We Would Lose an Arms Race with the Whole World:
What seems so striking to me, though, from the perspective of being in Paris and London, is the default belief among so many in the U.S. that America needs to “be a leader” on this. I think that over time, whatever our tactical decision with respect to this particular crisis, we need very much not to be a leader in this sense. We can’t afford it.
On a more prosaic note, it seems to me that:
1) If the USA and the West did not act they would be damned
2) As the USA and the West did act, they will be damned
The Arab League’s equivocation on the matter shows that the rest of the world, and the Arab world and Africa, are operating to generate the best “optics” for their position. Support air strikes, but criticize their implementation.
All I can do at this point is sigh. Will nothing but explicit national bankruptcy check our hubris?
The one redeeming thing about Obama was his seeming reluctance to get involved in foreign adventures. Unfortunately, his seeming reluctance is no match for his Sec’y of State’s pigheaded determination, and what we’ve gotten is the worst of both worlds, a half-hearted intervention that will leave us holding the bag when it all ends in tears.
“1) If the USA and the West did not act they would be damned
2) As the USA and the West did act, they will be damned”
Sadly true. I visited family in Sweden while on leave from Iraq in 2005, and I remember thinking to myself how nice it would be to be from a country that feels no need to “act,” or do more than issue a statement deploring the violence, when country x goes south. We’ve gotten ourselves into the odd position of having very little fighting on our own shores throughout our history, yet every other civil war halfway around the world somehow still ends up being fought on our figurative doorstep.
Obviously, neither party is interested in changing this. Sigh.
Obviously, neither party is interested in changing this. Sigh.
there’s a downside to elite consensus.
there’s a downside to elite consensus.
Ya think? 🙂
I’m not convinced most Republicans are in favor of attacking Libya. The poll at National Review showed a clear majority against the operation. So why are we involved? Because America has no interest in Libya.
Yes, you read it right. The reason why Obama and the gang are in favor of action in Libya, but not in, say, Iraq, is precisely because we had an interest in getting rid of Saddam, but have little interest in getting rid of Gaddafi. (Pelosi even admitted to this kind of thinking in our attack on Serbia–I couldn’t find the quote online).
The Democrats wanted to go into Darfur, Haiti, Rwanda, and now Libya, because as Obama put it, “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.” Except if a particular tyrant had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, was shooting at our planes trying to enforce a no-fly zone he agreed to, paying the families of terrorists for bombings, and driving the Kurds off their own land.
On foreign policy issues, the Republicans aren’t always right, but the Democrats manage to nearly always be wrong.
john, i’m not interested in arguing with you, but i basically disagree with a lot of what you say as to the facts pon uwhich your argument are premised. though you’re the local jacksonian/neocon i guess, so the argument is not surprising 😉
“you’re the local jacksonian/neocon”
I guess someone’s gotta do it. 🙂
John, a lot of the Republican leadership have come out in support of Obama on the Libya issue. The main opponents are Presidential candidates who are trying to differentiate themselves from the herd. (Or assuming it’ll end badly for Obama and take advantage of that)
I think there are some compelling interests not the least being the place of oil and oil prices in the recovery from the recession. Contra some I don’t see that as a bad thing to worry about. Although the hypocrisy from some in terms of how they judge Bush and Obama is just nauseating.
I also think that signs of a post-tyrranical middle east are there. It’s important to stake out the territory. Obama’s done a horrible job in communicating thus far even if he is doing stuff behind the scenes in places like Egypt. However what will count in the future is the perception of American involvement rather than what Obama is or isn’t really doing. (I think this was a problem for Bush as well who was a pretty horrible communicator)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all sure this escalation is wise. And I’m pretty skeptical that Obama will be able to limit American involvement the way he wants. I also see no evidence that there’s a plan for what comes next. Worst of all I’m rather troubled that there was no working with congress on the issue or public debate. At least Bush did that!
To add the more interesting question to me is when the anti-war left is going to be totally fed up with Obama. I mean let’s be honest – he’s Bush only worse. At least Bush got congressional approval and managed to get a lot more nations involved.
Well, now we’re into the “At least Bush did…” part of the debate on the left. That’s not a good sign.
Obama’s biggest flaw was his resort to a half measure. If he wanted to stay out, then he should have stayed out. If he wanted in, then he should have pretty much said that we’re getting rid of Khaddafi. If he wanted minimal involvement, he should have told the French to do it themselves, and offered only limited Tomahawk support. The last may be his plan, but it’s so ill-defined from what I can tell, that we really can be on the hook up until and well after Khaddafi gets the boot.
Obama’s biggest flaw was his resort to a half measure.
concur.
Well I’m not sure I’m the left, although you are hearing that from the left. My complaint with Bush was actually half-measures as well. Especially with Iraq. I thought Bush should have followed the Powell doctrine and most of his problems in Iraq and Afghanistan came by not following it. It’s inauspicious that Obama is making the same mistake only moreso.
To be fair Obama is clearly hoping to do a bunch of the heavy lifting at the beginning and then leave the rest for France, Britain and to a lesser extent Egypt. I think that’s wishful thinking and think the best he can hope for with this strategy is Libya divided in half. But I hope I’m wrong.
Sorry, Clark. I shouldn’t have left that implication out there.
I agree with your last paragraph. Obama certainly appears to be practing a sort of faith-based foreign policy, not a very “reality-based community” kind of thing to do.
I’m amazed at how the French, Russians, Chinese and Arabs have all lined up to f*** the guy. They let the U.N. resolution pass, thus tying the U.S. to that sclerotic Cold War leftover, and now are either pushing the U.S. to do more than it intended (France) or condemning it for doing what they wanted (the Arabs) or just kicking us while are backs are turned (China and Russia).
Does anyone see bombing Libya as Obama wanting to avoid falling into a Carter trap, being seen as too timid to act militarily? Sure, he approved the “surge” in Afghanistan and didn’t immediately jerk US troops out of Iraq, but both of those campaigns he can’t — and doesn’t want to — claim ownership on.
I say this having read somewhere that Iranians actually are more afraid of Democratic presidents than Republican ones; after Carter’s dismal performance with the hostage crisis, the understanding is that it is political suicide for any Democratic president to allow the Iranians to get away with any direct transgressions against the US.
Does anyone see bombing Libya as Obama wanting to avoid falling into a Carter trap, being seen as too timid to act militarily?
That’s something all Democrats have to deal with–the perception that Democrats aren’t as good at foreign policy and fighting wars as Republicans are. Never mind that the record is far from clear on this point, that’s a general impression, left over from the cultural wars of the 60’s and reinforced by the Iranian Hostage Crisis (but somehow not reinforced by Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran-Contra…), that has been hard to shake.
You can see this in the way Democrats go out of their way to assure you that they are man enough to fight if necessary. With Republicans, it’s assumed.
Does anyone see bombing Libya as Obama wanting to avoid falling into a Carter trap, being seen as too timid to act militarily?
Carter failed on this front because he acted timidly in the face of clear Iranian transgressions. Americans weren’t exactly crying to intervene here. Obama’s biggest worry was having his Secretary of State go rogue on him, resign and doom his reelection, so he’s doing the bare minimum to keep her on the team.
Really, he should have fired her, and then stated that this was none of America’s business. He’d have pissed off the usual suspects, but most Americans would have agreed, and it would have counted as a win. At least, he’d have looked strong. Now he’s in a war, and he looks like a wuss.
I think too much has been made of Carter’s supposed timidity in the Iranian hostage crisis. On the level of perception, however, I can’t dispute that this is what most people seem to believe. There’s truth to it, but the picture is quite a bit bigger.
I don’t think Obama is worried about his reelection chances at all, whether Hillary goes rogue or not. There would have to be a viable candidate on the right for Obama to have any real reason to fear being a one-term president.
Does he look like a wuss? We’ll see. The election is a long way off, and our coalition partners are taking over more of the mission. If he keeps American boots off the ground, he should be ok. Not that he has displayed any inclination to keep boots off the ground thus far….
As bad as the Republican field is Obama’s doing so poorly not to mention the economy that I think he really has his work cut out for him. If oil prices stay high and the economy doesn’t pick up (as it shows no signs of doing) plus the medical reform doesn’t show much plus we’re still in Aghanistan and Iraq then I think one could easily say he’s been a failure. The only surprising thing is that no one has risen up to challenge him the way Kennedy did Carter. If Libya goes south though I wouldn’t be surprised were there at least a symbolic challenger.
I don’t think Obama is worried about his reelection chances at all, whether Hillary goes rogue or not.
Hilary going rogue would kill enthusiasm on the center-left, but it wouldn’t be fatal if he was the one doing the removal. Her leaving and leaking reports of incompetence (something she might well be doing now!), it would wound him, and he needs to keep every vote he can. Remember, Bush I was a lock in ’91 and not many people had heard that dude from Little Rock.
I disagree with your take on Hillary’s position within the Democratic party, and Obama’s hold on the center-left. I’d say that’s the group he’s strongest with, and his critics from the left will be stuck voting for another Nader (you know, the guy who gave us President George W. Bush–a lot of us are still pretty pissed off about that) or holding their noses and voting for the “might as well be a Rockefeller Republican” incumbent. Obama knows this.
Additionally, whoever escapes from the crazyville of Tea Party-dominated primaries next year will have said some really stupid things by the time he (or she) gets to the convention. I’m thinking of the show of hands on evolution last year in Iowa, and, well, most GOP reaction to the ideological purgers in their party. who do you suppose the GOP might nominate who could both get past the primaries and not scare the left and youth into mobilizing for Obama again? Pawlenty? Romney?
I submit that Clinton won partly because “12 years of Reagan/Bush” really did sound like too long for one party to be in power, partly because of Ross Perot (who siphoned off voters who believe that CEOs are smarter and make the best leaders, even if they’re obviously neither), and partly because the baby boomers were sick of their parents being in charge. Also, Clinton was a moderate who was difficult to accuse of extremism (hence the all-out assault on his character) and Bush Sr. had broken his “No New Taxes” pledge, pissing off the right wing of the GOP.
As for Hillary, I don’t think she’s as popular among us as the right thinks she is. I actually like her more now than I ever have, which is to say, I would vote for her to keep a moron like Palin away from the White House, but I wouldn’t like it. So maybe I’m biased. 🙂
He’s strongest with the center-left now only because it shows in relief how disenchanted his base has become.
At any rate, given how weak Obama is, he can’t count on the other party being stupid, even if the GOP tends to oblige, and they’re not as obliging as you seem to think they will be. Unlike in 95, the GOP House is keeping Obama at the center of controversy, and you have some experienced and smart operators in the running. Neither Pawlenty or Romney, the most serious candidates, are morons.
Really, look at your third paragraph, it’s full of explanations that are perfectly valid, but utterly unpredictable in 1991.
“Really, look at your third paragraph, it’s full of explanations that are perfectly valid, but utterly unpredictable in 1991.”
I honestly don’t know how people write things like this. Of the reasons I listed for Clinton’s victory in ’92, all but one (Ross Perot) was widely known and utterly predictable as far back as a year before the election. Clinton had given the keynote at the ’88 convention, so he was considered a frontrunner from the get-go (just like Obama’s star rose after his speech in ’04, and he entered the race as one of the fee legit candidates).
Really: NO ONE could have predicted that 12 years was reaching the end of the American peoples’ tolerance for one party in the White House? NO ONE could have predicted that now that the baby boomers were in prime voting age, they would vote for someone they identified with?
“Unlike in 95, the GOP House is keeping Obama at the center of controversy”
Honestly. Were you even alive in the 90’s? Do the names Paula Jones, Whitewater, Troopergate and Vince Foster not ring a bell? The GOP house in 1995 (led by Gingrich) was a circus of accusations, most without merit, and all for the plain purpose of “keeping Clinton at the center of controversy.” I remember: I was an intern at a right-wing thinktank that year. It was insane how personally-directed the attacks on Clinton were.
As for Obama’s supposedly weak position (a “given” in your argument), Reagan’s approval rating was lower at this point in his first term than Obama’s is, while Clinton’s was about the same. (Reagan graph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.png) The mid-40’s is where Presidents usually hang out when things are going decently, and Obama has never gone below 40%. Dubya would have killed for that approval rating, especially right after his party had taken a drubbing at the polls.
You’re right that Pawlenty and Romney aren’t morons, but do you actually think that either of them will be able to get through the primaries without pandering to the theological right? And once they do that, do you think that they will be able to get through the general election? How easy will it be for the Dems to show the GOP candidate stating he “doubts evolution,” or something equally stupid?
Obama eviscerated McCain partly because McCain had to shore up his right, which turned a lot of Americans off. Whoever the GOP nominates this time will have the Tea Party albatross around his neck, alienating moderates. Also, these anti-schoolteacher moves by GOP governors are motivating the left to action.
At this point I think Obama walks away with it, no matter who escapes the primaries.
Obama beat McCain because of 2 events, namely:
1) the financial crisis/recession
2) Most people thought we were losing the Iraq war
If events had been different (instead of the financial crisis in September, there had been a major terrorist attack), McCain would have won. McCain was ahead in the polls most of the year, but he had to campaign against a bad economy, an unpopular war, and a press that was swooning over Obama. Despite all this, it was still reasonably close.
If Obama wins in 2012, it will be with 52% of the vote. He’s no Reagan. If unemployment is still bad, Libya blows up in his face, deficit spending becomes more of an issue, or there is a terrorist attack, he’s in real trouble. His odds are even, at best.
Wow, John. Your grasp on the 2008 campaign is almost as slippery as Polchinello’s take on the 90’s. Do you think it’s possible that a nation that consistently polls center-left on the issues might actually want a center-left President? No. Of course not. Your guy was so good, he only lost because of “perceptions.”
Such as the “perception” that we were losing the Iraq War. Well: if that’s just a “perception,” what did we win? What have we won? How is that war justifiable? These are not minor questions, but you act as if they’re settled.
In the real world, Obama ran a MUCH better campaign than McCain. Did you not notice that McCain’s camp changed their message on a weekly basis, indicating desperation? Did you not notice the many ways McCain flip-flopped over his career? Did you miss how handily Obama defeated him in the debates? Did the contrast between the Joe the Plumber circus on the GOP side and the well-oiled machine on the Dem side escape your notice entirely?
And never mind the incompetent buffoon who McCain chose as his running mate. Anyone flustered by a softball question from Katie Couric has no business running a hot dog cart, much less the country. On the question of basic competence, McCain failed miserably in one of the most important decisions a candidate makes.
But no, that wasn’t why he lost. It was the economy (which is of course a major driver of any election, just not the only one). Other than that, in your fantasy world, America was totally wanting another four years of GOP rule.