In a pivotal election year like this, the real issues, like the economy and foreign policy, count. The non-issues, like whether Sarah Palin abused her power to get a state trooper fired, do not. And then there’s character.
John McCain, realizing that a growing number of voters prefer Barack Obama’s economic policies to his own, has decided on his latest change of subject for his campaign, and has attempted to shift the discussion to the character of the candidates. Ironically, this decision has highlighted a big difference between McCain and Obama that has developed over the past few months: Obama has conducted himself and his campaign in an even handed, considered, thoughtful, and, dare I say it, presidential manner, and John McCain has not.
Don’t believe me?
Ever since January, Obama has been both liberal and unifying in his message to Americans. To paraphrase him, our country is great, but it has gone astray, and we can make it better. His economic policies promise to focus more on those who have been hurt the most by recession, and he represents a foreign policy that fully accepts that mistakes were made by invading Iraq. And he is, if anything, the best statesman to appear on the national scene in a long time. He has been honest about race in America in a way that we need a president to be, neither shying away from discussion nor dwelling on past wounds. Facing off against Hillary Clinton, political knife-fighter extraordinaire, Obama consistently took the high road, running his campaign without frequently resorting to the negativity that characterized the Clinton political machine. He has continued that pattern to a considerable extent against McCain. Obama devotes most of his time to discussing the issues at hand rather than wading into personal attacks that have characterized the McCain campaign. Yes, cheap shots were taken, most notably the negative ads that tried to associate McCain with arch conservatives opposed to immigration from Mexico, (and included an out of context clip from Rush Limbaugh) and the mini-documentary rehashing the Keating Five scandal McCain was involved in during 1989, but the central Obama argument has been that McCain is too much like George W. Bush and his policies won’t help America climb out of the rut we’re in. When the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign (as it correctly accused Hillary Clinton) of ignoring key issues while engaging in petty personal attacks to distract the voters, it has been correct.
McCain, on the other hand, has lurched from one message to the other. With his foreign policy predictions coming apart around him in the summer of 2008 when the Iraqi government suggested a timeline for withdrawal of US troops, and America started to put out feelers towards the Iranians, McCain decided to go negative. After July, most of what he talked about was how Obama wouldn’t make a good president, and that McCain’s experience would best suit America. Then, for reasons best known to himself, the McCain campaign turned around and papered “Reform” over “Experience” on their campaign letterhead, and selected a young, ultraconservative journalism major from Alaska as his running mate. Not only does Sarah Palin lack the sort of experience John McCain undoubtedly has, but she appears to have never given much thought to any political issues beyond tax cutting, oil drilling, and a general support of Jesus.
McCain responded to the Wall Street collapse by “suspending” his flagging campaign to go to Washington, though his action didn’t seem to accomplish anything, especially since his campaign was promptly un-suspended a short time later. Realizing that he failed to win America’s trust as steward during an economic crisis, McCain decided to change the subject and talk about Bill Ayers instead. Oh yeah, and he decided that since Experience and Reform hadn’t worked, he would run the remainder of his campaign on anger and fear. The hilarious part is that after angry, bigoted, and occasionally violent outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies began to appear on the nightly news cycle, the McCain campaign spokesman tried to blame the Obama campaign for creating this negative atmosphere by not agreeing to have town hall style debates earlier in the season.
The McCain who has appeared over the past few months is not presidential. Erratic, angry, impulsive, and dishonest, McCain has run a dirty campaign unbefitting a man of his record. And there isn’t an excuse for it. Either McCain thought these strategies up, or he was pushed into doing them. Either way, after seeing his campaign spin out of control, I have certainly lost faith in his ability to judiciously run a nation.
Specifics and links will be added to this post, but the verdict is clear as of the end of Debate #3 on 10/15. Obama has been displaying the qualities of a leader. McCain has showed a side of him that is anything but: angry, unfocused, and seemingly overwhelmed by events. The McCain campaign has tried to turn the focus of this election away from the economy and onto the character of the candidates. He may have done so, but I have a feeling the outcome will be the opposite of what the Arizona senator hoped for.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
We're #1! Why? Because we say so.
Once again, Eric has taken the common neoconservative argument that to expect America not to behave like an obnoxious ass on the international stage is somehow weak, softheaded and wishy-washy. No, I’m not taking the Code Pink “Make Love Not War” position. Rather, the Democrats like Obama are advocating a genuinely more workable foreign policy.
Yes, the UN needs a thorough overhauling for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that it still behaves like the political situation is still in the 1940s, giving France a permanent seat on the Security Council when many other nations would better qualify (India, anyone?). And yes, allowing Libya to have a say on human rights is a recipe for inaction. But the UN can only become a more effective body when superpowers like the United States reinforce rather than undermine its authority. The United States, especially under the Bush administration, has taken a policy of American exceptionalism. The International War Crimes court in The Hague has authority to investigate and punish war crimes—but not if the offender is an American. Escapades at Guantanamo have made a mockery of US claims that American doesn’t practice torture.
Powers come and powers go, and it would be in the interest of the US to help mould the UN into a body which shares our commitment to freedom, international cooperation, and democracy, something that it can not be said to fully support today, judging by many of its member states.
As for the failure of diplomacy with regards to North Korea and Iran, one of the big reasons for this failure was not just intransigence by the Koreans and Iranians, but American over commitment in Iraq. The blustering stupidity that was the Bush foreign policy managed to simultaneously repel our allies while weakening our capacity for further unilateral action (a potential that is necessary to back up tough diplomacy) by plunging into the resource sinkhole that is Iraq. The problem with the neoconservative, unilateral, triumphalist approach to world affairs is that it is hypocritical, at time inhumane, and downright unsuccessful.
As for Eric taking issue with my referring to the regimes of Mao and Fidel as moderately more humane than their predecessor, what I meant by that is quite straightforward. While with hindsight, those Communist movements brought misery and oppression to their people. But in their early days, those regimes actually promised to better the lot of the common peasant, something that the pro-American dictatorships of Batista in Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in China were not doing. Many average people joined the Communist revolutions in those countries because it promised something better than they had. The tragedy was when that promise was broken. And yes, Eric is technically correct that Communism killed more of its own people in China and Korea than fascism ever did. But this was only because the Communists had more time in power.
Not to dwell on health care and economics in Europe again, but Eric’s criticism of European healthcare systems reveals his biases yet again. It is very true that for some things, American healthcare is better, shown by the fact that, as he says, “the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the US for their health care.” But that’s the catch. Most people aren’t wealthy, for so everyone else except for the rich, the European system works better. If European socialized medicine is so terrible, why are so many nations in Europe enjoying longer life expectancies than Americans?
To simply say America is the greatest place on earth doesn’t make it so. Yeah, we’ve got it good. So do Canada, the UK, Australia, much of Europe, Japan…you get the point. Since Awesomeness is not a quality that can be quantified, this constant assertion sounds to me like we’re compensating for something. Maybe that nagging thought that the greatest place on earth sucks up 40% of the world’s resources with scarcely more than 10% of the population? That there isn’t enough metal, fuel, and other resources to allow the worlds population to live like an American?
To me, the incident that sums up the Republican approach to criticism of America can be found at their national convention. When the (admittedly, very very annoying) Code Pink activist tried to interrupt in the name of antiwar protest, she was shouted down by chants of USA! USA! USA!
Unfortunately, global problems can’t be simply shouted away by a chorus of flag wavers forever.
Yes, the UN needs a thorough overhauling for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that it still behaves like the political situation is still in the 1940s, giving France a permanent seat on the Security Council when many other nations would better qualify (India, anyone?). And yes, allowing Libya to have a say on human rights is a recipe for inaction. But the UN can only become a more effective body when superpowers like the United States reinforce rather than undermine its authority. The United States, especially under the Bush administration, has taken a policy of American exceptionalism. The International War Crimes court in The Hague has authority to investigate and punish war crimes—but not if the offender is an American. Escapades at Guantanamo have made a mockery of US claims that American doesn’t practice torture.
Powers come and powers go, and it would be in the interest of the US to help mould the UN into a body which shares our commitment to freedom, international cooperation, and democracy, something that it can not be said to fully support today, judging by many of its member states.
As for the failure of diplomacy with regards to North Korea and Iran, one of the big reasons for this failure was not just intransigence by the Koreans and Iranians, but American over commitment in Iraq. The blustering stupidity that was the Bush foreign policy managed to simultaneously repel our allies while weakening our capacity for further unilateral action (a potential that is necessary to back up tough diplomacy) by plunging into the resource sinkhole that is Iraq. The problem with the neoconservative, unilateral, triumphalist approach to world affairs is that it is hypocritical, at time inhumane, and downright unsuccessful.
As for Eric taking issue with my referring to the regimes of Mao and Fidel as moderately more humane than their predecessor, what I meant by that is quite straightforward. While with hindsight, those Communist movements brought misery and oppression to their people. But in their early days, those regimes actually promised to better the lot of the common peasant, something that the pro-American dictatorships of Batista in Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in China were not doing. Many average people joined the Communist revolutions in those countries because it promised something better than they had. The tragedy was when that promise was broken. And yes, Eric is technically correct that Communism killed more of its own people in China and Korea than fascism ever did. But this was only because the Communists had more time in power.
Not to dwell on health care and economics in Europe again, but Eric’s criticism of European healthcare systems reveals his biases yet again. It is very true that for some things, American healthcare is better, shown by the fact that, as he says, “the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the US for their health care.” But that’s the catch. Most people aren’t wealthy, for so everyone else except for the rich, the European system works better. If European socialized medicine is so terrible, why are so many nations in Europe enjoying longer life expectancies than Americans?
To simply say America is the greatest place on earth doesn’t make it so. Yeah, we’ve got it good. So do Canada, the UK, Australia, much of Europe, Japan…you get the point. Since Awesomeness is not a quality that can be quantified, this constant assertion sounds to me like we’re compensating for something. Maybe that nagging thought that the greatest place on earth sucks up 40% of the world’s resources with scarcely more than 10% of the population? That there isn’t enough metal, fuel, and other resources to allow the worlds population to live like an American?
To me, the incident that sums up the Republican approach to criticism of America can be found at their national convention. When the (admittedly, very very annoying) Code Pink activist tried to interrupt in the name of antiwar protest, she was shouted down by chants of USA! USA! USA!
Unfortunately, global problems can’t be simply shouted away by a chorus of flag wavers forever.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Quick Facts and Insights
Oh where to begin?
First, I do not have complete disdain for the UN. A forum that the countries of the world can debate and dialogue is much more preferable to a world of isolation. The problem lies in the fact that the UN as a body has NO authority to enforce its charter and its members on the Security Council can pass any resolution they want, but those resolutions can be ignored by any nation. To pretend that this body has a lot of clout you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. A prime example is the recent resolution that passed on the 27th of September re-resoluting a prior resolution for sanctions against Iran for continuing to pursue its nuclear program. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Iran gave us the finger after the UN imposed sanctions on them for the third time and the 'new' resolution, which is just an affirmation of the 3rd and last resolution, will result in Iran suddenly dropping its nuclear program? Gimme a break. Russia and China did not want tougher sanctions placed on Iran since they do extensive business with them. China is Iran's biggest importer of oil. They wouldn't want to rock the boat and potentially damage any business or future business with the Islamic Republic.
Second, withholding payments is not for the UN refusing to bow to U.S. demands, but a protest because of the UN's Human Rights Council, which was founded in 2006, because it singled out Israel and no other country for human rights violations. At the same time the council removed independent investigators from Belarus and Cuba, which are not bastions for human rights. Indeed, the council has Cuba as one of its members, which is hilarious given the councils purpose.
Third, Ian concedes that diplomacy has failed with regards to Iran, North Korea and Darfur. Since this is the case I ask Ian, what should we do about these continued threats? I am all ears. My point in the last post was that we can see changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not perfect but we have two democracies established and hopefully two future allies.
Forth, with regards to Europe, I was merely commenting on the fact that the US shoulders the lion’s share of the burden for NATO. This being the case the European countries use money they used to appropriate for defense for social programs since the U.S.A subsidizes their protection. Thank God for the new French President Sarkozy for promising to step up to the plate and take more responsibility in NATO and Europe's defense.
Fifth, with regards to Ian's side note on taxes and spending priorities, healthcare may be universal under European socialism, but it is universally subpar to American healthcare on so many levels that the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the U.S for their healthcare. As a matter of fact, many Canadians buy American insurance! Also, along with the higher taxes, longer vacations, etc., Europe also has higher unemployment, especially for young people. France has such stringent laws on hiring and firing that an employer needs to jump through so many hoops to get rid of an employee that isn't useful to the company. This results in an employer who is scared to hire because he can't get rid of the employee if he turns out to be a bad investment and also poorer job performance since the employee has such ridiculous protections from the government.
Sixth, I can't believe Ian called the regimes of Mao Zedong and Fedel Castro "somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people." Ian you know your history! They were all bad. Why do thousands of Cubans flee to the shores of Florida? Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of millions of people. Indeed, communism killed many many millions more than fascism ever did. Karl Marx's ideals led to gulags, forced starvations, the killing of intellectuals and walls that were made to keep their populations from escaping to freedom. Indeed, North Korea has minutemen on their borders too. Contrary to our minutemen, they have orders to shot to kill. The minutemen on the Korean border aren't there to stop the influx of South Koreans trying to embrace communist utopia, they are there to kill North Koreans who want to chose their own destinies. Imagine if America shot at Mexicans trying to come in! Oh, the outrage! Imagine all the angry letters the UN would send us! Communism, "somewhat more humanitarian," bah. The 'somewhat' was put in because Ian knew that he was on shaky ground with that statement. At least he added that.
Seventh, Iran and the hostage crisis took place under the Carter administration, which couldn't save the hostages, despite all that diplomacy. However, as soon as President Reagan took office, they were free that very day. Hmm, maybe they knew that a Republican with some balls to stand up to such an act with force might actually put his money where his mouth was.
Think about that when you go to VOTE!
Oh, and while we aren't perfect, this is the greatest place on Earth to be! Why else would people flock to our shores from all over the world to live here, including my father?
First, I do not have complete disdain for the UN. A forum that the countries of the world can debate and dialogue is much more preferable to a world of isolation. The problem lies in the fact that the UN as a body has NO authority to enforce its charter and its members on the Security Council can pass any resolution they want, but those resolutions can be ignored by any nation. To pretend that this body has a lot of clout you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. A prime example is the recent resolution that passed on the 27th of September re-resoluting a prior resolution for sanctions against Iran for continuing to pursue its nuclear program. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Iran gave us the finger after the UN imposed sanctions on them for the third time and the 'new' resolution, which is just an affirmation of the 3rd and last resolution, will result in Iran suddenly dropping its nuclear program? Gimme a break. Russia and China did not want tougher sanctions placed on Iran since they do extensive business with them. China is Iran's biggest importer of oil. They wouldn't want to rock the boat and potentially damage any business or future business with the Islamic Republic.
Second, withholding payments is not for the UN refusing to bow to U.S. demands, but a protest because of the UN's Human Rights Council, which was founded in 2006, because it singled out Israel and no other country for human rights violations. At the same time the council removed independent investigators from Belarus and Cuba, which are not bastions for human rights. Indeed, the council has Cuba as one of its members, which is hilarious given the councils purpose.
Third, Ian concedes that diplomacy has failed with regards to Iran, North Korea and Darfur. Since this is the case I ask Ian, what should we do about these continued threats? I am all ears. My point in the last post was that we can see changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not perfect but we have two democracies established and hopefully two future allies.
Forth, with regards to Europe, I was merely commenting on the fact that the US shoulders the lion’s share of the burden for NATO. This being the case the European countries use money they used to appropriate for defense for social programs since the U.S.A subsidizes their protection. Thank God for the new French President Sarkozy for promising to step up to the plate and take more responsibility in NATO and Europe's defense.
Fifth, with regards to Ian's side note on taxes and spending priorities, healthcare may be universal under European socialism, but it is universally subpar to American healthcare on so many levels that the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the U.S for their healthcare. As a matter of fact, many Canadians buy American insurance! Also, along with the higher taxes, longer vacations, etc., Europe also has higher unemployment, especially for young people. France has such stringent laws on hiring and firing that an employer needs to jump through so many hoops to get rid of an employee that isn't useful to the company. This results in an employer who is scared to hire because he can't get rid of the employee if he turns out to be a bad investment and also poorer job performance since the employee has such ridiculous protections from the government.
Sixth, I can't believe Ian called the regimes of Mao Zedong and Fedel Castro "somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people." Ian you know your history! They were all bad. Why do thousands of Cubans flee to the shores of Florida? Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of millions of people. Indeed, communism killed many many millions more than fascism ever did. Karl Marx's ideals led to gulags, forced starvations, the killing of intellectuals and walls that were made to keep their populations from escaping to freedom. Indeed, North Korea has minutemen on their borders too. Contrary to our minutemen, they have orders to shot to kill. The minutemen on the Korean border aren't there to stop the influx of South Koreans trying to embrace communist utopia, they are there to kill North Koreans who want to chose their own destinies. Imagine if America shot at Mexicans trying to come in! Oh, the outrage! Imagine all the angry letters the UN would send us! Communism, "somewhat more humanitarian," bah. The 'somewhat' was put in because Ian knew that he was on shaky ground with that statement. At least he added that.
Seventh, Iran and the hostage crisis took place under the Carter administration, which couldn't save the hostages, despite all that diplomacy. However, as soon as President Reagan took office, they were free that very day. Hmm, maybe they knew that a Republican with some balls to stand up to such an act with force might actually put his money where his mouth was.
Think about that when you go to VOTE!
Oh, and while we aren't perfect, this is the greatest place on Earth to be! Why else would people flock to our shores from all over the world to live here, including my father?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama: Restoring Diplomacy to the Oval Office
Besides discussing the legacy of the war in Iraq, Eric addressed the state of the US national image abroad and what sort of effect the neoconservative Bush administration had on it. Eric’s previous post was filled with disdain for the UN, which, although “primarily funded by the US,” has become “a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is for going it alone.”
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Neoconservatives on Foreign Policy: The War on Nuance
As Eric points out, what is probably the most instructive aspect of the candidates’ differences on Iraq is what it shows about their strategic worldview. Obama’s early and continued opposition to the second invasion of Iraq demonstrates his larger rejection of the Bush Doctrine as a whole. McCain, no doubt unwilling to publicly agree with President Bush’s policies and their corresponding unpopularity, has been much less vocal, but his speeches indicate that he is in at least partial agreement with the Bush Doctrine. Furthermore, McCain’s pattern of impulsive decision making (last minute selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate, his campaign “suspension” and flip-flops over whether or not to debate at all Friday night, to name a few of the most recent examples) lends weight to suspicions that President McCain would happily continue the disastrous Bush foreign policy.
The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, and the neoconservative worldview as a whole, is a distorted worldview terrifyingly short of perspective, history, and context. Eric reminds us that the “War on Terror” didn’t start with 9/11, and points out terrorist attacks on the USA during the 1990s
Actually, Eric doesn’t go back far enough in time. The terrorists of the 1990s were not attacking Americans for no reason at all, or because they hated freedom. On the contrary, America has a bipartisan history of bungling, selfish policies in the Middle East that helped create the situation we’re in today. Since World War II, American foreign policy has rested on the principle of backing countries whose leaders were friendly to us, regardless of how they treated their people. In most of the world, this meant supporting anti-Communist crooks like Batista in 1950s Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in pre 1949 China, both cases that soured our relations with those nations when popular Communist regimes that were somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people took power. In the Middle East, this realpolitik strategy meant supporting pro-American dictators instead of Arab Nationalists or Muslim Fundamentalists. The classic case was in Iran, where America backed the highly oppressive Shah (King) who was finally overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revolutionaries. Although with hindsight, their theocratic oppression seems worse than the Shah’s secular brand, the revolutionaries of 1979 were responding to many legitimate grievances and offering relative freedom to many Iranians. Since America had helped the Shah to obtain power via coup, and backed his military forces that kept him on the throne, the US was seen as an enemy to Iran, leading to the burning of the American embassy and that famous hostage crisis.
Responding to the threat from Iran, America supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein, who's dictatorship in Iraq was seen as a useful spoiler to Iranian power in the region. The bloody war instigated by Saddam against Iran lasted for most of the 1980s. By the time it was over, millions were dead. Meanwhile, America had given weapons to Iran as well, deciding that it was best to keep both nations fighting each other, cynically betting that they’d be too busy to bother America while they were slaughtering each other. Obviously, when word of this leaked out, American standing in the region fell considerably.
America’s national image is not only tarnished for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, but for all the other cynical interventions and misadventures carried out by presidents of both parties over the years. Anyone who is surprised people dislike America needs to read their history.
That covers two of the members Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Leaving aside North Korea for the time being, Afghanistan should be mentioned. Eric is correct that the Clinton administration did not take the opportunity to nab Osama Bin Laden in Sudan during the 1990s when it could have. But the Bush administration is responsible for ignoring the memos left by the Clinton policymakers warning that Bin Laden was the #1 threat to US security in 2001. Instead, Bush’s cabinet myopically focused on China until 9/11. Worse, Bush is guilty of obsessing over Iraq when in reality it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Islamists like Bin Laden and secular thugs like Saddam do not get along. But it’s probably too much to expect such subtleness from an administration that invented the Axis of Evil. The kindergarten simplicity of linking the mortal enemies of Iran and Iraq together with Kim Jong Il’s crackpot regime is stupefying, though typical.
As far as Eric’s claim that “wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced more tangible results” than anywhere else turns logic on its head. The reasons Iran and North Korea are able to pursue nuclear weapons more freely now is because America got entangled in the ridiculous sideshow that is Iraq. We’ve severely harmed our moral authority by invading an independent country—however mean their leader was—without sufficient proof of danger. We’re too busy to effectively threaten Iran and North Korea now, and much of the world is busy pointing that out. How can we tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia with a straight face? Not being a blatant hypocrite is a big advantage in foreign policy. Eric mentions the crisis in Darfur. Had America not been involved in Iraq, we could have intervened in Darfur for humanitarian reasons, doing a good deed and clamping down on a country that breeds terrorism.
The choice of Barack Obama as president would represent a break with the almost unprecedentedly stupid policies of the Bush administration, and perhaps a break with the diplomacy of the post World War II era. Having a president who admits when America screws up, as every country does sometimes, would go a long way toward repairing the American image abroad. It would also put a man in the White House who understands that you can’t fight international terrorism by alienating most of the world through arrogance and stupidity, and that you need a sophisticated, subtle strategy to fight Al Qaeda, not the crude, bludgeoning tactics of the over simplistic neoconservatives. The Bush approach failed, and we need a chief executive who can appreciate that and move on.
Eric covered a great deal in his last post, and I’ve said a lot here, so I’ll respond to the rest of his comments about Europe, NATO and the UN in a separate post.
In the meantime, register to vote, people! The deadline in most states is between October 4 and 7.
-Ian
The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, and the neoconservative worldview as a whole, is a distorted worldview terrifyingly short of perspective, history, and context. Eric reminds us that the “War on Terror” didn’t start with 9/11, and points out terrorist attacks on the USA during the 1990s
Actually, Eric doesn’t go back far enough in time. The terrorists of the 1990s were not attacking Americans for no reason at all, or because they hated freedom. On the contrary, America has a bipartisan history of bungling, selfish policies in the Middle East that helped create the situation we’re in today. Since World War II, American foreign policy has rested on the principle of backing countries whose leaders were friendly to us, regardless of how they treated their people. In most of the world, this meant supporting anti-Communist crooks like Batista in 1950s Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in pre 1949 China, both cases that soured our relations with those nations when popular Communist regimes that were somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people took power. In the Middle East, this realpolitik strategy meant supporting pro-American dictators instead of Arab Nationalists or Muslim Fundamentalists. The classic case was in Iran, where America backed the highly oppressive Shah (King) who was finally overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revolutionaries. Although with hindsight, their theocratic oppression seems worse than the Shah’s secular brand, the revolutionaries of 1979 were responding to many legitimate grievances and offering relative freedom to many Iranians. Since America had helped the Shah to obtain power via coup, and backed his military forces that kept him on the throne, the US was seen as an enemy to Iran, leading to the burning of the American embassy and that famous hostage crisis.
Responding to the threat from Iran, America supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein, who's dictatorship in Iraq was seen as a useful spoiler to Iranian power in the region. The bloody war instigated by Saddam against Iran lasted for most of the 1980s. By the time it was over, millions were dead. Meanwhile, America had given weapons to Iran as well, deciding that it was best to keep both nations fighting each other, cynically betting that they’d be too busy to bother America while they were slaughtering each other. Obviously, when word of this leaked out, American standing in the region fell considerably.
America’s national image is not only tarnished for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, but for all the other cynical interventions and misadventures carried out by presidents of both parties over the years. Anyone who is surprised people dislike America needs to read their history.
That covers two of the members Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Leaving aside North Korea for the time being, Afghanistan should be mentioned. Eric is correct that the Clinton administration did not take the opportunity to nab Osama Bin Laden in Sudan during the 1990s when it could have. But the Bush administration is responsible for ignoring the memos left by the Clinton policymakers warning that Bin Laden was the #1 threat to US security in 2001. Instead, Bush’s cabinet myopically focused on China until 9/11. Worse, Bush is guilty of obsessing over Iraq when in reality it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Islamists like Bin Laden and secular thugs like Saddam do not get along. But it’s probably too much to expect such subtleness from an administration that invented the Axis of Evil. The kindergarten simplicity of linking the mortal enemies of Iran and Iraq together with Kim Jong Il’s crackpot regime is stupefying, though typical.
As far as Eric’s claim that “wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced more tangible results” than anywhere else turns logic on its head. The reasons Iran and North Korea are able to pursue nuclear weapons more freely now is because America got entangled in the ridiculous sideshow that is Iraq. We’ve severely harmed our moral authority by invading an independent country—however mean their leader was—without sufficient proof of danger. We’re too busy to effectively threaten Iran and North Korea now, and much of the world is busy pointing that out. How can we tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia with a straight face? Not being a blatant hypocrite is a big advantage in foreign policy. Eric mentions the crisis in Darfur. Had America not been involved in Iraq, we could have intervened in Darfur for humanitarian reasons, doing a good deed and clamping down on a country that breeds terrorism.
The choice of Barack Obama as president would represent a break with the almost unprecedentedly stupid policies of the Bush administration, and perhaps a break with the diplomacy of the post World War II era. Having a president who admits when America screws up, as every country does sometimes, would go a long way toward repairing the American image abroad. It would also put a man in the White House who understands that you can’t fight international terrorism by alienating most of the world through arrogance and stupidity, and that you need a sophisticated, subtle strategy to fight Al Qaeda, not the crude, bludgeoning tactics of the over simplistic neoconservatives. The Bush approach failed, and we need a chief executive who can appreciate that and move on.
Eric covered a great deal in his last post, and I’ve said a lot here, so I’ll respond to the rest of his comments about Europe, NATO and the UN in a separate post.
In the meantime, register to vote, people! The deadline in most states is between October 4 and 7.
-Ian
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Bush Doctrine Defended: Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
The war has been a major subject of debate in recent years which, I believe, peaked with the 2006 Democratic sweeps of the House and Senate. Their victories were a direct result of lack of support for the war among the population. Since then, however, the war has taken a back seat to gas prices and the economy due mainly to the fact that things are much better in Iraq than two years ago. This is mainly the result of the surge that McCain was a strong advocate for. On a side note, there would not be a need for a surge if Bush would have have an adequate amount of troops for the campaign in the first place. So on that note, he dropped the ball big time on that one. If you're going to fight a war, fight it.
While I would like to focus more on what our current policy should be, I must devote some time to dispel some myths and talk about results of the Bush doctrine and our national image abroad.
The Myths:
First, we must remember that the war on terror did not start on September 11th 2001. There were the US embassy bombings, Khobar Towers Bombings, USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. For so long America's response was weak in response to these attacks. Osama bin Laden was offered to the United States by Sudan during the Clinton administration but the President chose not to bring him into custody.
Second, the whole mantra "Bush lied, people died" is poppycock. He never lied about the weapons. He made the wrong assessment on whether they existed but he never lied. If he lied, then Hillary Clinton lied, John Kerry lied and a whole host of Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators lied too. They had the intelligence briefings that Bush had and they authorized Bush to go to war in the first place. Remember, Congress controls the power of the purse. By the bye, if the Democrats want to leave Iraq so bad, they could have left in 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate by cutting off funding. We still have yet to leave Iraq even though that was the platform the Dems ran on in 2006 to win, so who's kidding who?
Third, this is not a war for oil. If it was, we would be reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil which now abundantly flows and has provided Iraq with an $80 billion dollar surplus.
Bush Doctrine and National Image:
The Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. President Bush made a statement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress saying, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." As I write to this day, I concede that world opinion has fallen for the United States. Many countries and leaders do not like our "Cowboy Diplomacy" and they have used the United Nations, primarily funded by the U.S., as a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is by going it alone. However, we only need to look as far as Iran, North Korea and Darfur to see how well diplomacy works. Iran is giving the world the finger and pursuing the bomb. North Korea, in light of their leader Kim Jong Il's current problems is firing up its nuclear plants and already has tested a bomb. Darfur is in crisis thousands are dead and millions are displaced. So, on the whole, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced more tangible results than any other diplomatic means recently.
As far as our national image is concerned, if the world is going to call us bad for getting rid of Saddam in the course of looking of the weapons that we haven't found, I say, who cares? The reason they oppose us is basically fiscal in nature, as all things are. The U.N. had the oil for food scandal with Saddam. The French had contracts to build reactors in Iraq and that would hurt them financially. Europeans can talk all they want. It's easy for pacifist nations that are protected by the U.S. through NATO to criticize. They use the money they don't have to spend defending themselves on social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves and they aren't better off for it. We should stop funding a disproportionate amount of money for NATO if the other member counties continue to bite the hand that feeds them. Not all the world hates us, though. One only need to look as far as France to see Nicolas Sarkozy elected as a strong pro-American reformer bent on curbing the welfare state that has left France stagnant.
-Eric
While I would like to focus more on what our current policy should be, I must devote some time to dispel some myths and talk about results of the Bush doctrine and our national image abroad.
The Myths:
First, we must remember that the war on terror did not start on September 11th 2001. There were the US embassy bombings, Khobar Towers Bombings, USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. For so long America's response was weak in response to these attacks. Osama bin Laden was offered to the United States by Sudan during the Clinton administration but the President chose not to bring him into custody.
Second, the whole mantra "Bush lied, people died" is poppycock. He never lied about the weapons. He made the wrong assessment on whether they existed but he never lied. If he lied, then Hillary Clinton lied, John Kerry lied and a whole host of Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators lied too. They had the intelligence briefings that Bush had and they authorized Bush to go to war in the first place. Remember, Congress controls the power of the purse. By the bye, if the Democrats want to leave Iraq so bad, they could have left in 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate by cutting off funding. We still have yet to leave Iraq even though that was the platform the Dems ran on in 2006 to win, so who's kidding who?
Third, this is not a war for oil. If it was, we would be reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil which now abundantly flows and has provided Iraq with an $80 billion dollar surplus.
Bush Doctrine and National Image:
The Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. President Bush made a statement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress saying, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." As I write to this day, I concede that world opinion has fallen for the United States. Many countries and leaders do not like our "Cowboy Diplomacy" and they have used the United Nations, primarily funded by the U.S., as a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is by going it alone. However, we only need to look as far as Iran, North Korea and Darfur to see how well diplomacy works. Iran is giving the world the finger and pursuing the bomb. North Korea, in light of their leader Kim Jong Il's current problems is firing up its nuclear plants and already has tested a bomb. Darfur is in crisis thousands are dead and millions are displaced. So, on the whole, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced more tangible results than any other diplomatic means recently.
As far as our national image is concerned, if the world is going to call us bad for getting rid of Saddam in the course of looking of the weapons that we haven't found, I say, who cares? The reason they oppose us is basically fiscal in nature, as all things are. The U.N. had the oil for food scandal with Saddam. The French had contracts to build reactors in Iraq and that would hurt them financially. Europeans can talk all they want. It's easy for pacifist nations that are protected by the U.S. through NATO to criticize. They use the money they don't have to spend defending themselves on social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves and they aren't better off for it. We should stop funding a disproportionate amount of money for NATO if the other member counties continue to bite the hand that feeds them. Not all the world hates us, though. One only need to look as far as France to see Nicolas Sarkozy elected as a strong pro-American reformer bent on curbing the welfare state that has left France stagnant.
-Eric
Final Remarks on Economy and Taxes
Well Ian and I decided to go on to a new topic after his last entry on taxes and the economy, but I need to offer just a few stats. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of income taxes while the top 5% pay another 20%. So we have the top 5% of wage earners paying 60% of the federal taxes. The top 10% pay 87% of taxes while the bottom 40% in the country pay ZERO, nothing, nada. And Obama wants to give THEM tax credits which amount to a redistribution of wealth. Yeah, maybe the rich should be better neighbors and pony up some more and be patriotic!
As far as earmarks go, Ian makes the the earmarks of Obama seem good and worthy of taxpayer money. I have no problem with funding for many of the earmarks that are passed. I am upset with the practice of putting a bill in after debate with no name attached. If it deserves federal money then debate it's merits on the floor for a vote like any other bill. And the only reason Hillary and Obama voted against earmarks was because it was politically expedient for them to do so since they were running for President. In practice, they are among the worst culprits.
Finally rich, middle class, and poor go into the military and they can all die serving our country. The military provides great opportunities for advancement in society so maybe those enlisting realize that they can get ahead in life serving in our armed forces.
These articles provide some good information on taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html
href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/">http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/
-Eric
As far as earmarks go, Ian makes the the earmarks of Obama seem good and worthy of taxpayer money. I have no problem with funding for many of the earmarks that are passed. I am upset with the practice of putting a bill in after debate with no name attached. If it deserves federal money then debate it's merits on the floor for a vote like any other bill. And the only reason Hillary and Obama voted against earmarks was because it was politically expedient for them to do so since they were running for President. In practice, they are among the worst culprits.
Finally rich, middle class, and poor go into the military and they can all die serving our country. The military provides great opportunities for advancement in society so maybe those enlisting realize that they can get ahead in life serving in our armed forces.
These articles provide some good information on taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html
href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/">http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/
-Eric
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)