This Week on America Abroad
This is my first post on America Abroad and before getting underway I wanted to let everyone know what my role will be. Every Friday I will be posting a summary of what the bloggers have been discussing. Now let’s get started…
This week on TPM Café’s America Abroad, the bloggers are talking about... The Baker-Hamilton Report, Sanctions on Iran?, Britain's Nuclear Program and other Issues Inside of Iraq. My full summary is after the break.
The Baker-Hamilton Report and its Consequences
The much awaited Baker-Hamilton report came out this past week calling for a change in policy regarding Iraq. While the American public may be backing the report, those on America Abroad chose very different parts of the report to scrutinize. Bruce Jentleson believed that the report lacked a political dimension to its “Internal Approach”, which left a gaping hole in a major policy issue. Ivo Daalder thought that the report’s qualifier — “Subject to Unexpected Developments” — opened a major loop-hole, one Bush was bound to exploit to his advantage. Overall, he concluded that “the ISG Report, for all its realism, refuses to accept that we have lost in Iraq”. But if we have lost, Rachel Kleinfeld asked, what does that mean for the moral responsibility that the US has to the Iraqi people? Daalder answered by arguing that since staying in Iraq isn’t going to make matters better there, disengaging was still the right thing to do. Going beyond the immediate policy implications of the report, Ernest Wilson considered the message it sent to the rest of the world about America’s “soft power.” Peter Trubowitz presented two additional possibilities for Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush seems to be taking his time making any changes in policy, while it’s still just business as usual in Baghdad.
Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran’s nuclear program represents a real challenge to the United States and the international community. Rachel Kleinfeld weighed in to say that there were no good options left. Lee Feinstein believed it is time to talk directly with the Iranians — and for America and its European allies to consider sanctions. But Jentleson was not ready to give up on trying to get a UN agreement on sanction, arguing that the credibility of the UN is at stake if no action is taken. “If the UN doesn’t act, no American and European sanctions can make up for it.” Michael Levi disagreed, arguing no meaningful UN sanctions were possible. And Feinstein countered: “The issue is how to get back on a negotiating track with Iran in order to have a chance at containing its nuclear weapons program. If that requires that the United States and Europe work together, so be it. That is hardly anti-UN, and it is hardly unilateral. And it certainly isn't ‘backing off’.”
In Other News On America Abroad
* Michael Levi and Ivo Daalder argued that Tony Blair passed up a major chance to change the nuclear status quo for the better when he decided that Britain should modernize its nuclear arsenal. Letting it whither away would have been preferable, though Daalder suggested that option wasn’t open to the United States.
*Juliette Kayyem pointed out that there have been a high number of US civilian contractors that have died in Iraq. “Though the contractors are not the same as combat troops, the DoD is clearly relying on them in ways never before seen, and in exceptionally high numbers.”
Jeffrey --
Will you consider bringing in notable posts by nonAA authors who are Cafe members?? Several members in various places around here would like to see the best of the regular member pieces get some more prominent placement. You could be one way of doing that.
And will you be offering any commentary on how active the guest/resident contributors are in engaging the members? Some contributors are participants in the ensuing discussions and some never engage.
December 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Iran’s nuclear program represents a real challenge to the United States and the international community"???
Talk about an assertion without support.
Really?
Then why have 118 (the majority) of the nations of the world quite expressly SUPPORTED Iran's nuclear program during the September 16, 2006 conference of the Non-Aligned Nations?
Why does Iran's NPT-compliant, IAEA-monitored nuclear program which started under the Shah at the behest of the US suddenly represent this "threat"?
Why doesn't Brazil's nuclear program or Argentinas or all the other countries that have recently announced their plans to do what Iran is doing represent a "threat to the international community"?? Before you respond, remember that Egypt and S. Korea and Argentina and Taiwan have been caught conducting secret weapons-related experiments.
Could it be that the "threat" posed by a nuclear-capable Iran is only that it will negate Israel's nuclear hegemony and threat to the Middle East?
Why is it that Bush's OPENLY DECLARED STATEMENT that nuking Iran is "an option" isn't read as a threat?
Who is a threat to whom here?
December 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and I would add that just to round up what the participants said and to ignore the elephant in the room of something happening like the majority of commenters disagreeing with them, that would make it clear that Jeffrey is just to be a stenographer or compiler of what the major contributors said. Which is a quite nice service to offer readers, I guess. But Jeffrey not only noting but getting into pondering why such a black/white divide happened might make for a more interesting post....I myself am not convinced that the answer is that the Washington elites don't "get" what "the people" are thinking....how about the possibility that the "anti-Washington elites" are an equally loud group, just as exclusive of "the people," or something of that nature? When such a divide happens, wouldn't it be interesting for someone like Jeffrey to be allowed to step out a little (after some experience at compiling) and actually solicit like this: "anyone out there see some grey on this? where are you?"
December 15, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to TPM Cafe, Jeffrey!
I think that the discrepancy between AA posters and commenters is of more than anecdotal interest.
It is the only corner of the cafe where this happens. Elsewhere everyone argues in every direction, but at AA you have the consensual view of the Establishment (the Council on Foreign Relations party line, if you will).
The party-liners will invent fake controversies among themselves about minute points of detail (akin to the shape of the table at the Paris talks)
and ignore, as artappraiser called it, the elephant in the room.
This polarization is to me the single most fascinating aspect of TPM Cafe: the existence of an elite class of foreign policy thinkers for whom it's all some sort of chess game, cool, abstract, dispassionate. If at least their thinking was original, but usually it's the sort of writing most of the commenters outgrew in 9th grade. (Sorry to be snippy but many of their posts are intellectual embarrassments.)
I've often been tempted to fisk their posts. It's common to find at least a dozen logical missteps in a single one, but I'd rather spend my time doing something else.
We keep insulting them, and they don't even get mad. They keep coming back like lamb to the slaughter (no pun intended), never engaging the enemy. When we prick them, do they bleed? Not sure.
When MJ Rosenberg disagrees with you, boy, he lets you have it! That's one thing I like about the guy! But AA posters are the TPM pinatas.
My theory why AA posters are so dull and unoriginal is that they worry about congressional hearings. In their own way, each one of them is sort of running for office, and we're just reading their campaign propaganda.
OK, maybe the joke is on us...
But the larger issue says something serious about our country: a consensual view of foreign policy that rejects reform even though it's broken.
December 15, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Noblessoblige --
Perhaps when you stop insulting people, there might be more of an inclination to jump in and debate the issues seriously. You often have an interesting perspective, but when you call people liars, intellectually stilted, question their motives based on their association or place of employment, or whatever, there isn't much of an incentive to engage.
By the way, I wrote an entire post (on US nukes) in response to one of your comments -- presented in your usually acerbic style, but still -- and your response (as far as I can tell) was dead silence.
Ivo Daalder
December 15, 2006 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. Jeffrey: sorry to write that in third person as if you weren't there, it was rude of me, especially when in fact in your writing you were much more gracious and introduced yourself to the readers in the first line. I came back to apologize for that lapse and want you to know I for one will look forward to your posts even if they are by intent relegated to roundups only, no commentary added. I remember appreciating Kate's similar roundups and missing them when they stopped. It just that it would be even more helpful if they included something about "audience response," somewhat more like a review of a show in a way. :-)
December 15, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"to fisk": what does this mean? To critically analyze? or does it imply to critically analyze with (malice) publication in mind? I know this is pretty silly but, fascinated by language....
December 15, 2006 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran: the great treat
I am sorry to interfere with your internal debates but being French, I am compeled to give some thoughts on what may happen if the US and EU do not work together. Lafayette and Washington were brothers and French people and American people should be the same but, sadly many frenchies have forgotten history. I do not. My grand parents were saved by G.I.s 50 years ago.
In regards to Iran, I would say that an immediate military action is necessary. Why?because iranian leaders are aware that their so-called islamic revolution has failed and they make noise against occident..they know that they will not be able to stay on power for more than 20 years again and their only way out is a collective suicide by throwing a nuclear bomb outside. Iranian leaders will use the bomb because they are mentally ill.
Europeans should stop being chicken and should adopt the only possible attitude: to work with the US in the middle east to implement a world of peace, justice and freedom.
Freedomfrog.
December 15, 2006 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To fisk means to refute the arguments of an article line by line. I, for one, have high regard for Robert Fisk.
December 15, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My grand parents were saved by G.I.s 50 years ago.
In 1956? How did it happen?
December 15, 2006 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo:
It's gracious of you to reply.
If I missed your reply to one of my comments, I'm sorry about that.
I am anonymous and you're not. I realize it gives
me an unfair advantage. I try not to abuse it
(though I probably do).
That said, my point remains: AA posters preach to the choir,
which make them dull. Their unexamined assertions
make their motives questionable.
My disagreement with them is not the point. (I spent too many formative
years in England and Israel to be bothered by disagreement.)
I demand an intelligent argumentation, which is in short supply.
OK, to tell you what I mean, I'll pick on Jim.
To the question: Why the Concert of Democracies, he
answers: "because of its effectiveness."
"They have the most potent militaries."
He goes on to explain that "the 20 largest democracies account
for three-quarters of all defense spending" (omitting
to mention that the US accounts for more than half).
Does Jim realize the intellectual vacuity of this argument?
If autocracies had the most potent military, then his same
argument would apply just as well. So what's his point? The added value of democracy-driven hard power is left unexamined.
In particular, no one addresses the key question: would the US end its active support of numerous autocracies around the world? And if not, then what's that CoD all about?
Then, Darfur... oy. First of all, not a word about the
two-sided complexity of that conflict. Either Jim is
ignorant about that topic, in which case he should stay
away from it, or he should address the obvious objection:
This conflict is not the simplistic black and white story
peddled by the likes of Kristof. Why didn't Jim mention
that last May it's Darfur's rebels who preferred to let
the genocide go on rather than sign a deal that didn't give them
full regional control. If Darfur is such a big deal,
it might useful to remind readers that both sides are black
and both sides are Muslim. For starters.
Again, Jim treats his readers like a bunch of 3rd graders
who're supposed to believe that the only problem with
Darfur is China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea (I am essentially quoting him).
Then you guys know perfectly well that neither the US nor
the EU is in any position to deploy any troops there anyway,
so what is he talking about? There is nothing the CoD could do that couldn't be done via the UN right now. This is the height of disingenuousness, if you ask me. So yes that makes me question his motives.
You, Ivo, wrote eloquently about Darfur last year
for Brookings and explained why the US and the EU were, if anything,
more guilty than the UN, though you, too, seemed to fail to appreciate
the complexity of the issue.
The concert of democracies argument then segues
into the Wal-Mart analogy. The argument why competition among international organizations promotes democracy is unsupported by any scholarship I am aware of.
In the end, I am more likely to agree with you than the realist type like Walt, but at least those guys give us an honest, consistent picture of what they stand for.
December 15, 2006 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"insulting people" = challenging what you wrote?
Since when?
Most of the "pundits" here are even lower - they're basically just shills hiding behind their PhDs and hi-flutin' "think tanks" that are just really just ad agencies whose job is to plant articals and editorials in order to give a high-brow legitimacy to someone else's agenda. We saw you lot selling us "WMDs In Iraq" not too long ago.
I love it how we're all supposed to avoid mentioning the obvious for fear of "being rude"! The "Concert of Democracies" farce has been exposed as nothing more than a conspiracy, a permanent "Coalition of the Willing" intended to legitimize Western aggression against developing states and to run rough-shod over international law and to circumvent the UN's prohibitions on the use of force - and yet you still try to revive it over and over it again. That means you have an agenda, and it SHOULD be challenged most vehemently.
If you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen.
December 16, 2006 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
My grand parents were saved by G.I.s 62 years ago, in 1944 to be accurate. Sorry for confusing you. I hope that tough actions will be taken against Iran because they have started the war against occident. Today's world does not need extra Chamberlains. Do not let history repeat itself. Chamberlain's political legacy is defined by his soft dealings with late 30's Germany and we know what happened next... There is no point to deal with the forces of evil. Iran is a festering wound that is poisoning the middle-east and hampering the complete victory of freedom and democracy in Iraq.
Freedomfrog.
December 16, 2006 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've perhaps lost this argument already with Josh (over in the discussion tables related to Cafe policy), but I don't find Noblesse Oblige's comments ad hominem or below the belt. He's talking about a decision on whom to invite and how the guests then comport themselves, so as to give at least the appearance that TPM Cafe has a strong party line. one moreover that commenters pretty uniformly find wrong or at least narrow, and one that make commenters feel that they personally and their views are excluded from a site they enjoy. I think that's plain wrong.
ArtA, while mentioning this proverbial elephant, has suggested we look at it as a chance for the AA squad to work out their views in public, and I'm determined to take it that way. Josh doesn't see it as a conscious decision to create a party line at all. I just hope that one day he decides it has narrowed or barred discussion of progressive alternatives. It's a real concern if it extends so far that the Cafe doesn't have a sufficient range of other views, especially liberal ones. (I'm not suggested we add breadth by inviting Richard Perle.) I think I've lost this one, but I'm not pleased or chastened.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 16, 2006 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...well you did give it right back to him like he had praised MJ for doing. ;-)
Ivo...speaking for myself I find that you are one of the more interactive contributors from AA. Some time ago you did a post about a comment I made which I greatly appreciated and haven't forgot. You very often cite comments by specific members with links for further discussion. We might not always agree on the issues and sometimes the discussion can become...ahem...very pointed, but I hope to see you continue interacting with the members here. And hopefully your fellow AA contributors will follow your lead and do likewise.
December 16, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was the message of 2002.
Now, let's fast-forward to 2007!
December 16, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Wikipedia on Fisking
December 17, 2006 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeffrey - A specific suggestion:
Why don't you take advantage of members who live abroad and/or travel abroad to speak from on the ground? Why don't you give them a forum in AA??
Member Sean-Paul Kelley has been to Iran recently and is leaving for Ethiopia and Eritrea (to learn more about their proxy war going on in Somalia). Why not give him a Post from Abroad space while he travels?? This was discussed in a recent thread of Sean-Paul's, credit to member Tom Wright for the idea.
December 17, 2006 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
noblesseoblige,
You are a class-act. You are also bright, witty, clever, educated, objective, informative and funny. Your posts are certainly not syntactical trainwrecks. I think you add a lot to the debate. You are helpful and honest.
December 18, 2006 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop wasting everyone's time.
December 18, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink