that he made no progress. He then waged a preemptive war against Iraq (Axis of Evil) and found nothing, then he decided to renege on his "no-discussions unless you..." stance with North Korea (Axis of Evil) in which he took them off the list, and finally on Iran (Axis of Evil) he seems to be encouraging talks...Sounds like he has found out talking to your enemies is more productive than blowing them up.

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent diary, recommended. (none / 0)

Did you really need to bring this up?

by Falsehood on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is Obama's foreign policy? (none / 0)

The diary doesn't say, and while Bush was much too bellicose, I don't think we should swing too far back the other way.

Hugo Chavez is eager to amass more power and needs to be kept in check. Islamic extremism (as opposed to Islamic moderation) remains a threat and must be contained so we don't have things blow up in our face.

The soft power potential in a president Obama is there, but his face and his name and his background can only carry us so far. What are his thoughts, his views? What has he said about Mugabe? Why was he meddling in a Kenyan election on behalf of a candidate who wanted to impose Sharia law, which curtailed the rights of girls to educate themselves? What are his thoughts of Russians backsliding from the democracy they were so close to becoming? What are his views on Canada's anti-free speech laws now imprisoning people who deny the Holocaust?

I'd like to see Obama pressed on this, because if he has a coherent view on human rights by November and I am convinced he can handle the job, he will get my vote. But if nobody presses him on it, his foreign policy will remain a mystery, and I'll be forced to vote for McCain, who is an improvement over Bush.

by catfish2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST

Re: What is Obama's foreign policy? (none / 0)

Chavez is as much an opportunity as a threat. Jihadism is more effectively contained by engagement with sovereign powers than military operations, at least as far as Pakistan is concerned, which is where the threat emanates. The position you attribute to him in Africa is apocryphal. Our relationship with Russia is adversarial to no good purpose at present, given the ructions among our erstwhile allies over the missile shield and Russia's consequent engagement with Iran.

Obama has just committed to a $2B investment in repatriation of Iraqi refugees as part of his broad solution to the region, I am sure if you look closely you will find ample evidence of his human rights commitment to warrant your vote, which we would be happy to have, incidentally.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apocryphal (none / 0)

Are you referring to Kenya? It's not Apocryphal - it's just a stand I do not want to see any American leader take - to roll back the human rights of one large sector of the population there.

While Bush was too bellicose, and diplomacy should certainly should be a large part of anybody's foreign policy, I see your outlook as way too rosy. It is a very strange time to be a Democrat.

As for Chavez being as much an opportunity as a threat, wish you could expand on what you mean. At present, Fidel Castro, of all people, is keeping Chavez in check. The New Yorker profile of Chavez is worth a read.

by catfish2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apocryphal (none / 0)

It is and that's precisely my point.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:38:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not and that's precisely my point (none / 0)

guess I'll take after you and shut down a dialog by stating my opinions as fact.

by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:32:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not and that's precisely my point (none / 0)

I was agreeing with you, it is a good read and that's precisely my point.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apocryphal (none / 0)

Apocryphal was giving you huge benefit of the doubt. You are peddling unsubstantiated Right-wing talking points which are completely false. The whole argument is founded on two points, that Obama appeared with Odinga in 2006 and that Odinga claimed Obama was his 'cousin' in late 2007.

Consider:

Obama's perceived support for Odinga may have arisen from a speech he gave to university students in Nairobi during his 2006 visit. Obama spoke out against corruption in President Kibaki's government. Because Odinga is Kibaki's main political rival, Obama's criticism was misconstrued to mean that he had endorsed Odinga.

Edwin Okong'o - Obama: The Kenya Connection PBS 25 Jan 08

And as for the 'cousin' relationship claimed by Odinga:

Raila Odinga (who was jailed for a total of eight years beginning in 1982 for protesting the one-party rule of Kenya's then-dictator, Daniel Arap Moi) has claimed to be a cousin of Illinois senator Barack Obama (maintaining that Obama's biological father was his maternal uncle). However, no evidence has been offered to document that claim, and the fact that Odinga made such a claim only in the immediate aftermath of the disputed December 2007 elections in Kenya (even though Barack Obama had been a prominent political figure long before then) suggests it was a opportunistic fiction invented by Odinga to provide himself with a badly-needed cloak of political legitimacy. (A few months earlier, another Kenyan political candidate, Nicholas Owino Rajula, had also claimed to be a distant cousin of Senator Obama.)

Barack Obama's uncle has denied Odinga's claim that the two men are directly related, saying: "Odinga's mother came from this area, so it is normal for us to talk about cousins. But he is not a blood relative." Even if Raila Odinga and Barack Obama were in fact distant relatives, their connection would merely be a genetic one -- the two men have no history of any substantive form of familial relationship.

Kenya Connection Snopes.com 15 May 2008

That's not to say the anti-Obama blogosphere isn't crackling with hearsay and fantasy over this issue. Your claims are groundless, false, base and a reiteration of Right-wing smears which have no place in the progressive blogosphere except as a reminder of what we are daily confronted with by our opponents. I find it hard to believe that you have offered these issues in good faith, if you have, then go forth and disprove them when you encounter them in future rather than spread them, if you haven't then you should be ashamed. In any case I will be keeping a watchful eye on you for more of the same in future.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is Obama's foreign policy? (2.00 / 1)

You have a good point - Obama hasn't talked in specifics about many of these situations. I did add a link to a article he penned in Foreign Affairs in an Update.

by Falsehood on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is Obama's foreign policy? (none / 0)

You may be misinformed about Sharia in Kenya. Can you source that?

by MeganLocke on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:54:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Try Google (none / 0)

You may be misinformed that I may be misinformed.

AllAfrica.com:

Barack Obama has had a major impact on the recent disputed Kenyan election. He spoke in support of Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader Raila Odinga when in Kenya in 2006. The two men met last fall when Odinga visited America as each was preparing an "insurgency" campaign in their respective countries. In a recent BBC interview, Raila Odinga, averred that he and Obama were "old friends who spoke often on the telephone". Odinga also said that he and Obama were cousins, a claim that the Obama campaign was unwilling to acknowledge, (given Odinga's current difficulties) but did not deny.

And Dick Morris was a consultant (American political consultants very often advise overseas politicians):

Former Clinton aides currently working for Obama were the "mutual acquaintances" who directed Dick Morris to Kenya to advise the Odinga campaign in November of 2007, shortly after Odinga visited with Obama in America. Morris was an extremely divisive factor in the Kenyan elections, as a foreigner, a white man, and the creator of an antagonistic "have vs. have nots" campaign platform for Odinga's ODM. He also suggested the current campaign of civil disobedience to protest the election result, including a "Million Person March", a la Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

When things got out of hand following the election, Obama called Odinga repeatedly, but Mwai Kibaki, the leader of the Government would not return his calls as he perceives Obama to be biased toward his Luo relative Odinga in the conflict. Obama is featured prominently in ODM campaign posters, slogans, and songs in Kenya, and the plaintive phrase "A Luo will become President in America before a Luo will become President in Kenya" is often heard.

Jerusalem Post:

But even in this atmosphere Obama stands out - for not only does he theoretically support appeasement, he is actively advancing the interests of Islamists seeking to take control over a state allied with the US.

Kenya currently teeters at the edge of political chaos and civil war in the wake of the disputed Dec. 27 presidential elections. Those elections pitted incumbent President Mwai Kibaki against Raila Odinga who leads the Orange Democratic Movement. While the polls showed the public favoring Odinga, Kibaki was declared the winner. Odinga rejected the results and his supporters have gone on rampages throughout the country that have killed some 700 people so far. Fifty people were murdered when a pro-Odinga mob set ablaze a church in which they were hiding.

Kibaki is close ally of the US in the war against Islamic terror. In stark contrast, Odinga is an ally of Islamic extremists. On August 29 Odinga wrote a letter to Kenya's pro-jihadist National Muslim Leaders Forum. There he pledged that if elected he would establish Sharia courts throughout the country; enact Islamic dress codes for women; ban alcohol and pork; indoctrinate schoolchildren in the tenets of Islam; ban Christian missionary activities, and dismiss the police commissioner, "Who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists."

by catfish2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try Google (none / 0)

I appreciate you taking the trouble to post the citations but it just proves the point that this is 'apocryphal.' Obama spoke with Odinga, yes, but you are misrepresenting the relationship:

While the dispute is political, violence has pitted other tribes - such as the Obamas' Luo - against President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu, long dominant in politics and the economy here.

If Barack Obama were in Kenya, he would "work with the leadership to bring them to a round table and find a solution to the problems that have been ravaging the country," his uncle Said Obama said.

In fact, Barack Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to opposition leader Raila Odinga Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire.

Odinga, a Luo, said on British Broadcasting Corp radio that Barack Obama's father was his maternal uncle, and that Barack Obama called him twice "in the midst of his campaigning ... to express his concern and to say that he is also going to call President Kibaki so that Kibaki agrees to find a negotiated, satisfactory solution to this problem."

Gibbs said Odinga and Barack Obama's father are from the same tribe, but he is not aware that they are related.

Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in the Illinois senator's conversation with Odinga, Barack Obama "urged an end to violence and that Mr Odinga sit down, without preconditions, with President Kibaki to resolve this issue peacefully."

Barack Obama was coordinating his efforts with the US State Department, his advisers said. He discussed the situation with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on January 1. The following day Barack Obama recorded a statement with Voice of America.

On January 3, the date of the Iowa caucuses Barack Obama won, he spoke with South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Nairobi between satellite interviews with local Iowa stations. Tutu has been in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital, trying to secure an end to the violence.

Obama's Kenyan family watch US vote The Age Jan 9 2008

That's not to say that this sharia/Obama connection isn't splattered all over the anti-Obama blogs, which it is. Don't believe everything you read.

And as for the tenuous relationship with Dick Morris, c'mon, you can't be serious. Former Clinton aides currently working for Obama were the "mutual acquaintances" who directed Dick Morris to Kenya to advise the Odinga campaign in November of 2007, shortly after Odinga visited with Obama in America. That's pretty thin.

And the Jeruselum Post? Seriously, they are as inflammatory a Right-wing, English language source as you will find world wide and they make the claim that [Obama] is actively advancing the interests of Islamists seeking to take control over a state allied with the US, a serious charge, without a shred of evidence. None of this is the least bit convincing, except to suggest you spend more leisure time on anti-Obama websites than is perhaps fitting for a progressive Democrat.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.