This may surprise some liberals, but I just re-read Obama's Cairo speech and I find little disagreement. What was missing in that speech, in light of recent events, was covered in his talk to the UN.
In principle, not bad. In practice, hiccups.
The biggest hiccup is Libya, starting with Obama's flouting of the War Powers Act and ending with an attack in Benghazi that was equal parts incompetence and scandal. In the incompetence column, the warning signs were there but were ignored. More from Jake Tapper:
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.
The embassy staff's "first choice was for us to stay," Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. "That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli."
But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy's Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST's tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel.
On the scandal side, Obama sent his UN ambassador out to lie on national television, for one. Even though the intelligence from the get-go pointed to an al Qaeda operation, the White House continued to maintain that a movie made militant Islamists do it. By diverting attention to a bad movie trailer, Obama is covering up the fact that militant Islamism is growing in north Africa and the Middle East. This is bad foreign policy and bad politics. It's one thing to lie on the campaign trail, it's another when speaking directly to the American people on matters of national security. Even Jon Stewart couldn't ignore it.
This should be a bigger deal.
On Egypt, Obama was right when he said that Mubarak should step down. The problem is when he said it, when Mubarak's resignation was fait accompli. Better late than never, I guess. But this isn't leadership, it's followership. Gaffes aside, the good news is that Egypt had a free and fair election, and the hardliners are having troubles.
On Syria, Obama was right when he said that Assad should step down. Again, late in coming but better late than never. The problem was prior to the crisis when, as late as March 2011, his people were touting Assad as a reformer (and once again showing John Kerry for the fool that he is). Seriously?
On Israel-Palestine, there is no president who has had a worse relationship with Israeli leadership than Obama, and it's more than just a personality conflict.
On Iraq, credit Obama for abiding by an agreement that his predecessor negotiated, and a demerit for failing to maintain a security presence in such an unstable country.
On Iran, I have no complaints. Stuxnet and sanctions are probably the best we can do, and there are indicators that the sanctions are affecting the Iranian economy.
So what about Romney? I read the speech but didn't see it. The NYT is right. There isn't a lot of detail. But then, Obama offered similar vagueness four years ago, and the voters said "good enough". Are there differences between Romney and Obama? Not many. Basically, Romney would swing his dick around more, and we'd have a better relationship with Israel. Romney is right about Obama's silence after the Iranian presidential election, when riots ensued after Ahmadinejad was declared the victor. I like Romney's emphasis on expanding trade in the Middle East. And Romney walked through the door that Obama opened re Libya.
Interesting that we see much of this the same but
(#292533)Come to different conclusions.... Egypt right call took longer than it should have but 40 years and other allies to pacify including the Saudi's in the end about as good as we can hope.. Long way to go...
Iran about the same except that IMHO not addressing the Green movement was the better long term call because it gave them space and showed that it was not instigated from the outside. (The rest is just waiting. I did here one report that Iran is ready to deal after our election. No faith but hope for the best.)
I think history caught a strongman flat footed. He was no longer able to play different fractions against each other and demonize Israel to keep power. He would have had the best chance to move them IMHO toward a modern democratic type society but the civil war will make it harder and the country more hard lined and less of a modern country IMHO... Let the Turks do the heavy lifting on this in there back yard...
That brings us to Libya... I tend to think of this as a fax scandal that is many steps below the POTUS. I'm not sure that we had hard actionable intelligence and I'm not sure that it was shared with who needed it on the ground etc. Also I think that regardless of the letter of the war powers act. Stopping a genocide falls within acceptable use of force considering that we had a good chunk of the world behind us and taking part if not leading..
As for the acknowledgement of it being a terrorist attack. This does not help Romney IMHO due to him stepping on this trying to politicize it before all the facts were in. Beside that or regardless of that you of all people should understand that downplaying an attack we were still in the dark about do some degree IMHO is what should be done in most if not all cases due to propaganda of the issue. I would half to say that if things were reversed I would have given a GOP president more leeway in regard to this kind of issue and all the things around it. I also am interested on what makes it a terrorist attack and what makes someone a terrorist. Do we define all non-state actors that attack American diplomats, soldiers and civilians as terrorist? If so what good does this do us as a country to label all these attacks as the same? Should we not differentiate between major players and smaller opportunists? Is this just to far into the weeds? As for the director of national intelligence what was his purpose of not talking about this in closed session? Unless he was there to fall on his sword for failures in his department.
As for you view of Romney and Obama's Foreign policy beside the bluster in which I find counter productive I see little that would change. I am afraid that IMHO I do not trust his temperament/judgment to be Commander and Chief. His record abroad has been less than encouraging...
The Israel issues may be ideological IMHO. The President is in line with parts of labor and kadema and not the current prime minister. The one real weakness of your post IMHO is using a Neo-Con critique of these issues as anything other than one sided. Israel under Bibi has done nothing to move talks forward or engage in limiting settlements etc. Obama has done alot on Iran and bibi IMHO needed to be put in his place and snubbing him and Egypt and putting the new leadership of Egypt on notice that they have a choice might have been untactful I think the point was made.. Not sure it hurt us much or had any real impact except to tell all the players inside that country that they really need us more than we need them.
What do I know I just take care of sick people all night... :) Thanks for the post BD even if we just see this different...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Huh
(#292549)I don't know what you mean by "Neo-Con critique". To me, it comes off as a throwaway line of bulls**t, all due respect.
With a relationship already on the ropes, what purpose does it serve Obama to continue to snub the Israeli PM, especially in light of a belligerent Iran that Israel perceives as an existential threat? I can understand Egypt, since Morsi didn't even bother to apologize for failing to provide adequate security.
On Libya, I agree that Romney flubbed it with his initial criticisms. The criticisms were valid but they went too far, and he paid for it politically. His speech yesterday struck the right tenor, IMO. Obama stepped in it by failing to provide adequate security in a volatile environment, and stepped in it further by trying to pass off a premeditated attack as a "spontaneous" act triggered by a cheesy movie trailer. Obama was rightfully called on it, and he should pay for that politically.
Re whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack, I've gone back and forth but I conclude that, although representing the U.S. government, embassies and consulates are civilian in nature, even though there are Marines and CIA on site. An attack on a military installation or personnel is not terrorism. I'm basing this on the official definition under Title 22 of the U.S. Code:
I consider an embassy or consulate a noncombatant target.
I don't know what you mean by Romney's "record abroad". He doesn't have a record. But then, neither did Barry four years ago and it didn't stop him from the nation's highest office.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
look I read the link an its points..
(#292575)From there own web site...
COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.
That pointing out the article you Cite as Neo-Conservative seemed normal for those that are not going to look through every link on this issue. It gives context to their view as maybe not being spot on unless you start in the Likud/ Neo-conservative corner of viewing the issues inside and around Israel. Granted IMHO it is a matter of tone and internal Israeli politics not sure it matters that much if Labor or Kadema where in control of there government. (I don't see movement toward a lasting settlement with Likud in power. (I think they do themselves a disservice by not moving more quickly with a settlement.)
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Write that out in chinese
(#292614)and post it to Belgrade.
Do you trust Romney's judgment on foreign policy?
(#292539)The sum total of his foreign policy resume to date consists of 3-4 really clumsy gaffes (some of them highly damaging) and then a bunch of d#ck-swinging propaganda for the insecure Republican base.
Obama made it crystal clear what he wanted to do in broad strokes: wind down the expensive Bush occupations & refocus on the WOT, while extending an olive branch to the sane majority in the Mideast (talking past their governments as necessary). End illegal detention & torture and, it was understood, stop lying to the US public & the world in order to garner support for stupid wars. Some of it has worked better than planned (Arab Spring), some worse (AfPak, still a few dozen uncharged detainees), but none of it has departed from his basic campaign agenda.
M Aurelius was probably right.
For one,
(#292552)Romney is a moderate who had to quack like a conservative to get nominated. As president, I believe he'll opt for moderation. A concern is his flip-floppiness on issues over the years but, to me, the real measure is whether he sticks to his pledges. As governor of MA, he was not labeled as a pledge breaker.
There aren't many actual policy differences between Obama and Romney, so it mostly comes down to tenor. In the Middle East, I think it's better to be a dick-swinging hardass because leaders in those countries respect strength and it puts us in a more favorable negotiating position. Better to be a SWH going into the room and then softening a few positions to make a deal.
Speaking of deal-making, Obama is a bad liberal and he's a bad negotiator, IMO, which is a bad combination. Romney has more negotiating experience. In that regard, I think he would be more successful than Obama in getting deals done.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
The last d#ck swinging hardass
(#292556)got us involved in a morass of misguided nation building & occupation that cost almost as much as WWII while lasting twice as long, with no real positive results for anyone but Iran. The problem is, Romney has the same group of numbskulls who advocated that strategy on his FP advisory team: Dan Senor, Cofer Black, Michael Hayden, John Bolton, John Lehman, Eric Edelman, Liz Cheney, Eliot Cohen. To be fair, he's also got a smattering of more thoughtful, moderate conservatives on his staff, but the hit parade of neoconservatives who have his ear should be fairly alarming.
I also believe that it's naive to think Romney will have all the room in the world to maneuver once he's in office. Yes he's mouthing off a lot now and might take a more adult FP approach once elected, but these people on his staff are going to be holding cabinet positions, and Romney is giving the neocons a lot more than lip service. His plan to hike defense spending by $2 trillion isn't going to evaporate when he takes office. And guess what. Ramping up military spending like that often leads to increased pressure to *use* the military.
The $2 trillion figure was probably pushed on Romney by advisor Jim Talent, patron saint to the defense industry and rumored to be first in line as Romney's SecDef.
M Aurelius was probably right.
For the love of God, enough with the 'd*ck swinging'
(#292562)You guys wouldn't keep using the term if every time you actually did it you ended up with broken furniture.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
And suddenly, you can hear a pin drop nt
(#292594).
I blame it all on the Internet
Hank, you figure somebody else would have picked this up
(#292597)and run with it. Instead I get questions about Iraqi furniture. I'm just going to tell knock-knock jokes from now on.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Only someone
(#292602)who spends all day asking why the "must ship today" pallets are at the back of the warehouse and completely blocked by the "long term storage" pallets has the right frame of mind to appreciate something like this.
I blame it all on the Internet
???
(#292626)Pick it up and run with it? Painful for all involved, given the weight and attachments.
Eeyn it's like caber tossing. Well, except for
(#292661)the actual toss part.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
I hear a second pin dropping nt
(#292679).
I blame it all on the Internet
What's with these pins?
(#292691)C'mon man. It's not about me. I'm looking for creativity. I mean Harley style creativity.
"I've never considered myself well endowed, having the modest dimensions of a 20 oz soda bottle".
Can a brother get a little love up in here? I'm not asking for much and I'm sure there's little enough to offer but cheezy BS quotes concerning manhood are something where right and left can set aside differences and rejoice in bi-partisan stupidity.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Since you mentioned Harley, "Three Inches" nt
(#292694).
I blame it all on the Internet
But a lot of furniture was broken, surely...
(#292595)...in Iraq.
Would you not agree?
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
A Lot of Our Furniture Was Broken Also, Don't Forget...nt
(#292596)Traveller
Arguable
(#292565)One, a Saddamless Iraq and Talibanless Afghanistan are better places.
Is Iran a better place? How? Its Syrian proxy is on the ropes and, other than maybe Iraq, Iran has no real friends or allies in the Middle East. Its economy stinks and they're stuck with a gang of 18th century mullahs in charge.
As for Romney, he has staked out a position that is not terribly different from Obama's, despite the cabal of evil neocons who advised him. This is sounding like the PNAC paranoia that gripped the Left not longer after 9/11 attacks.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
You think Afghanistan is Talibanless?
(#292568)Okaaaaaaaaaaaay
A Talibanless government in charge,
(#292982)yes.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Do you mean the PNAC paranoia that was more than vindicated
(#292570)by the Iraq invasion and all that followed? That PNAC paranoia? The one that said the Bush administration was angling for an invasion/occupation/nation building exercise in the Mideast come hell or high water? The paranoia that said in 2003-04 that the project was doomed to failure because the ideological nitwits in charge didn't have the first clue what they were doing?
A Talibanless Afghanistan *would* be a better place. But you yourself know the country is hardly Taliban free. Iraq is still a factionalized unstable power run by a strongman. I hope that there are fewer rape rooms, torture dungeons and mass graves than there were in 2002, but there isn't much reason to believe the secret police are any less active or any less vicious. The number is certainly not "zero."
Iran has never had "real friends or allies" in the Mideast, not since 1979. What it has are client states: Syria, Lebanon, and now thanks to us, southern Iraq.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Yes
(#292992)There was no PNAC document or verbiage that called for the invasion of Iraq, hence PNAC paranoia.
Southern Iraq? Al Maliki retook Basra for a reason. And thanks to us, the Kurds have autonomy.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
That is an utterly stupid argument
(#293001)and I'll just let it sit there being stupid.
M Aurelius was probably right.
A Qadafyless Libya ia also a better place. Cost? 1 Ambassador
(#292583)and some other staff. A better deal, wouldn't you agree?
In any case, and in spite of what you say, international law specifies that the personal security of diplomatic personnel is not the responsibility of the guest country but rather that of the host country. How would you feel about sizable Russian or Chinese military or marines on US soil guarding their staff? Also, reports indicate that Mr Stevens went into a pretty dangerous Benghazi on his own initiative, with his security detail, not on instructions from the State Department.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Not the point
(#292585)It being election season, the point is Obama lost an Ambassador & he must be made to pay a price for that in votes. The math demands it.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Mr Bush lost an Ambassador in Iraq too, and it didn't hurt him
(#292603)in the 2004 elections.
OK, so it was the UN Ambassador, not the American, so perhaps you are right that it does make a difference. But other diplomats were killed, at a lower level admittedly, too. There was some comment on Tacitus IIRC at the time.
As well as other diplomatic and non-military personnel. So it is not necessary that civilian, even higher-up civilian deaths should lead to electoral defeat.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
IOKIYAAR
(#292618).
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Better places?
(#292593)Yes. Worth the cost? Not on your life. Anything over a couple hundred grand is too much.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
They're not better places
(#292605)there are bombs going off every f(*king week. Easy for people here to say it was worth it, I'd love to send a whole bunch of warbloggers over to spend a couple of months there and see how they like it.
I blame it all on the Internet
No, that's still better
(#292609)A republican form of government (you'll have to prove to me they don't have one) with bombs going off every "f(*king" week is better than no bombs and no republican government.
What's the old saying? I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees? Yes, I take that to heart.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
What is it about republican government that trumps all else?
(#292612)What if you just want to do your own work, live life with family and friends and so on.
Many millions of people have lived and continue to live perfectly reasonable lives in dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, even theocracies and so forth. Produce works of literature, art, science. Even in the Nazi age, the majority of Germans got on perfectly well.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I don't know that it trumps *all* else
(#292651)But it's definitely up there. Again, this is in my opinion. If you don't care who is in charge, then you can sit back un watchen das blinkenlights.
The only legitimate government is that which derives its mandate from the people. That could be an elective dictatorship (see Venezuela) or it could be a direct democracy (see Ancient Greece). I happen to think that a republican form of limited government is the best way to go to make sure the mandate always survives. If there is no legitimate government, everyone is essentially a slave. I don't want to be a slave, even if I have really nice shackles.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
That's fine as a personal motto.
(#292615)But I think you should have the argument with the people who've had to go down to the morgue to collect the bodies of their children after the latest wave of marketplace bombings. Tell them to their face that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Maybe some of them will agree with you.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It's not objective
(#292644)It's subjective. *I* think it's better. If they don't they are free to yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein. I'm not stopping them.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Whether they yearn or not
(#292649)they're getting a new stongman.
I blame it all on the Internet
Whatever they like
(#292652)People always get the government they deserve. If they don't have the fortitude to keep their republic together, they'll get not so much of a republic and all the benefits and drawbacks that this entails. It's all their call.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Really? US intervention had nothing to do with it?
(#292656)Your algorithms don't seem to accord with the world that I see.
I blame it all on the Internet
Better relationship with Israel?
(#292551)I think you meant to say, better relationship with Bibi and the Likud and forgot to mention that Romney will endanger the defecit by wasting $2 Trillion on stuff even the military doesn't want, as opposed to the sensible attempt to trim military spending our fiscal situation demands.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Same difference
(#292553)A president is stuck with dealing with the foreign leaders who are there, not the ones he wishes were there. A President Romney would undoubtedly have a better relationship with the Israelis than Obama has. As for defense spending, not the topic.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Funny how that doesn't apply to Bibi nt
(#292577).
I blame it all on the Internet
Bibi's Legitimate
(#292580)The other guy not so much.
Israel is also apparently not as appreciative of and deferential to the tough-guy swagger* as the rest of the ME.
------------
*Hi Darth!
You mean Giant Swinging Richards?
(#292581)I see that securing a supply of Rittenhouse has improved your attitude!
I blame it all on the Internet
Appreciated.
(#292598).
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Not the topic?
(#292582)are you claiming that Romney's foreign policy/military spending doesn't have to fit within budget restraints?
Look where that kind of magical thinking got us under Bush the dumber.
And the best way to deal with Bibi is not to allow him or the Likud or the likes of Sheldon Adelson, to dictate US policy in the region.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Eh
(#292991)Since the topic isn't about military spending, off topic.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
I do doubt it.
(#292591)With Netanyahu, yes. With Israeli labor no. Your argument is that because Israel has a conservative government we should have one too, just so we get along.
But that cuts both ways. If Obama is in office, Israelis who followed that logic would vote for labor. But they don't. And the reason is, politics is local, and each country has to vote according to its own process.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Romney's Foreign Policy Team
(#292555)Enough said.
John Bolton
Eliot Cohen
Cofer Black
Walid Phares
Michael Hayden
Dan Senor
Max Boot
Eric Edelman
It's like a Who's Who of Early Ought foreign policy screwups (and/or their assistants).
Ouch
(#292645)That sent shivers down my spine.
And what the hell happened to this election, anyway?
I skipped the debate, spent the last several days in a cabin hiking and whatnot, and now Romney's winning?
This blows.
Cohen was a Clinton pick.
(#292662).
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Wrong Cohen, I think
(#292678)according to his wikipedia entry.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yeah, I was thinking of William Cohen
(#292687).
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
I think you mixed up Eliot Abrams and William Cohen
(#292689)two bats*&t crazy aides that start wars together.
I blame it all on the Internet
I guess the Republican line now
(#292641)Is why can't you defend embassies on the cheap:
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Dammit, austerity is working! -nt-
(#292684).
M Aurelius was probably right.