Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Job Description: When to Be a Hardass?
Sorry, my promised post on jobs and offshoring for later.
So far lots of people have managed to pull Hillary's Iran statement out of context: <i>if Iran nukes Israel</i>. And there's a bit about Hillary being confrontational, giving ultimatums, etc.
And I start to wonder, do people have a sense that being a hardass is still part of the President's job description? 2 months after Bush's election, China forced down one of our planes onto Hainan and ended up tearing it apart and sending it back in 1000 boxes. We capitulated meekly and our foreign policy with China has been submission ever since. We meekly asked Putin for help post-9/11 and have watched as he nationalized Yukos, became a billionaire, and now is an extra-legal successor to himself - a far cry from the relatively benign cooperation we had from Yeltsin. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich fought all the way to the closing of the government. In the end, Clinton (and we as Democrats) won. The Sudan remains in bloody genocide despite years of chatting and diplomatic pressure - anything to do there?
So I'm curious about people's opinions - will we still need to act the badass (such as when Europe doesn't want to take a stand in Bosnia), or will matters be resolved in some other way? Let's talk military, global warming measures, health care, reigning in the huge deficit, whatever. Is there still a place for the hardass at the table?
Comments (28)
Hardass got us GW Bush and Iraq.
May 3, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's it? One moron screwed up and so being hardass is off the table?
May 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I'll agree that people tend to take that quote out of its proper context, I'm afraid you might also be guilty of taking it out of its larger context—her track record in the Senate. She voted for AUMF, and much more recently (and pertinently) she voted to recognize the Iranian Revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. That last one concerns me more than her statement about obliterating Iran if it nukes Israel (because such a thing won't happen in the first place). It was also my reason for making the statement that "Only Clinton could lead us into war with Iran."
To answer your question more directly: being a badass is not important. Being effective is. Using all of the tools at our disposal (including international diplomacy) is part of being effective. Bush was an ineffectual "badass".
May 3, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just like to add that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is the Iranian military. By declaring it a terrorist organization, she legitimized a war against the Iranian army- it doesn't make sense- how would you explain it, "we're not at war with Iran, just its army.
May 3, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AUMF got inspectors back into Iraq so we could confirm they had no WMD's. Please explain the alternatives. Another UN resolution? Please reference other resolutions under the Clinton Administration. Due by 5pm Friday.
May 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she should have done her homework and read the NIE.
May 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss a memo or something, where someone died and left you in charge?
May 3, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) It's my post and I'll hardass if I want to, hardass if I want to, hardass if I want to (you'd hardass too if it happened to you)
2) Following in Hillary's footsteps of giving ultimatums.
3) It was intended as humor.
May 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I would've done, if I had legitimately believed there was a risk of them developing WMDs:
(1) Go to the UN security council. Ask them to put in writing that Iraq has exactly one last chance. If they fail, then the UN security council pre-validates the use of force.
(1a) The UN security council declines. You've now shown your desire to work within the system, however. Now you go to individual nations and ask them to make the same pledge. Many that did not support us in Iraq would be willing to make that pledge, if only to keep us from going to Iraq anyways.
(1b) The UN security council accepts.
(1b1) Iraq complies. Peace reigns. World hunger is over. We colonize the moon, harvest its He-3, and perfect fusion. Global warming is halted.
(1b2) Iraq pretends to comply but then fails for the nth time. We now have the pledge(s) that were signed that this gives us permission to respond militarily. Not a great outcome, but better than the situation we're in now.
(2) There is no 2. Go away. I don't know why I numbered it this way.
May 3, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How far off is this from what actually happened (including how the UN Security Council actually behaves and Blix's not completely rosy report in January), and how much different could Hillary have made this? (Please address the reassurances Powell, Rice and Tony Blair gave, especially Powell as a former Clinton Joint Chief of Staff).
May 3, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's quite a bit off from what actually happened. No attempt at pre-validation was attempted. Rather an attempt at post-validation was attempted and failed. I'm no expert in diplomacy, but it seems clear to me that the diplomats we were sending over there weren't either. (I'm not sure what the reassurances of Powell, Rice, or Blair have to do with our use of smart diplomacy, or lack thereof. I'm taking it as a given, for sake of discussion, that one believed there was a WMD program in place.)
What could Hillary have done? She could have said added an amendment to that bill that required said diplomacy in a very specific manner. She could have refused to vote for a bill until such a diplomatic pledge was secured. There are a lot of things she could've done.
I'm not claiming that what I posted is "the answer". I do think it's a helluva lot better than what we got, but that's kind of like saying "taller than Napoleon" or "smarter than Bush".
May 3, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran doesn't have a nuke, and won't have one for years. Even if they did, Israel has hundreds of nukes worth of deterrence. (One could argue that Iran is simply seeking its own deterrence, for its self-preservation. I won't try though.)
The failure to mention any of this, and launch into badassery, is kind of an oversight to me. Diplomacy is important in a president also.
That said, if you're so in favor of badass-ness, then I wouldn't have had such a problem with her words and response if she'd prefaced them with the first 2 of the aforementioned points - to show that the scenario was totally unlikely anyway. Americans are pretty uninformed, and that fact along with loud drumbeats sometimes leads them into war unprepared and ill-advised.
May 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're assuming that Iran is completely cleared of having any intentions on a nuclear program or that progress is that delayed. I wouldn't expect a candidate to make that assumption until she actually assumes office and sees evidence. (Likewise, I wouldn't trust the Bush Administration either).
May 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing wrong with being a badass - as long as the smarts to know when to be a badass and when to simply be a good neighbor go along with it. That is where I suspect Clinton fails the test.
If you'll recall T.R.'s "Speak softly and carry a big stick." dictum, by way of contrast, she's shouting at the top of her lungs.
Not smart. Better to leave some things unsaid and create some range of possibilities, including that of rewarding good behavior.
May 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teddy Roosevelt:
"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly."
"Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace. "
"I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate; and while the debate goes on, the canal does also."
"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
"The most successful politician is he who says what everybody is thinking most often and in the loudest voice."
"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer."
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. "
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."
When you are asked if you can do a job, tell 'em, 'Certainly I can!' Then get busy and find out how to do it.
May 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A president has to be hard as steel, no doubt about it.
But the steel is for results, not for images.
In the old cowboy westerns, there were guys who drew their guns on small insults and guys who lurched around shooting up the joint. They weren't the heroes.
The heroes were the sheriffs and the sober citizens who used their strength to settle the town down. If that took bullets, that's what they used, but they didn't think shell casings on the ground were a way to measure success. Real leaders don't need big noise to get results.
Effective presidents check the intelligence, listen to conflicting information, communicate through quiet channels, mobilize allies, and make American resolve completely clear.
The current president flunks by that standard, of course.
Senator Clinton's Iran threat flunks the same way. She doesn't sound like a general. She sounds like a street brawler. Serious power, used for serious results, doesn't sound like that.
May 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with GW is that he tries to be a badass at the wrong times.
That's how the "obliterate" comment came off to me. It just seemed unnecessary and oddly timed. Which made me think it was more politically motivated.
Allow me to say that my knowledge of everything-Middle-East-related is not extensive, by any means.
It sometimes seems to me that our "friendship" with Israel is an odd one. Criticism of Israel is verboten in certain circles, which I honestly don't understand. If anyone wants to shed some light on why that is, please do.
For instance, our NIE released last year indicated that Iran had halted its nuclear program, albeit with some caveats. It is my understanding that they would not be able to produce a bomb for at least 6 more years. But the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel recently said that Iran would master nuclear technology within the year. So who's wrong?
I know this: the situation in the Middle East is a complicated one. I wish in her discussion of this she would have mentioned the NIE, because I'm honestly not sure how many Americans know what it contained, and I find statements like the one she made too simplistic.
May 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly don't want to attempt to explain our relationship with Israel, and this election is not the time to evaluate it or try to change it.
May 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Badass is bad enough, but badass bully is.
Merriam-Webster definition of "bully":
1. archaic: a. sweetheart, b. a fine chap
2. a: a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker, b: pimp
3. a hired ruffian
Forget the archaic definition (last known use: the bully pulpit). Bush is a bully. Cheney is a bully. Carville is a bully.
You can be assertive, even aggressive, without resorting to bullying. Clinton proposes dealing with Iran--indeed, the international community-- through threats and isolation. Putin, Ahmadina-Igiveup, they have to be dealt with; Bush has hurt us badly. But Clinton's style is simply Bush all over again.
May 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please cite a reference - she gave a badass hypothetical in the case Iran nuked Israel. Where else has she been all threats and isolation?
May 3, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I am not sure there is a place for a hardass to begin with, there is a huge difference between being a hardass and the cowboy bluster in her comments. They seemed reckless and quite unwise if one assumes the eventual goal is to establish some type of relations with the country. And that does not even address the issue of the monumental failure of reason that was the Middle-East Nuclear Umbrella(tm) idea. This is the one issue where I really do hope she is pandering; anyone seriously entertaining such thoughts is unfit for any type of office.
On a small scale, think of it this way; the persians are regular people just like everyone here. Paying their bills, sending kids to school, chatting online and whatnot. Even if one were to assume they were up to something nefarious (and there is no reason to), they think they are doing the right thing just like people over here.
And this lady just relishingly said she would obliterate their entire country if they do something they have no intention of doing. (Of course, the obliteration would reach hundreds, thousands of miles outside of Iran too.)
It is not the best way to build trust, you know?
May 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have the slightest problem with stating clearly that the first use of an atomic weapon will not be tolerated and America will respond. Hillary didn't say anything about starting a war.
There's a reason homo sapiens have become the top predator species on this planet. Its not just because we're clever. There will always be a need for the president to be a "hardass" at times in dealing with "hardass" leaders in other countries.
I wish America was a hardass in the furtherance of the values laid out in our constitution and bill of rights rather then the furtherance of America's business interests. Unfortunately that hasn't always been so.
What ever nations have been the top dog in their sphere of influence have used their power often brutally against other nations in the service of their perceived interests. That includes America. As America's power diminishes she has a choice of standing tough to maintain a balance of power or standing down as another nation or nations use their power pretty much the same or more brutally then America did when she was top dog.
Diplomacy is of course a big part of the picture but one can negotiate from a position of power or weakness. The outcome will be determined by that position.
But then, I'm one of the chorus of cynics.
May 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could have supported the Levin Amendment which did say that we should have had the UN involved but she didn't support it. If by voting for AUMF she thought she was actually voting for more diplomacy, why didn't she support Levin?
May 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Levin amendment was flawed. Even Feingold voted against it and for the same reason Hillary did.
"Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin's alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration's proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan." [Congressional Record, S10257-58, 10/10/02]
May 3, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is that.
May 3, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so because Russ Feingold voted against it also that makes it okay.
"The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”
Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”
“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.
“Unfortunately,” he concluded, “these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html
May 3, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realise this is entirely too late, but I will leave my comment here for posterity:
Feingold voted against it because it could have allowed troops to be sent and he did not want the troops to be able to be sent by anyone at that point. The exact opposite of why Clinton claims to have voted against it.
May 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's badass rhetoric is for the badass voters.
But anyway, it's academic to discuss Hillary + Iran when Cheney is still president. Like Seymour Hersh, I think the current administration could bomb (or help Israel bomb) Iran at any time between now and January 21, 2009.
May 3, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment