Sunday, May 18, 2008
Jeff Jacoby's column today is a grab bag, beginning with the Jerusalem/Obama kerfuffle:
SPEAKING in Jerusalem on Thursday, President Bush criticized the appeasement-flavored mindset of those who imagine that the world's worst tyrants can be placated with face-to-face chats. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," said Bush, "as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
Though Bush didn't mention anyone by name, Democrats decided that his target was Barack Obama. The Obama campaign blasted the president for launching an "unprecedented political attack on foreign soil" - and insisted that if Obama is elected, "we're not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program."
Really? Obama's own website describes him as "the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." When Obama was asked during a televised debate last year whether he would agree "to meet separately, without precondition . . . with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea," he promptly answered: "I would."
If Obama has had a change of heart, he should say so. Complaining of an "unprecedented political attack" when he hasn't even been named, let alone misrepresented, is peevish and pathetic, not presidential...
I have been astounded at the over the top reaction to the President's rather straightforward Jerusalem remarks. The portion being complained about were particularly well tuned for the Jerusalem ear which is understandably concerned about being thrown to the crocodile and is dealing with a region in which the naive dare not dabble.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much has been the nature of Democrat reaction -- it's almost like they know exactly who GWB was talking about, and indeed they do. To match with what Jacoby says about Obama's own official responses, I listened to talk show caller after talk show caller this week call to excoriate Bush's remarks and then conclude with, "Besides, what's so bad about talking with your enemies, anyway?" They want it both ways.
Now, for sure, talking is not the same as appeasing -- except in so far as direct talks with an American President would be in the nature of a useful prestige victory for some of the thugs we have so far avoided direct engagement with.
And what is there that we don't know about Iran, for instance, that a visit by a President Obama would discover? Did this nation spring suddenly out of the ground last week? Has it not been studied? Are their leaders' statements, actions and goals not well on the record for decades now? Would Obama travel to Tehran like some sort of latter day Lewis & Clark?
And when he goes there and talks, as he has promised to do, and comes back with nothing, he will have hurt the prestige of the office and the nation both at home (as the press mocks his precedent-setting trip that achieved nothing) and abroad (as friends will be dismayed and enemies reaffirmed that they too can inflate themselves by standing up to the American President). And if he goes, and to save his trip he gives something, then more than likely what he will have given will represent appeasement.
That is why you never, as a first gesture, send the President himself, with his prestige on the line, to do diplomacy with a laundry-list of evil. If Obama knows this, or thinks he can get away with a simple but extremely high profile talk without agreeing to anything else but talk, and either has no intention of actually doing what he says he'll do or knows already it will come to nothing, then his statements are nothing but manipulative, lying, dishonest politics that play voters for fools, unnerve our allies and provides no leadership to a supportive public that, rather than be educated about why what sounds good (talking) doesn't always work out so good, will be lead to come up with rationalizations for bad policies in order to support their candidate.
The rest of Jacoby's piece is worth reading, btw. Hooray for the public sector:
...If you don't have your snout in the government trough, you can expect to work ever-longer hours and pay ever-higher taxes and fees to support those who do.
Those, for example, like Michael Mulhern. He is the 40-something former MBTA general manager who "retired" in 2005, began collecting a $130,000 annual pension, then hired on as head of the MBTA retirement fund, a job that pays about $225,000 annually. Mulhern's total take: more than $350,000 a year. He is just one illustration of a huge problem growing more urgent by the day - the staggering sums that taxpayers are shelling out for the care and feeding of avaricious public employees. In Massachusetts and nationwide, a backlash is coming.
If the appeasement thing doesn't get you outraged, that should.
If Obama had any political skills at all, he would make the same point that the Wall Street Journal made:
A cardinal rule of presidential diplomacy is never to ask publicly for favors unless you know in advance they will be granted. The same request by Mr. Bush had already been rebuffed by the Saudis during his visit to Riyadh in January. This time around, the Saudi response was particularly blunt and condescending: "If you want more oil, you need to buy it," said Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister.
This second presidential humiliation comes even as the Administration is defending its decision to sell the House of Saud billions of dollars in advanced weapons, over the increasingly hectic objections of New York Senator Chuck Schumer. The Administration is also proposing to help the Saudis develop civilian nuclear reactors to provide for their energy needs. That may help the Kingdom export more oil by easing its domestic requirements. But we await the explanation for why the world needs another politically unstable Islamic theocracy in possession of radioactive fuel rods.
Okay, this response wasn't harsh enough. Saudi Arabia isn't just another unstable Islamic theocracy, it's the worst unstable Islamic theocracy, the hub of world terrorism. We're giving the sponsors of 9/11 lots of cash and radioactive fuel rods to play with.
That's our response to the 9/11 attacks. Now that's appeasement.
However, I suspect that Obama didn't make this point because he's just as willing to appease the Saudis as Bush is. The Democrats and the Republicans have always agreed on that point. Which is why it's becoming obvious that politics in general are incapable of providing a solution to a problem like this.
The political solution to the oil crisis, which we've been warned about for years, is ethanol and appeasement. That seems to be all they've got. Hopefully, the market and scientific research will come up with better solutions.
Speaking to the enemy is not, in and of itself, a policy. It is one action, in a succession of actions and decisions, which are fitted into an over whole vision of a solution to a problem. So Obama is technically correct in asserting that his willingness to speak to Ahmadinejad is, not an act of appeasement. Nor is it a policy.
But the unease inspired by his declared intentions lies in the absence of a clearly-articulated and visible policy in which his decision and following action to speak to Ahmadi would make sense.
What is he looking to achieve by these conversations? A public relation opportunity? Cancellation of Iran's nuclear ambitions? Reconciliation with Israel's existence?
But all these have already been tried, as Ami Isseroff notes, here:
"Supporters of "engagement" should take note: The EU has been talking to Iran about its nuclear program for many years, but has made no progress whatever. The US is a tacit party to these negotiations and Iran knows it. For them, negotiations are only about accepting their terms. The US has been talking to Iran about its interference in Iraq and has made no progress... So what is there to talk about with them?"
What is Obama's larger, greater vision, of which his act, of speaking to Ahmadinejad, is but the first step?
We don't know. We don't have any idea how he will proceed from the moment (sure to come) when he finds out that for the Iranians, "negotiations are only about accepting their terms".
When Chamberlain decided to speak to Hitler, he was doing only that, speaking to Hitler. Speaking to Hitler in and of itself was not appeasement. The successive negotiations that took place, once this initial conversation took place, culminated in the notorious agreement of 1938 "Peace in our time".
So, when you consent to sup with the devil, you need to have a very long term clear vision of what to expect. This vision is absent in Obama's proposed "policies". They are not "policies" at all.
Could this be Karl Rove's work?
The point about talking to enemies gets a lot of attention, but maybe it's just a vector for delivering another message. That other message, and the Obama people I think know this and it's why they're so up in arms, is that you can't solve the world's problems, or the country's problems, merely by virtue of His Magnificence and Presence.
Hillary Clinton worked that theme, the President used it in this instance, and I'm very sure that McCain will find other ways to bring it up.
This is a major weakness for Obama because so much of his core support comes from people who believe in him in precisely this sort of mythical way, as if we were all extras in some great movie in which, once he's elected, the music makes a crescendo, the credits roll and everybody presumably lives happily ever after.
Getting people to think about what it's like after you leave the theater, and your car is hot and the house needs cleaning and you still have to pay your taxes, is a good move.
Obama's other two big weaknesses are that he wants to have everything both ways, and that he's got a lot of radical baggage from his pre-national political career that he doesn't have the balls to let go of. This issue touches both of those areas as well.
To me, it looks like the Obama people walked into a trap on this one, since the issue itself is one they might be able to refute but the overtones will hurt them.
Speaking as a Democrat, I'm more than a little dismayed at what appears to be an overreaction.
I've read the entire speech and it's a good speech, and in context with the rest of the text, Bush's comments didn't seem at all out of line, nor do they read as bait for the Dems/Obama.
Obama did make a good point though, that the Bush Administration is responsible for having empowered Hamas in the first place, by insisting they be part of the election. The idea was that Hamas would "moderate" if it became part of a legitimate political process.
I think this was a serious mistake, and indeed both the Israelis and the PA objected - but to me it seems obvious that heavily armed political parties aren't political parties at all - let alone armed groups with extremist points of view. By their very nature don't they threaten the concept, let alone the corpus of the state? Look at Hezbollah and what has happened in Lebanon as well as Gaza.
A democratic state can only survive if the idea of the nation or city-state exists as the primary goal, rather than the armed empowerment of sectarian or other factions. There's no such thing as a democracy wherein some citizens can be held hostage by the armament of another group of citizens.
I'm shocked, actually, that the Bush Administration didn't see this. The idea of giving people democratic rights is a noble one but don't certain preconditions need to pertain? I think the idea that Hamas (or Hezbollah) would become moderate was naive at best.
i advise obama, scincerely, if he wanted to stop the iranian threat to all of us, to:
1) Sit with israel and ask them to sighn a treaty not to attack lebanon.
by doing this he will make hizboullah(iran military arm) unable to continue its propoganda of fighting isreal, therfore they will be forced to drop their arms, because they wont need it if there is no israelien threat .
2)ask israel to allow palestenians to establish their independant state, that will keep iran away from hamas.
3) pull out of iraq, and leave alqaeda deal with shiites.
this way iran would not be able to carry its wars on arab soil, and it wil be isolated in its boundries.
but then agains will isreal allow this scheme! or it will contnue classifying the world into terrorists and people unworthy to negotiate with? time will tell
obama needs to talk with all leaders, not like bush who responded to the latest problem in lebanon by saying he will send weapons to the lebanease army!! its like pouring oil on fire.
I'm intrigued. In what way will "alqaeda deal with shiites."?
but then agains will isreal allow this scheme!
Why won't Israel demand that we pull out of Iraq and let the good folks of al Qaeda deal with the Shi'ites?
What's wrong with those Israelis, anyway? They won't sign on to the al Qaeda peace plan either. Or was it the Saudi peace plan - I keep getting them confused.
.
I'm curious too.
I think the Israelis have zero interest in attacking Lebanon, except in self-defense; but various groups have used Lebanese bases to attack Israel. This includes PLO and other Palestinian groups of course but also Hezbollah. This has been an ongoing problem for decades.
In any case I think it's absurd to demand that Israel sign anything with Lebanon given that there is no functioning state of Lebanon. With whom is this treaty supposed to be signed? I agree that peace between Israel and Lebanon is highly desireable but first there has to be a functioning, unified Lebanese entity that can speak for all its people and not be torpedoed by armed militias who make war unilaterally.
Lebanon was effectively robbed of its own sovereignty by the Cairo Accords on 1969. This should be studied because it's an object lesson in how to destroy a state. Subsequent agreements and UN resolutions have failed to rectify the problem.*
The Palestinians attacked both Israel and Lebanese and of course this brought retaliations and civil war but also Syrian intervention. Now, sectarian strife seems to have risen again and Hezbollah has taken over as a primary threat to Israel as well as to other sects/political parties in Lebanon. Meanwhile al Qaeda type militant groups have taken root there - remember the Lebanese Army's assault on Nahr al Bared, the Palestinian "refugee camp" where Fatah al Islam was holed up? The whole town was essentially flattened.
Meanwhile Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups are supposed to disarm and Hezbollah, to become a part of Lebanon and not unilaterally make war either on Israel or on other Lebanese, yet, this isn't happening. Meanwhile the Palestinians live in a condition of functional apartheid in Lebanon.
Here's a prime example of a state struggling to exist - Lebanon - yet held hostage by powerful, armed groups within and also, threatened by Syria/Iran, which continue(s) to try and control Lebanese politics. Meanwhile the treatment of Palestinian Arabs, most of whom were born in Lebanon, and who in any case came from only a few miles away, is also worth examining.
Israel isn't even Lebanon's primary problem - or even a problem at all so long as Israel isn't attacked - so it would be refreshing to see an Arabian point of view reflecting this. Yet, the same groups and states that threaten Lebanon also threaten Israel. At the same time people actually claim that giving Palestinians rights in Lebanon would "rob them of their peoplehood" and therefore they should continue to live in misery. This I find astonishing. Of course the vast majority of Lebanese don't want to give the Palestinians rights anyway - why is that?
Maybe, Arabian, somebody needs to go do some Deep Thinking about these matters and stop blaming the Israelis for this situation or should I say, situations.
Also, Israel didn't start the Iraq war and doesn't have the power to demand anything of the US, period. In any case I sincerely doubt that the violence in Iraq would cease if the US withdrew. Things could actually get way worse, especially for the Kurds - and possibly there would be full-fledged civil war between Sunni and Shi'a factions - a real disaster.
Once again, Israel didn't create internecine Arab warfare or violence between religious sects nor is she responsible for Persian/Arab strife. Neither is the US for that matter though various great powers, including Russia/former Soviet Union, have taken advantage; this is a fact.
People, please start thinking rationally. We only have one planet. We should be taking care of it and care of each other.
We just don't have time for this madness - will we never stop being cruel and shortsighted?
*Note: further demands that Israel cede control of HER sovereignty would merely serve to destroy yet another state: is this the plan? To create a Caliphate or a mega-Arab state? Please, do tell.
Noga:
I agree that Sen. Obama is not an appeaser simply because he wants to talk. Rather, he is an appeaser because that's all he's willing to commit to doing.
As many others have said, diplomacy means nothing if not backed by the threat of force. Who cares how many treaties a President Obama can get signed? What I care about is what happens when the treaties are broken -- will there be consequences for breaking the rules, or will there not? And will he make those consequences clear, thereby reducing the chances that he'd have to use them?
I would have few objections if Sen. Obama gave some indication that he understood this. If he were to say, for example: "I am willing to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. I will come to him, on board the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, and he and I can talk in the captain's cabin there."
But he wouldn't say that, would he?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline