When Senator Barack Obama ran for president of the United States, a major critique of him was his relative inexperience. The argument went that Mr. Obama just didn't have enough time under his belt to govern the country, and it was used against him throughout the campaign.
This attack was not just political posturing. Many Mr. Obama's political opponents - from former president Bill Clinton to Senator John McCain - genuinely believed that he did not have what it took to run the world's most powerful country.
It has therefore been interesting to observe the affair of Mr. Obama actually running the world's most powerful country.
The tribunals in Guantánamo and newly revealed military campaigns are reinforcing some less than admirable qualities. The stain will not wash out as easily as some might want.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
On April 7, 2010 the people of Kyrgyzstan, a far-away country straining under an increasingly oppressive president, liberated themselves. In a revolution recalling those of 1989, protests unexpectedly toppled the authoritarian government. The opposition quickly took control, promising free and fair elections.
The United States government promptly asked if the new administration would allow America to keep its air base in the country.
President Barack Obama gave a solid speech last night, carefully explaining his policies and proposing new plans for helping the middle class.
The trouble is that nobody will remember it in a month.
Presidential speeches come in two types: those few that are enduring, and those many that do little more than fill a news cycle. The enduring ones have several things in common: they are generally made in a time of crisis, and they outline themes that constitute a hallmark of the presidency. For instance, in March 1947 President Harry Truman summarized the strategy of containment against the Soviet Union, which would guide U.S. policy for decades to come.
State of the Union addresses almost never fit either condition. One exception was in 2002, when President George W. Bush coined the term "Axis of Evil" - which for better or worse came to symbolize his administration's policies. But other than that lone exception, not a single address (out of the hundreds given) has made any impression upon history.
Mr. Obama's speech was not particularly memorable, either. It was not meant to be. The speech focused primarily on domestic issues like jobs and education; stuff like this a great speech does not make. There are probably at least fivespeechesthe presidenthas madewhich overshadow this one (funny how most of them were written by Obama himself). Indeed, I doubt that half the people at my college even knew that there was the State of the Union address yesterday.
Like last year's address, this year's will probably be quickly overshadowed by other news. Its likely that even the most politically passionate can't recall a word of the 2009 quasi-State of the Union. And as for the 2008 address - most people probably don't even remember Mr. Bush making it.
Even a few hours later, President Obama receiving the Peace Prize is still surprising. Leaving aside the aspirational argument for the award, which Adam discussed earlier today, and the important messaging behind the award, which I discussed earlier, here is a quick at the pro and con arguments:
Pro There have been some tangible accomplishments President Obama has made toward a more peaceful world. These include:
Starting the process of removing all American troops from Iraq by December 2011;
Halting the plan for a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe;
Boosting the cause of multilateral diplomacy through responses to the world financial crisis in the G-20, engaging Iran on nuclear power, arriving at a strategic arms reduction agreement with Russia. applying pressure on Israel over expanded settlements, and advancing international climate change talks.
Banning the use of torture by the United States military, and starting the process of closing Guantanamo Bay.
Con Then again...
Increasing the United States troop levels in Afghanistan arguably should have made President Obama ineligible for the Peace Prize. It is very difficult to accept that a prize for peace should go to a world leader who is escalating a war and continuing tactics that have resulted in both civilian deaths and a major refugee crisis.
The ongoing reduction in United States carbon emissions has been caused as much by the economic downturn and local / state laws than anything the Obama administration did. Further, it is far from guaranteed either that the final version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or that the Copenhagen climate summit will yield a new climate change agreement.
Starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is more the doing of the Iraq government than anything else. All the United States is doing is not breaking a security agreement with another government.
It could be argued that the missile shield was cancelled because we didn't have the money for it as much as any other reason.
A new diplomatic approach is great, but has it has not yielded many tangible results yet. We should not emphasize process over accomplishments.
Those who developed the torture policies will not be prosecuted, and Guantanamo Bay has not actually been closed.
It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.
For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little...which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we're getting into a proper context.
The goal of today's conversation is to give you a bit more of an "insider look" at today's news; and to do that we'll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we'll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we'll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we'll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.
Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.
Obama's speech in Cairo (transcript) was hailed around the world by virtually everyone, except, as Rachel Maddow noted, for the trogdolite right. So why not have a foreign policy that's actually consistent with its main themes and main thrust, rather than one that continues Bush/Cheney policy with a "kinder, gentler" veneer? In his speech, Obama said:
The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind.
Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives....
Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.
And he has continued doing this ever since. All based on a false premise (from his Cairo speech):
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And it never will be the case, so long as we are over there killing yet more innocents. At some level, Obama has to realize that. And yet he spouts this utter nonsense, in the midst of an otherwise brilliant and inspiring speech. There has to be a better way.
The Obama administration has decide to not use the term "war on terror," according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term "War on Terror," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a "War on Terror."
"I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used," said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan.
Given the many problems we face as a country, one might ask whether or not it matters if the administration uses the term "war on terror" or not. The answer is that yes, it obviously matters, at least a little bit. While it is not a term either President or Senator Obama used very much at all, candidate Obama told Bill O'Reilly, when asked, that he believed America was in the middle of a war on terror. If President Obama didn't feel like the term mattered at all, then he wouldn't have said that.
Now, a different question is, does it really matter that much? The answer in this case is probably not. Not only had the term become a bit of a bankrupt joke that holds little currency with people either in this country or abroad, but the real question is whether President Obama will continue the various policies associated with the GWOT. Secret prisons, declaring people "enemy combatants," torture, vastly increased defense spending, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, Iraq and Afghanistan troop deployments, etc. Beyond a name, the "war on terror" was a series of horrific policies. To end the "war on terror," you can't just drop the name. The administration must drop the policies, too.
The Apologetics are emerging en force this week, and one worth noting is Phillip Zelikow who published his attempts at self-justification over at the Foreign Policy Magazine's "Shadow Government" blog.
Unfortunately Mr Zelikow's style tends toward the very dry and impenetrable sort that pervades official Government policy presentations, like, say, the 2002 National Security Strategy, which he, along with Condi Rice and Stepehn Hadley authored and which forms the basis for his assessment of Bush's Legacy, so it's very difficult at first to for laymen as such to figure out what the fuck he is trying to say. Much easier to just sort of nod to the awareness that Bush did have a profound impact on foreign policy, point out that most of it sucked but that there is some plausible argument that some points of his policy did OK, maybe, and walk away.
But Zelikow's position is such that, when he says "What Bush Got Right," and then proceeds to frame the analysis around the policy documents he crafted, he's essentially saying, "What I, Phillip Zelikow, Got Right," and so walking away actually entails letting this man win the argument that "The Bush Doctrine"lead to some positive outcomes.
Toward the end of 2005, I wrote the following diary at My Left Wing. I'm reprinting it here without altering the few references that date it. I'm also leaving it with the somewhat too-streamlined presentation of the Powell Doctrine (which has no standard form), leaving out the explicit, separate call for ecaluating risks, costs and concequences, as well as genuinely broad international support. I want to emphasize both how sound the approach expressed is, in my view, and how long it has been not just evident, but clearly supported by evidence and individuals who command mainstream respect. I feel this is particularly necessary, given the overall blurring and lack of resolve being shown by Obama with regard to the military, foreign policy and the war on terror. Rejecting the neocon's disastrous hijacking of US foreign policy, and returning to a focus on America's core ideas and ideals should not be a polarizing, partisan idea. It should be the very definition of bi-partisanship.
Part One: Two Keys To Winning Against Terrorism
There are two keys to winning the war on terrorism. The first is to recognize that it is not a war on terrorism. It is a war of ideas, against people who use terrorism. This gives special meaning and focus to Sun Tzu's maxim from The Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
The second key is to understand the situations in which terrorism flourishes, and act to change them. We need to understand the grievances--legitimate or not--that terrorists exploit, and do what we can to address them. We must enter into a dialogue with people who feel powerless and abandoned, for terrorism appeals most strongly to those who feel they have no other way.
What had been a truce between Israel and the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip seems to have abruptly come to a halt; with the Israelis blaming Hamas and Hamas blaming Israeli oppression of the displaced Palestinians for the simmering hostilities that are now boiling over into military-scale violence.
Before the recent holidays and an immoderate amount of snow buried me in things that could not be done on the computer we had been having a conversation about the strategic importance of our relationship with Egypt. Within that series of discussions we explored the influence of the political opposition, and we considered the fragility of President Mubarak's hold on power.
We also noted the immediate proximity of Egypt to the Gaza Strip.
Today we're going to tie all of that together-and the end result of all that tying is that we better keep a close eye on Egypt, because trouble in Gaza has spilled over into trouble in Cairo....and that's one more Middle Eastern problem we don't need.
I've been holding off on even a tentative verdict regarding the transition from the lame-duck Bush to the incoming hope-duck Obama administration. Partly because I just don't know. Partly because I'm remaining cautiously optimistic. Partly because I feel like I'm cursed and that my cynicism and skepticism, coupled with my hope and pride, if made public, might just jinx everything and ruin Obama's presidency. Okay, I've obviously just been watching way too much Twin Peaks lately.
(And by "watching" I mean obsessively and consecutively beaming the entire series into my skull. And by "lately" I mean in the past three days. And by "too much" I mean not nearly enough because, honestly, Twin Peaks was a watershed moment/phenom in television and American history and in a just world ABC would still be airing new episodes once a week and showcasing the best and most unique in television writing, production, directing and acting. Oh well.)
And, partly because the Sky has been Falling for so many on the left that I just really couldn't get with the chorus of naysayers. Not because those sounding the alarms on the left are Chicken Littles and wrong about Obama being Clinton Redux - I've had the same fear - but just because homogeneity is just not my thing and always induces illustrious yawns. (At least I think they look illustrious.)
But this recent front page diary about Obama's pick for National Security Advisor by Chris just screams for my attention.
It is been but a few hours since Sarah Palin took the stage to have a conversation with Joe Biden, and of course the Nation has a ton of questions.
What will happen now?
How will we view all this in a few days?
How will it affect McCain and Obama?
I don't know...and I'm not even going to try to figure it out right this minute.
Instead, we're going to take a trip halfway across the world to a country that has been essential to understanding the Middle Eastern story, has been at the center of international conflicts time and time again...and has lessons to teach us that, if we learn them well, could make us a much smarter "Foreign Policy Nation" than we are today.
The country? Egypt.
So grab your virtual passport...and after we arrive, there are a few people I want you to meet.
This debate was Obama's whole campaign in miniature: morally ambiguous, a slew of missed opportunities for devastating blows, and a fundamental lack of a well-crafted plan, but a good-enough strategic posture smoothly executed to pull out a tie, which is all he really needed at this point in time.
As for content--coming from both sides--I think political uber-sage Sean Penn nailed it:
The result is another frustrating piece of American media that is at once far too polite, and at the same time, dismissive of an American public's need to know anything beyond jingoistic self-aggrandizement.
Boy howdy!
And Obama's missed opportunities? Descending from the Apollonian highland realm of truth and beauty to the lowlands of mere strategy, here are just a few:
It's obvious to anybody paying any attention whatsoever that Sarah Palin's foreign policy knowledge is limited. She had to get a new passport to visit Alaskan troops in Kuwait. OnTheIssues records no foreign policy positions taken by her. She supported Pat Buchanan, for chrissake.
But of course, Fox News and the right wing swung into action. Of course she has foreign policy experience! Alaska borders Canada! And Russia!?!
Most people seem to be laughing this one off or ignoring the charge as beneath reasonable notice. Michael Kinsley pointed out that though her state does include the Aleutians, which were occupied by the Japanese in WW2, there's no evidence that Palin herself was involved in driving Hirohito's troops from American shores.
Still, I think there's an opportunity here. Maybe it can wait a few days (and maybe her candidacy will implode before we get a chance to ask,) but I think we could actually perform some pretty nice aikido here.
We just have to get Palin to talk about her negotiations with Russia. Join me on the flip for my reasoning.
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox