« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Billy Glad & Bush Trapped In Prevailing Morality: A Critique of the Pre-Conditions Prequirement
Blogger Billy Glad manages to draw a crowd, partly because he is so matter of fact and partly because he seems reasonable enough that his critics imagine they can change his mind. At least, that's what draws me in. I have become doubtful about his impression of him, but perhaps others who follow his blogs can help.
In his latest post, he criticizes Obama for proposing to meet with our opponents without "pre-conditions." I'm trying to elevate out of the fray he's helped generate by working on the level of the assumptions underlying his position and Obama's alternative. I argue below that Billy, like Hillary, Bush, and McCain, is trapped in a view of human nature that is at the core of prevailing morality. And Obama, because of his mother's and grandparents' loving, empathic view, has been able to step mostly outside of that view. I add that there is in the social sciences and schools of international relations emerging proof of the view Obama represents. I think that the presumption of his naivete is an artifact of the general lack of knowledge of substantial alternatives.
Regarding Obama's proposal to meet Amadinejad without conditions, Billy wrote,
<blockquote>Will he tell Mr. Amadinejad that our commitment to the safety of Israel is absolute? Will he tell him that we are sorry we invaded Iraq? .... Will he tell him that we wish he wouldn't continue to develop nuclear weapons, because, if he does, Israel will have to attack his country and we will have no alternative to supporting Israel? .... Mr. Amadinejad knows all that. What new information can Mr. Obama give him? The fact is, of course, that there is nothing Mr. Obama can say to Mr. Amadinejad face to face at a summit meeting that can't be said through intermediaries or that Mr. Amadinejad doesn't already know.</blockquote>
The view of international relations implicit in these words exactly mirrors Bush's. In Israel, Bush said it's ridiculous to think that someone can come up with an "ingenious" argument that will change Iran's mind. This so-called Realist method is all about lecturing, threatening, demanding, condescending, and other pressuring methods. These methods are a response to what these people think is going on in the minds of our opponents. What we do to them is based on a basic psychological understanding that is enshrined in prevailing morality.
The idea in prevailing morality is that people who do bad things are bad and, therefore, will respond only to equal and opposite counter-force. Their inner geyser of irresponsible urges must be countered. Hence, pressure, demands, and even grossly degrading name-calling. Notice that this view is tautological; it just can't make sense. But of course, it's widely believed because, for centuries prior to widespread academicians' knowledge of the illogic of tautologies, this bad-because-you're-bad idea is deeply engrained in our justice system and our systems of personal justice. It feels not only like truth but fundamental to our protection from chaos.
Obama is a magnet for challenges to this archaic but still prominent point of view. His empathic view enables many of us who are in the woodwork to have a voice. Here's my challenge.
The moralistic view of human nature can't be valid also because it completely leaves out of its consideration humanity's vulnerable nature. Specifically, it leaves out of the equation the idea that people are driven by maltreatment and its effects to do harmful things.
Of course, this view is controversial, especially when considering the cases of sociopaths like Bush, the Iranian President, and many others on the world stage, much less ordinary violent criminals. But many people are trying to press the alternative view.
The most widespread version of the alternative view is as follows. Since the beginning of our troubles with Iraq, a case has been made, albeit inadequately, that our murderousness and our almost complete lack of sympathy for innocent victims is what has set the Middle East so intensely and pervasively against us.
Our denial of this influence is what makes us seem like moral monsters. To take one of many examples, when a high-ranking Clinton official was asked to comment on the deaths of 500,000 children and older people because of our sanction of chlorine, he said only that it was Hussein's responsibility. He offered not even any condolences. This was gross insensitivity. And our officials' words about "collateral damage" express the same numbed out, dark position.
Inflamed Middle Easterners, of course, see us through the same moralistic prism that we see them. That constitutes our underlying stalemate. They think of us as evil, believing that we are evil because we're just greedy or power hungry or some such. There's no sense that we're bewildered and lost and tormented internally, that we're vulnerable beings trapped in a crazy system without no awareness of our actual predicament. They hear our Realist pronouncements heavily laden with policy-ese and mechanistic concepts. There's no humanity there, except in the thin, abstract promises of freedom and democracy and, ironically, sympathy for the victims of the tyrants whose countries we're devastating.
Obama represents the alternative view of human nature. He exemplified this view most prominently in his speech on race when he empathized deeply and in intellectually credible terms with white racists. In this profound, out of this world empathy, he represents a spiritual awakening to the promise of the heart and soul of the Song of Solomon; the lover says that, "Love is more power than death." Intelligently expressed realistic empathy, as many now out of power international relations experts argue, is capable of changing the positions of even dictators--of course, not all of them. It is more powerful than the erupting torment that threatens to engulf us. Of course, Obama can't soar rhetorically into these spiritual climes, because America is so lost into prevailing morality that the "appeasement" attack sells. You can't legalize marijuana without seeming, within the logic of prevailing morality, to be saying, "Smoke whenever, wherever, and as long as you like regardless how damaging you are to yourself and others."
Imagine the repercussions throughout the Middle East when our president first hears face-to-face the leaders throughout that part of the world condemning America for it's murderousness and it's monstrous insensitivity to the plight of Middle Easterners, especially in Iraq. Will Obama say, "Well, of course, that was Hussein's and Al Queda's and Iran's and Syria's fault," and then fall silent. No. He will express intellectually credible empathy and, thereby, institute a new dawn in international relationships.
Silly? Try to imagine the reaction throughout the Middle East to the headline, "Obama Expresses Profound Regret for the Deaths of Innocent Victims in the Middle East." Try to imagine the reaction in high-level meetings when he, as he puts it, "disagrees without being disagreeable." Of course, the problems will not disappear. But his expressions of concern are the conditions of best possible negotiations. In the old view, you can expect nothing except a stalemate.
Comments (111)
I'm Hillary Clinton, and I reject and denounce the Illogic of Tautologies.
Leading the popular vote!
Leading the delegate vote!*
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary.
* Delegate vote totals do not include endorsements from "brain damaged" SDs with tumors implanted by radiation shot from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
May 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
John H. McFadden:
I am impressed with how you use Billy Glad's name to get attention, to draw your own crowd. That's beautifully exploitative, using someone for your gain, and you are shameless about exploiting him publicly.
Rather than "elevate out of" any real or imagined "fray," you attempt to create one that didn't previously exist: Billy Glad = George Bush. The evidence this is true is that your first commenter is a troll: one who uses Hillary's image as an avatar, a reference to Ted Kennedy's brain tumor, and low-brow sarcasm as a substitute for humor.
You can't talk about Obama strictly on his own merits because he doesn't have any. Clearly Obama's loving, empathetic message is lost on you if this is how you must convey that message: through belittling fellow bloggers.
If Obama did have the merits you imagine, he would be known for his sainthood. He's not. You would be able to demonstrate what you believe is true about Obama from his actions. You can't.
May 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't talk about Obama strictly on his own merits because he doesn't have any. ... if this is how you must convey that message: through belittling fellow bloggers."
Readyto -- wow. The article above has little to do with Billy Glad or other bloggers. Your point about the Billy = Bush tautology is clever (as is the tautology, perhaps), but this article doesn't rest there.
Here's a fact: It's crazy to keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result. Obama is the only candidate looking for a way out of that brand of crazy in the Middle East. I call this a merit -- and strictly Obama's own.
May 21, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So go ahead and prove it. You haven't proved it yet. You are simply making a claim. As is John McFadden. Neither of you has proved anything. So, in fewer words, I claim you're both wrong.
May 21, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove what? That something that hasn't been tried yet will definitely work? What is proven: the tack we're currently on is a failure. So it's materially and perhaps morally bankrupt to keep at it.
Setting aside the new-agey love & sympathy wording in the article above, I agree that we need an image makeover in the Middle East; it is in our national security interest. Do we gain in this area by meeting with that loopy little suit in Iran? Maybe yes. Do we automatically lose ground by meeting with him? Doubtful. Most likely: either nothing comes of it or something does that benefits us. I don't see a President Obama opening Tehran only to make material concessions there for no gain -- but at the outset, we're better off if we have a president who's not seen by millions simply as a distant, cold foreigner. Image has material consequences. Obama has stated he will bring an improvement in that area -- he has not said he'll give away the farm.
May 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove your claims by using Obama's words, not your own.
May 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. "Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support. ...And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran
May 21, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how the Pakistanis felt when Obama said this:
Not only is such a statement the same fear-mongering that Bush is famous for, it's equally arrogant foreign policy.
So which is it? Love or bombs?
May 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say that taking out Bin Laden is an absolute national priority is not fear-mongering. And it is not the same thing as Bush declaring there exists an "Axis of Evil," demanding all other nations commit to being "with us or against us," then invading Iraq, occupying it, authorizing torture, and instituting a bizarre color-coded national "alert system" that hardly seems useful to the average citizen except to make us feel nervous.
If ANY President gets "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's location and chooses not to act, that President is probably guilty of betraying both the public trust and US strategic interests. Obama position is justified.
It is not arrogant to take out Bin Laden.
And as the world is not so simplistic that every nation is either with us or against us, so too it is not so simplistic that our only choice in acting is either A) love or B) bombs. We have strategic interests and in their pursuit we need to be relentless -- but not a**holes. In Obama more than in Clinton I see a return to the ideal that Teddy Roosevelt established for us, of carrying the big stick but speaking softly.
And speaking begins with, you know -- speaking.
May 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful, thought-provoking post -- pointing out that, much more important than defining what "is" is, is to redefine what diplomacy is. Thank you.
May 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using Billy Glad's name to get on the Recommended List was the most effective part. The rest is incoherent.
May 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He asked what Obama expected to hear from Ahmadinejad that he didn't already know, what kind of preparations to talk with Iran he would take. You still haven't answered that question.
But I'm sure if we express profound regret for the death of children, the whole Middle East will turn around.
May 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't turn around for generations, but I'd like for the process to start in 2009.
May 20, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear D: Here's what you wrote to me.
My point was that the Realist method of telling leaders what we want, making threats, and so on, as listed by Billy, is wrongheaded in it's entirety. The premises of that method, the understanding of human beings implicit in it--all of that is misplaced.
Think empathically about A.'s position. Put yourself in his place. If someone you mistrust is demonizing you, making threats, etc., you just don't want to cooperate with them. That's ordinary human relations. Worse yet, if they killed your brothers in Iraq, members of your religion or your clan, you would be infuriated, especially if there were no regret, no human feeling. That just seems straightforward. Of course, respect and ordinary sympathy won't change things substantially. They're the conditions of change. You can't reach people without those elements in place. For instance, you wouldn't read past the first few sentences if I was calling you names and otherwise degrading you.
As regards expressions of profound regret from an American president, I think it's difficult to predict the effect of that. I think maybe you're thinking of these expressions of regret as trivialities. But that so depends on how they're expressed, how consistent they are over time, and what kinds of follow up there are.
I come from a background in social work and psychotherapy where people told me that sociopaths are subhuman. Realists think that leaders are thinking in terms of greed and power lust, as Genghis recently argued based on the viewpoint of Nietzsche. Most people just haven't had direct experience with sociopaths in treatment centers and the better prisons. They are surprisiningly reachable depending on the sincerity of respect and caring expressed to them. I appreciate how difficult that is to believe in this society's moralistic view, one that considers the inhuman nature of sociopaths as an article of faith.
May 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a fair argument to say that somehow Obama's spirituality, his charisma or some ineffable power he would project in close proximity to other world leaders might communicate something that a Secretary of State, say, couldn't communicate.
I don't believe that, of course, but, if I did, I still might want to see some movement first, some indication that the force would be received, that the subject was ready -- that the time was right for a successful intervention. Maybe we would want a small concession before we bestow the status of a face to face with our charismatic leader.
My point was that the offer of the meeting was the message and it has already been sent. Our Middle Eastern allies won't let a real summit without preconditions take place, so whatever affect Obama's offer to meet has had on the Middle East -- it's had it already. Obama would like to duck the domestic political consequences of having sent that message. McCain won't let him.
Thank you for the close read of my post and for your thoughtful response.
May 20, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "status" are we afraid of conferring. These are other heads of state. It's not "status." It's respect.
May 21, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's protocol conferring respect to the state, not the individual. Individual respect is earned. You can have a state dinner that unfortunately includes Mugabe, but you only follow strict protocol. ASEAN made a big mistake pulling in Burma and naively thinking they could reform them. Too many of these kind of mistakes and you entrench really bad people. While you think you're only talking, they think they're networking and getting stamps of approval.
May 21, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could have a dinner with Mugabe and have someone put a bullet in his head and save a whole lot of lives. I'd go for that.
May 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the difference between protocol and respect. Fine.
But worrying that they think they're receiving stamps of approval? Just say, "This isn't a stamp of approval," and move on.
May 22, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What preconditions do you think need to be met before any high-level meeting?
May 21, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Timing is of course, everything. So let's consider the timing for a high-level meeting with the heads of Iran. Ahmadinejad is up for re-election mid next year. I think we can assume he wants to be re-elected. His approval ratings aren't so great. From what I understand, he was elected by a coalition of conservatives and less-educated voters. The "elites," and the young opposed his election. Now, with the state of discontent among Iranians, he's likely to face some difficulty with reelection. So, the question becomes, does it make more sense for us to wait until after the elections, in the hopes that a President will be elected who is more like his predecessor? Or, does it make sense that perhaps he will want to improve US-Iran relations because it makes political sense for him to do so? I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps the guy is such a nut that he won't do what makes sense if he wants to get voted back into office. I don't know what the totality of the political environment is there right now, and who the likely winner of the coming election is. Those are obviously things that should, and will need to be taken into consideration when planning any high level diplomacy with Iran.
May 21, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, I'll respond to a few of your comments.
You said,
In place of "ineffable power" and the like, substitute "intellectually credible, problem solving empathy." Sorry for the clunkiness. The hot term in international relations theory is "realistic empathy." In James Blight process of persuading leaders, he and his staff do mountains of study, gathering all the official documents, historical writings, and more to understand the political, international relations, and personal positions of the leaders, which, regarding Iran, includes Sistani in Iraq. Armed with that information, he asks informed questions, in an effort to develop a clear, reliable understanding on which to base negotiations. Then negotiations begin.
One of my favorite jokes is about the consultant who's hired to get a huge line of machines in a factory working again. He spends an entire week walking around, looking, testing, asking questions, and then he gets a hammer and bops a lever on one of the machines. The entire line starts running again. He submits a bill for $1,000. (This happened in the '60s.) The manager protests, "But all you did was go "bop" with the hammer." The consultant explains, "It's $999 to find out where to go "bop" and $1 for going "bop."
So there's nothing ineffable about what Obama and the so-called "idealists," the realistic empathy folks propose. They're all about coming up with a problem-solving understanding of the people they want to persuade. That process seems ineffable because it's founded on the principle that human beings, with few exceptions--for example Hitler and Stalin--respond most cooperatively to accurate empathy, which again is not primarily a simple expression of feeling or spiritual essence. It's a sophisticated detailed capture of the other guy's position.
You also said,
Back to my psychotherapy, social work analogies. In working with addicts and sociopaths, the old school is to demand that they, in essence, make a concession, that they stop drinking for a few days or, in the case of sociopaths, show some remorse. But the inability to show remorse or stop drinking is the problem you're trying to solve. You want to think in terms of reaching out to the recalcitrant person, figuring out what will engender their cooperation with the program you want them to take advantage of. In response to the abysmal failure of the old method, addiction specialists go to where the addicts are and help them with issues they want to be helped with so as to communicate good will, to establish trust as a basis for further cooperation. The new school is called "harm reduction," suggesting that incremental change based on relationship building is what's involved.
In our relations with Iran, actually going there and talking in a respectful manner will be such a dramatic contrast with the name calling and demanding avoidance we've done for many years that the Iranians will be at least initally hooked on the process and give us the signs you want AFTER we ply our initial intervention.
Giving cred to a petty dictator is a problem solved by careful research to determine who is the Cheney or the Sistani behind the throne. We know that Sistani is the guy, and we know that he doesn't want a theocratic state. And his entire concern is defensive, not acquisitive. A. spouts off threatening and actually doing aggression, but that's mainly him being a jerk, not an expression of substantive, widely backed policy. Meetings with A. will include discussion of who makes the decisions and naturally lead to discussions with decision makers.
You also said,
If it's Obama doing the summitry, I can't imagine them resisting. He has amazing cred all over the world. It's only here that people think he's naive. He has the cred, because the things he says are empathic toward them, as much as he can allow in this moralistic environment. Radical groups do identify with him, just as they did in Chicago. But they sense, as the radical groups in Chicago discovered with certainty, they he wants mainstream, civilized change, not obliteration.
The empathy he displays unites. People who don't get that just haven't any models of the power of empathy. Again, I'm talking about a sea change in our basic understanding of people, especially people who do great harm.
May 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to talk? Here's a precondition. Stop using my name to promote your posts. I've said what I have to say about your new age paradigm. Thanks again for reading my blog.
May 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Here's something you wrote I'd like to respond to.
You wrote,
I will honor your precondition.
I guess you weren't affected by my response to your first comment about my post. I thought my response was compelling and that it spoke to your interpretation of my position; you've added to your view that I'm proposing that Obama is depending on his "ineffable" qualities that the method I outlined in my response is "new age."
But I am proposing a method for solving international conflicts that was developed over decades in some of the top academic/policy institutions in the country--Harvard, Brown, Cal. These academicians cum statesmen are on a par with anyone in government, and it just seems entirely wrong headed to call their method, "new age." Their method involves meticulous study of the other country's position, history, and more.
They seem naive to you, partly because of your "Realist" framework. Your framework, as I said, depends on a basic understanding of people and their relationships that is and has been being challenged in the social sciences at top levels, not in the Deepok Chopra new age world.
It seems to me that you're dismissing out of hand something you don't know anything about. But perhaps you've studied cutting edge international relations methods and have concluded that they're hopelessly naive.
May 21, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's from Texas - he can tell horseshit from bullshit and even trace back its lineage 7 generations.
May 21, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said in the debates that he believes that our nation is seen so poorly now, as so arrogant, that we need to be more humble than we would normally be to win over world opinion, including opinion in the nations of our allies. Meeting directly with our enemies would be a gesture that signals a change of direction toward a more humble approach.
You operate from the assumption that meeting with them confers some status on them, but Obama is saying that we've fallen so low in the eyes of the world that that isn't true anymore.
Rather, meeting with them would be a greater propoganda boost for us than them because it would show we were making a real effort to change and try and resolve the world's conflicts.
Part of the political game of diplomacy is setting the other guy up as the bad guy in the political narrative of the world. In the past, we've had no trouble doing that, but under Bush it's been very easy for the other side to do it to us because we've in many cases violated our own values.
May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take that one to the electorate in November.
May 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people respond to threats, others to incentives, others to common sense and persuasion, and a host of other reasons. Look at Bill Clinton's approaches in Haiti, Somalia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Russia, Northern Ireland, Palestine. There were lots of different aspects to these, certainly not just violence, but sometimes violence is the most direct and least risky.
May 21, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Least risky for who??
May 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
For America?
May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo bingo, one virtual cigar coming up.
May 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In only three of these examples was violence used and in one, Somalia, it was an utter failure. In Haiti, the results were mixed.
Yes, the threat of violence was part of many more, but Obama isn't taking that off the table in any way, so how do these examples make your point?
May 21, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it's all got to be immediate change for you guys or nothing... I guess we can just continue to repeatedly follow a course of action that has utterly failed. That's smart.
May 20, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact Check:
The McBushCain Hybrid runs on Ignorance, Bullshit, and Fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6Va7PEBg8&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Billy Glad drives one.
May 20, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting post. Thanks. I think Obama is trying to do two things: reign in the imperialist tendency and hubris of the American Government and within the psyche of average voters. The former by being willing to change the dynamic, process and language of diplomacy. The latter by making statements like the recent one about Americans not being able to live they way we are accostomed to. Time will tell how we will react to the latter and want the former...
May 20, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all part of a process of simplification. It's much too difficult for many people to consider that others take actions we find morally reprehensible for a reason (however flawed and illogical it usually is in its own right) - it's much easier to just assume they are "the evildoers."
May 20, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about evil? Stop confusing us with Republicans. We're pragmatists, we don't take shit from anyone, whatever their intentions, whatever their denomination.
May 21, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is pragmatism the same thing as making conclusions based on preformed ideas before gathering all the available facts? I have a hard time understanding what you guys find so objectionable about an American foreign policy that focuses on changing the game and not just the players.
May 21, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does "changing the game" mean? Post-9/11 we scattered the balls, broke up the table. I don't like the way it was done, but it certainly changed the game. Specifically, the worst part is it brought a lot of guys out of the woods and we didn't convert them except in a kind of temporary accommodation. Iran and Syria both could have been pulled into our orbit much closer. Lebanon we just lost - we blew it. But what is the "changing the game" that you're referring to, and what tells you that Obama is anywhere close to qualified for this? Where's his experience in negotiating?
May 21, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
But we didn't change the game after 9-11.
Quite the contrary. We have been pursing this sort of "muscular diplomacy" for decades. We have had black ops under every president since the end of World War II. The CIA has been pulling strings behind the scenes for almost as long. American foreign policy has been sociopathic and corporate controlled for a long, long time.
Barack's entire career as a community organizer and civil rights attorney was built around negotiating. Being a successful teacher demands negotiating with students to encourage them to achieve their educational goals. It probably also included negotiating with other professors and administrators behind the scenes as well. His success in the Illinois and US senate are built around negotiating.
As president, he would have a huge amount of resources to assist him in his goals of actually changing the way we do things and not just pretending to do so when we change presidents. I am not saying the guy is the messiah or anything, but at the very least he represents a change in tone and tenor, given his history and his campaign. I think that is a very important place to start.
Where things might end is anyone's guess, but I would at least like to get moving in a new direction.
May 21, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't Black Ops - we went in and took over a country unprovoked and without invitation and show every indication of staying. When did we do that before? You may not like the way we changed the game, but we changed it. I don't mind a more aggressive foreign policy in certain areas, but a bit of finesse, intelligence and strategy mixed in would certainly ease my mind.
May 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vietnam. Korea. Panama. Propping up Saddam as US policy in 1980s to combat Iran. Somalia and East Timor and Rwanda. The list is nasty and a well-established part of the historical record. It has long been US policy to pursue political and corporate hegemony via martial means and leave the rest of world sucking hind tit.
May 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should the US be pursuing active policies around the world till the end of time? We can't do it all. And we often relieve the countries in the region of their responsibilities.
Americans paid for the reconstruction of Europe by 60 years. They have health insurance and we don't (to point to one issue for allocating resources). It was NATO's job (with European lead) to deal with Bosnia --Europeans should always be the prime movers with money and troops in that region of the world. PERIOD. Let the US be the ones that send in 150 soldiers.
May 21, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post McFadden.
Even you don't change A.'s mind such a reaching out would undermine him and give strength to the reformers and pragmatists in Iran. They need hope as well.
May 20, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reaching out to him would undermine him? Would you have any historical examples, or is this something only Obama can do?
May 20, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this Billy and you will better understand what I'm saying even if you still disagree.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1214/p09s02-coop.htm
May 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
May 21, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
But this follows in line with my comment on "talks with no preconditions" by Eisenhower and Churchill - in that case you could say they knew Russia having negotiated with her personally for the previous 10 years, and saw an opportunity to pull out concessions from a new leader on shaky turf. Even there, they would hold talks in the background to make sure that Kruschev wanted to deal before setting themselves up for the embarrassment of a little tyrant smacking his shoe on the table at them.
Here we have Ahmadinejad losing power inside Iran. Now, we can either hang him out to dry and wait for the next guy - hopefully another Khatami - or we can go visit him and try to draw out near- and long-term concessions knowing he'll now want to bargain like hell to save his ass. But there are still pre-conditions to this poker game. You have to have an idea what cards he'll put on the table or you're risking having a photo-op that only serves his purposes - "I made the President of the United States come all the way here, and I didn't give up anything!!!" Tito managed to use Russia and the US against each other for years to prop up his own state. Don't assume we're the only ones who hold the keys.
May 21, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des-
How does Tito look to you now? Not that I miss him exactly but without the iron hand in that part of the world (Russia too) we are in deeper shit. All the loose nukes. All those historic ethnic enemies free to start up the thousand year- old fights.
May 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reply button wasn't working, so . . .
to: LBJ's Brain
I agree.
I think so much of American pride is based on our pre-eminence in the world. But our imperialism is hurting us, and it will soon prove to be a Pontemkin Village, whoever becomes president. (Hopefully Obama!)
May 21, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed your post.
I would add that b/c only certain parts of us have admitted the most recent mistakes - Iraq for example - we seem to think that the rest of the world is not seeing us through that prism.
Iraq was a colossal misadventure - and the magnitude has been more immediately apparent to that region and others who are absorbing the displaced and so on - so that the rest of the world is much further along in analyzing and discounting our fundamental constructs for our operations of power and how we handle our f-ups.
So I think your change in paradigm is something that will be necessary to our survival and to our capacity to ever wield our power constructively again - which we now know can not be unilaterally.
I think we're now being seen as the 'shit and walk away' superpower - which means that everyone will live in fear of repeats unless and until we acknowledge the damage we've done - which implicates the empathic approach you recommend.
Yours is an astute juxtaposition of the - how we were/are and how we could/need to be - to right this ship.
Thanks again.
May 21, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Without preconditions" doesn't mean without advance work and lower-level negotiations.
Right now, the U.S. position toward Iran is we won't talk to you about your nuclear program until you abandon uranium enrichment.
But since the whole dispute is over uranium enrichment, that's simply saying: give in to our demands, and maybe we'll talk.
But then what is there to talk about?
As for Hamas, Obama has taken a harder line position --for example, no talks until it recognizes Israel.
But did Arafat's PLO recognize Israel as a precondition for negotiations? No.
Do U.S. allies Lebanon and Saudi Arabia recognize Israel even now? No.
Is Israel negotiating with Hamas (through intermediaries) at this very minute? Of course.
So let's drop the moralistic posturing.
If you want peace and stability, you talk and you compromise.
If you want confrontation (for whatever reason) you threaten and you bomb.
But don't try to foist it off on the public as a question of principle.
That's pure bullshit.
May 21, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've just had an interesting exchange on the other post about the timing of the invasion of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein and the sudden capitulation of Libya, as the Libyans announced they were abandoning their weapons program after withstanding 20 years of economic sanctions. The announcement, which followed on the heels of Hussein's capture, was the result of secret negotiations. In addition to abandoning their own weapons program, the Libyans squealed on the Pakistani nuclear proliferation network. If Bush could accomplish all that, just think what Obama should be able to accomplish with his new personal diplomacy. Interestingly enough, we liberal intellectuals have tried to spin away this success of the Bush administration.
May 21, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush? I thought the British had a little something to do with that
I'll check with Wiki...
May 21, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demosaur ate it, you'll have to turn to a competitor.
May 21, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need Blair is McSame as Bush for them. The lesson learned by some of our liberal friends is that a false invasion of Iraq was a good thing. We should thank Bush for putting the fear of god into other dictators not weakening our security and strengthening our enemies. We just need to continue threatening and they will voluntarily stop pursuing WMD. When a country like Libya is suffering under economic sanctions and is able to bargain from a position of weakness to better themselves by voluntarily dismantaling their programme give all the credit to the neocons. Oh, and based on a single sound byte of your opponent you can presuppose all kinds of things (like no groundwork before meeting) despite evidence to the contrary (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4896002&page=1).
If this is how they think I am beginning to understand why they might prefer McCain, but I still don't get why Clinton was their first choice.
May 21, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton had Libya under sanctions all through his administration. Are you suggesting that the Berlin and Lockerbie bombings should have been ignored, or do you have some other idea that would have worked?
May 21, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, my argument was with Billy who seems to think it was our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that convinced Libya to dismantle rather than sanctions and economic interests.
My issue with you is your misrepresenting Obama's diplomatic strategy. It would be like my saying that Hillary wants to preemptively bomb Iran. My evidence is that she voted for Kyl-Lieberman. I can choose to ignore that she would do so only in retaliation to an attack on Israel. Just as you choose to ignore that Obama would lay groundwork for any meeting and use all the tools needed, including sanctions, to achieve results.
May 21, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think it was both 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan that brought Qaddafi around - he like ETA and the IRA realized the essence of the game had changed and he needed to adapt quickly to the new reality. Hussein and the Palestinians didn't. Our level of risk acceptance substantially dropped and leaving problems simmering for a decade was no longer part of the framework.
Here's Obama in another debate: "Because the problem isn't -- is if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time, and I think that it's important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step. That's the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)" He's specifically talking about lowering the threshold to get the President to come running, that the President personally will come in earlier to play goodwill ambassador or Mr. Fixit. In the video of the debate, he's asked whether he'll commit to meeting with these leaders his first year without preconditions. He eagerly said "yes" and waded on out in the water. Hillary quickly said "no" and explained the diplomatic requirements and the concern about being used for propaganda purposes. (A bigger worry is simply not being prepared and giving away the store because you get caught off-guard and promise things without noticing all the repercussions). In short, I think he favors a significantly easier gradient to personal negotiations.
May 21, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I think the fact that it took that line is a good point to make about diplomacy, sanctions, incentives and soft power in general -- it takes time to work.
It's not that soft power doesn't work it's that it requires patience. The love of military intervention comes from impatience with this process.
Or to quote Yoda:
Luke: "Is the dark side stronger"
Yoda: "No, quicker, easier, more seductive."
May 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is your rhetoric so extreme? People get tired of dealing with the most extreme interpretations of what they say. We're talking about negotiations in private and pressure of all kinds compared to publicity stunts like summits without preconditions for actors like Iran. Libya is a case where the former worked exceptionally well. I don't care if the Bush administration pulled it off, as long as it was pulled off. Also, please keep in mind the point that if Israel decides they can't trust us to handle Iran, they are going to do it. There will be no summits without pre-conditions for Iran, no matter what Obama says. This is domestic politics. Obama sent a message to Iran. You loved it. It worked for you. Maybe Ahmadinejad loved it and it worked for him. Maybe he hated it. I don't know. What I do know is that McCain is going to make Obama live this one out with him all the way to November and Obama is on the losing side of the argument.
May 21, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies Billy. I've taken a step back and can see that my approach may not have been fair.
We don't disagree on private negotiation or pressure on Iran and the like. We just disagree whether Obama's statement was a publicity stunt and if it precludes doing those things. We also disagree whether Hillary's statement was a publicity stunt and if it was the right way to assure Israel that we can handle Iran. We'll have to wait until November to determine whether the differences on this issue mean a win for McCain.
As far as Libya goes, I'm happy to celebrate a victory for non-proliferation and applaud our government officials who helped us to achieve it. But, I don't think it's extreme to argue against the Bush spin that claims our invasion of Iraq is the main reason Libya chose to dismantle. This seemed to be your point and is in part the basis for your support of Hillary and McCain's strategy towards Iran. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I look forward to seeing McCain and Obama debate these issues and the national conversation that will result. It will look much different than the "debate" on national security in the 2004 election.
May 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama said the right thing in the context of running for the Dem nomination. I think he will have trouble pivoting away from the statement to his new position of "tough diplomacy" in the Fall. I didn't mean to imply that the invasion of Iraq determined the outcome of the Libyan situation, but I think it did raise the stakes and affect the timing. There is only one way for McCain to win. First, he needs to run against Obama. Then he needs to sell the global jihad theory to America. Iran and al Qaeda are just a couple of pieces of that puzzle.
May 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have posted this below, but I really don't think this is a losing argument. Every time McCain is forced on the record to endorse George Bush's foreign policy it is a win for Obama. He can go on all day talking about how naive and curte Obama is to want to talk to dictators like Castro and Ahmadenijad, but to do so he looks like an extension of the Bush Administration. McCain is saying that the Bush approach is his approach, and 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track...oh yeah, and he has no plan for the economy either. I wouldn't be so worried.
May 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure which argument you mean. If McCain can sell global jihad theory, I think he'll win against Obama. There's nothing he can sell that would help him against Clinton. She has him sewed up tight. On the other hand, if you're saying that the global jihad theory is a losing argument, I think I agree. We'll have to see how they make it. McCain has an interesting way of lumping all Muslims together, even to the point of coming across confused about who the players are and how they relate to one another. I wonder if there is a method to his senility, or is it just senility?
May 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush tried to spin the Libya capitulation as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq, without mentioning talks beforehand. Their story was that Gadaffi was the first of many to fall only because of our display of force.
They used Libya to support the use of force, when it should have highlighted strong diplomatic effort.
May 21, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
We will continue to need sanctions. We will continue to need secret negotiations. We will continue to need the implied threat of military force.
None of that is going to change, and Obama hasn't said that it will chance. He has said simply that he isn't going to demand "preconditions" that are effectively concessions before talking to people. That doesn't mean "Call me, Kim Jong, and I'll hop on a plane." It means that diplomatic channels remain open.
The significant departure from tradition has not been made by Obama. It was the departure made by Bush, and now echoed by McCain, when they embraced a policy of unilateral action and pre-emptive war. Bush's policy has come close to making us a pariah nation. Obama is simply taking us back toward the mainstream of liberal internationalism.
May 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right. This election will be very much about nationalism v. internationalism, and the good ship Obama is already sailing too close to the edge of the earth on that issue. Here are a couple of predictions for you. The Democratic Party is going to be surprised by the amount of post 9/11 nationalism that still exists in America, and the Iranians are going to be even more surprised by the amount of Iraqi nationalism they run into going forward in Iraq.
May 21, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could be right that we'll be surprised by the amount of post-9/11 nationalism that still exists in America. We might lose.
But if we lose for that reason, I will have no regrets at all. I'd rather go down fighting in that cause than allow Bush's absurdly fear-mongering form of nationalism to become the "new normal." A nation that faced down Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union has no reason to be scared of thugs like Osama bin Laden or Ahmadinejad.
And I don't think we will lose the election, either. Watch Obama's speech on the front page of TPM. *That* is what a president is supposed to sound like. People who want to be proud of America will vote for a president they can be proud of.
May 21, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the same speech I watched on CNN last night? Unfortunately, the things you're saying now are all too familiar. I heard them in 2004. I'm not sure I agree with the "fear mongering" meme. I know we apply it to Bush, but unfairly perhaps. I haven't thought that through. I don't trust myself on Bush, because I'm one of those Texans who has always despised the Bush family. My contempt for him colored my view of him before 9/11, on 9/11 and after 9/11.
I don't think anybody is "afraid" of bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. People are just trying to deal with the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Iran is not going to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We want to make sure of that with as little violence and loss of life as possible. But we want to make sure of it.
May 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead and think through that "fear mongering" meme, Billy. It's not a minor point, it's central to the whole discussion. And if you were alive in 2002 and 2003, it shouldn't be hard. Let's see . . . how did the U.S. end up starting a preemptive war based on false premises and twisted intelligence? Hmm . . .
I'm not accusing you of being afraid of bin Laden or Ahmadinejad -- or Saddam Hussein. But what do you mean by saying "nobody" is afraid of those leaders?
If people hadn't been made afraid of Saddam Hussein, our young men and women wouldn't be getting blown up and maimed in Iraq. And now McCain is trying to do the same thing with Ahmadinejad. Everyone wants to work toward containment and nonproliferation -- that's not the issue. The issue is that today's Republicans need to have scary national enemies in order to whip up the kind of emotions that make people vote Republican. When sufficiently scary enemies don't exist, they will inflate them -- and in doing so, they will produce incredibly foolish, dangerous foreign policy.
It's true: we lost in 2004 because Americans were still afraid. But I haven't got a single regret about that election. I am sad for America, but proud of the Democratic party. I'd be willing to fight that battle all over again, and willing to go down fighting again if need be.
But the evidence suggests that we won't need to. Obama is leading McCain by a healthy margin in the polls, even though the primary is still dragging on.
May 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is just too much to deal with there all at once. Would you be willing to distinguish between the men and women who died in the invasion and occupation up until the capture of Saddam Hussein and the ones who died after that in pursuit of Democracy at the point of a gun for Iraq and the Middle East?
May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink