Now that the McCain campaign is on life support, it might behoove us to more seriously examine a President Obama's policies. While I mostly agree with his economic and domestic agendas, he is all over the place on foreign policy, even with seasoned Biden at his side (and just because he heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't mean he gets all foreign issues). But just so you don't get the wrong idea, I mailed in my ballot total with a vote for Obama. However, I think his supporters can and should also be his most scrutinizing critics. I guess it's tough love? He is a supporter of oversight and accountability, right? Cheerleading and celebrity worship haven't fixed a single problem in history.
It's disappointing that GOP propaganda and world events have made it exceedingly difficult for Democrats or others to promote progressive views on defense and foreign policy. They can't seem to emerge out of the "Dukakis in a tank" shadow, and the Bushies easily reduced a decorated veteran and multi-term Senator like Kerry into an unreliable weakling, strangely when compared to an AWOL National Guardsman who plunged America into 2 wars in 2 years. Of course Democrats haven't done a great job in combating the negative stereotypes against them in this area of government. But I believe that it's foolish for them to try to "out-tough" the GOP. I guess the average American voter does want a tough-talking war leader who will assure us of victory and strike fear in our enemies, but let's remember that there are good reasons why Ike became president while Patton didn't. It's just laughable when a pretty boy lawyer like John Edwards looks at the camera and tells Osama that he can "run but he can't hide".
Nothing is assured in this convoluted world of high-stakes geopolitics, and conditions change constantly. Yes the role of Commander in Chief can be a dirty job, and bombing and killing will be necessary for America to achieve some security objectives, but we should do so cautiously with cost-benefit well in mind. Some of Obama's arguments for pressing the issue in Pakistan are the same things he criticized Bush for the Iraq War: a go-it-alone mentality, consideration of local culture/history, containment vs. confrontation, and creating more terrorists than we neutralize. Killing Osama in a daring raid is counter-productive if our brutality and disrespect for an ally's sovereignty turns Pakistanis militantly against us, destabilizes their fragile coalition government, and allows Islamists to take more control of that nuclear nation.
As most world opinion, and now American opinion, has turned against our involvement in Iraq, I think people would prefer sensible, results-oriented diplomacy to war hero bravado. It's just plain truth that suffering in a communist jail 40 years ago won't make McCain any more able to improve stability in Iraq/Afghanistan or dissuade Iran from advancing its nuclear program. But Obama has also fallen into the GOP trap of oversimplifying very complex conflicts into us vs. them, good-and-evil. I guess on the campaign trail, it's impossible or undesirable for candidates to address the nuances of Muslim sectarianism or post-Soviet ethnic nationalism, and that's the voter's fault. But if we really want change and progress after the Bush years, we have to get a lot more serious, pragmatic, and sober with foreign policy, or horrors like Iraq and Darfur will multiply and intensify.
I really want to discuss Afghanistan-Pakistan since I'm learning a lot about it on the fly, and it seems like the most pressing hot spot now. NPR is airing a series on problems in those nations this week, and I'd like to hear it all before I put something together. So for now let me start with other Mideast conflict zones, and hopefully you won't be sick of me by next week when part 2 comes out.
ISRAEL-PALESTINE
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx
We have already seen how Obama has changed his views on Israel-Palestine, and taken a much more pro-Israel approach (plus Biden said that there is "no greater friend" to Israel in the Senate than he). I know that Israel is our strategic ally and provides assistance to us in countering Iran and Islamists in the Middle East. There is plenty of justification for continuing our costly partnership with Israel, but also plenty against. Of course no one would get elected acknowledging Israeli military atrocities and questioning our disproportionate military and economic support for a capable, modern nation (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html). I don't expect that from Obama, but at least he doesn't have to be yet another out-of-touch Israel cheerleader in Washington (they have plenty already). In March of last year, Obama said that, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." That is a legitimate claim to make, with plenty of supporting evidence. The claim itself wasn't intended to cast blame on Israel, but of course AIPAC cried bloody murder and other Democrats felt compelled to criticize Obama's statement. He has since clarified that he meant the Palestinians were suffering because of their inept Hamas leaders in Gaza. No mention of the suffering caused by the US-backed civil war with Fatah, nor the Israeli blockade, expansionism, or military aggression that the UN has denounced as illegal, illegitimate, and in some cases, immoral. In fact, Obama/Biden's current approach to Israel-Palestine is 99% similar to George Bush's! 4 years of the same?
And some might argue that his stance is even more pro-Israel than Bush's, because some of his language suggests that he thinks Israel has sole claim to all of Jerusalem (despite the illegal annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem since 1967), even though he should know that many Palestinians would rather die than accept such a peace proposal. He has called for preliminary, limited dialogs with pariah leaders like Ahmadinejad (which 4 former Secretaries of State believe to be a good move, though I'm sure the pro-Israel lobby will fight it), yet he wouldn't talk to the democratically and fairly elected Hamas government in Gaza? How does that make sense, and how does that represent hope and change we can believe in? If Obama is against anything and everything Bush-like, how can he seek to continue the failed Bush policy of cold-shoulder "diplomacy"? Even some Israeli leaders acknowledge that Hamas must be involved in peace talks and negotiations. We might not like them, but ignoring them is more costly than cautiously involving them (and some analysts argue that Israel has been a bigger impediment to peace in the last 4 years than the Hamas leadership in Gaza).
I know that Obama may unfortunately have more challenges than most presidential candidates in convincing pro-Israel Americans to support him (accusations of being Muslim, not much track record in government, etc.), but that doesn't mean he should sacrifice his better judgment and the legitimate needs and rights of Palestinians in the peace process and Near East security. If he wants America to be a beacon for liberty again, then he can't afford politics as usual here. Yet despite these concerns, Palestinians on the street are hopeful that a black US president, who understands racism and injustice from the victim's perspective, will do more for them than just the typical lip service. I hope he won't let them down. On his campaign website, Obama makes absolutely no mention of the Palestinian stituation, yet has a 3-page statement documenting his and Biden's staunch support for Israel and political record to prove it. That says a lot. Do presidential candidates issue official statements indicating their strong support for other prominent allies like the UK and Japan? Maybe an easy first step to "change the tone" in Washington is to tone down such unnecessary and overtly biased rhetoric, which doesn't help anyone in Israel or Palestine have a better, safer existence.
IRAN
While Israel is our comrade-in-arms, it may make for a more dangerous world if we adopt Israel's foreign policy priorities as our own. Which is a main purpose of the pro-Israel lobby in the US of course, to persuade Americans into taking actions beneficial to Israel, but not necessarily to America. We are allies, but one's survival does not depend on the other (and they need us a lot more than we need them). While Israel terribly botched its offensive into Lebanon a few years ago, its low-manpower, high-tech military is built primarily for defense (equipped with a nuclear deterrent also), and would decimate any would-be attackers in the region, Iran included. Clearly Iran is Israel's chief enemy and top security concern, and their nuclear research raises the stakes.
But not so for America, not by a long shot. Unless provoked, Iran poses little direct danger to us. They might talk tough, and Western hawks have capitalized on anti-Semitic, anti-Western rhetoric from Tehran, but really there are no signs whatsoever that they intend to attack us. Yes if we push them, they will logically push back (taking UK sailors hostage, imprisoning American scholars, arming Shia militias, etc.). But they don't have their finger on the proverbial trigger. Iran is a competitor for political influence in the Mideast, but not a direct security threat. Yes, it is possible that her proxies may cause major disruptions in neighboring states, but for now the Mahdi Army and other Shia militias have stood down in Iraq, and Hizbullah has struck a power-sharing deal in Lebanon, so violence has waned (relatively). Nearby pro-West Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are also no friends of Iran, but they know that open aggression will produce terrible backlash, especially with so much vital oil infrastructure for Iran to target, as well as a resurgent Shia minority in the Muslim world, emboldened by events during the Bush years to stand up to oppression. So they tolerate each other (or at least undermine each other covertly), which is a building block of peace I suppose.
But Israel cares not about the repercussions to regional political stability and the global oil trade if she or the US attacks Iran. To them, survival is everything, and Iran must be neutralized at all costs. But to America, even a slight disruption in oil exports from the Gulf due to conflict is much more damaging than even Tel Aviv getting razed. Iran could easily throw a wrench in our projects in Iraq/Afghanistan/Lebanon/Palestine as well, undoing years of progress (or struggle at least). So unfortunately, we have become so irresponsibly entangled in Middle East affairs that our fate is more tightly tied to Israel's, and our objectives more dependent on Iran being defeated. Conspiracy theorists would suggest that Israel desired and ordained this to happen, so here we are.
But regardless of how we got here, a big challenge of this decade is how to deal with Iran. We already know that McCain and most of the GOP have not only drank, but chugged, the Kool-Aid, and are dead-set on confronting Iran as overtly or more so than the Bushies. #2 nuclear power Russia recently invaded a neighbor and nuclear Pakistan is dangerously close to government collapse while battling Islamists, yet Iran (2 years away from a primitive bomb at best) is our top security concern? I am not sure if the Dems recognize the problem within the problem though. Clearly something has to be done, and we can't permit Iranian nuclear activities to go unchecked. But I wonder what an Obama/Biden administration would do about it. They are already the self-proclaimed champions of Israel, so if Israel wanted us to do something rash, or took unilateral actions that almost compel us to act, would Obama do it? So as to not appear weak to terrorists and the GOP, what steps would Obama take in order to "defend Israel"? Are all options on the table? Especially if Iran were baited into doing something stupid, and there was huge political pressure to respond with force like during the Cuban Missile Crisis (even though we know the consequences to be huge), could Mr. Cool resist the hysteria and calm the situation?
IRAQ
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/7711 (a neocon viewpoint)
The politics of the issue is tricky, because acknowledging changed ideas in response to changed facts is considered a failing by the political class.
- G Packer, New Yorker
We've also seen how Obama was unable to coherently counter GOP attacks against him regarding his unwillingness to support the 2007 Surge, which turned out to be "successful" in their minds and much of America. McCain has even been able to attack Obama's patriotism and commitment to victory on this matter, because more failures in Iraq will be a vindication of his opposition to the Surge and validation to continue his plans for a fixed troops withdrawal timetable. So McCain might be insinuating that Obama wants to be "right" more than he wants to "win" in Iraq. And however untrue that may be, the facts unfortunately leave room for speculation. Obama's people crafted his withdrawal timeline over a year ago when he was running as an anti-war outsider during the primaries, when conditions were much worse over there and war support was politically radioactive. Back then, "Get the hell out" seemed like the most sound strategy available, and it may still be. Though the Center for a New American Security, heavily consulted in foreign policy matters by the Obama camp, has responded to changes on the ground. Once favoring a timetable for withdrawal, they now conclude that "conditional engagement" is preferable:
Under this strategy, the United States would not withdraw its forces based on a firm unilateral schedule. Rather, the time horizon for redeployment would be negotiated with the Iraqi government and nested within a more assertive approach to regional diplomacy. The United States would make it clear that Iraq and America share a common interest in achieving sustainable stability in Iraq, and that the United States is willing to help support the Iraqi government and build its security and governance capacity over the long term, but only so long as Iraqis continue to make meaningful political progress." (New Yorker)
Yet on Obama's website, more or less the same 16-month timetable remains. I don't have the expertise to decide whether a fixed timetable or conditional engagement is superior, but what is telling is Obama's refusal to budge in defiance of changing conditions (again, fairly Bush-like). No one can afford to be wrong in a campaign, or even change their minds I guess. There is nothing wrong with rethinking one's beliefs and modifying plans with a year of additional information to consider. Clearly Obama's people are careful with this issue, and mostly suggest that a President Obama would not just stubbornly cling to outdated withdrawal proposals from his campaign days, but listen to the generals who are reacting to conditions on the ground (but not necessarily agree with them). Though a major goal of his administration is to carefully but expediently end the Iraq War, which is what millions of Democrats and others are expecting him to do. He said as much on his summer Mideast tour.
So he's kind of screwed either way. Fragile gains in Iraq may behoove us to adopt conditional engagement plans instead of a fixed timetable, which could jeopardize regional stability and our long-term prospects there. Clearly we shouldn't have a Korea-like indefinite presence there as McCain alluded, and the oil-rich Iraqi Treasury should finance more of our efforts as the Saudis and Kuwaitis did during Gulf War I. But if he scraps the timetable, Obama's liberal support will revolt against him (unless he is able to skillfully persuade them that this is the best thing we can do for America and for peace, which will be a hard sell), and he will be labeled as a flip-flopper. Plus Bush will still get the "credit" for improving Iraq (he also gets the blame for botching it of course), because he started the Surge and put the generals and diplomats in place who made things better. Though if Obama sticks to his timetable he will be skewered by the Right, especially if violence increases and government breaks down as we gradually redeploy. Though if Obama begins to extirpate us as planned, maybe his predictions will come true: the Iraqis will feel the heat, and make the political and military progress necessary to bear the mantle of responsibility. Our troops will get a break, and there will be more goodwill for diplomacy and redevelopment. It's possible, and he'll be staking his re-election on it.
As I said before, by now it should be abundantly clear to everyone (and especially prominent politicians) that the Surge did have a stabilizing effect on Iraq, but 20,000 more soldiers made less of a difference than fresh-thinking Gen. Petraeus replacing Gen. Franks, less of a difference than the Sunni Awakening rejecting Al Qaeda, less of a difference than Iraqi ethnic cleansing and US construction projects segregating the hostile factions, and less of a difference than the Mahdi Army ceasefire while Al-Sadr went to school, which all happened to coincide with the Surge. Obama was unable or unwilling to make this argument to the public and his political rivals, even though plenty of others could. That really concerns me. So he can still justify his opposition to the Surge: many experts had voiced concerns, our troops are overstretched, and maybe it was still a "failure" because even though it reduced violence and bought the Maliki government some breathing room to actually govern, they still haven't reconciled and progressed much. But the Surge is one of the few "feel good stories" coming out of Iraq for mainstream Americans. Obama has to acknowledge that the troops and generals did a great job, even if they weren't the primary cause for reduced violence. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong and Bush-McCain were right, for the reasons I previously described. But defiance and denial won't do him any good.
