- ‹ previous
- 2148 of 2825
- next ›
Obama and Iraq
OBAMA AND IRAQ....Ross Douthat suggests that perhaps liberals ought to be happy with the relative hawkishness of Barack Obama's national security team:
By putting the job in the hands of Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton — a Republican appointee and a primary-season rival who attacked him from the right on foreign policy — Obama has effectively given realists and liberal hawks partial ownership of whatever happens in Iraq between now and 2011. In a best-case scenario for progressives, Gates and Clinton will play the role Colin Powell played in the run-up to the Iraq War (except with a better final outcome, obviously): Their association with the policy will help keep non-progressives on board when things get dicey, and then once the job is done they'll be pushed aside and someone like Susan Rice will take over Obama's post-occupation foreign policy.
Obviously I don't really think it will work out quite like that. But just as the neoconservative agenda was better-served, at least in the short run, by having Powell as one of the public faces of Iraq War hawkery (rather than, say, John Bolton), I think there's at least a plausible scenario in which the progressive movement ends up being better off in the long run if Hillary Clinton, rather than someone to her left, is at the helm when a spasm of violence pushes Iraq back on to the front pages, and Republicans start accusing the Obama Administration of squandering the Bush-Petraeus gains with a too-precipitous withdrawal.
My own problem isn't with one or two of Obama's rumored appointees, but with the fact that his team doesn't seem to have even token representation from the liberal wing of the party. That said, though, I think Ross is right about this. If the Iraqi parliament approves the SOFA agreement later this week, then Obama will have almost perfect cover for withdrawing from Iraq: he'll be doing it under a deal approved by George Bush, and the withdrawal itself will be implemented by Republicans and centrist Democrats. Under the circumstances, it will be virtually impossible for conservatives to accuse him of "losing" the war in Iraq.
There's no telling if this is actually what Obama has in mind, or if he's putting together a centrist foreign policy team because he genuinely wants a centrist foreign policy. It could be a bit of both. And in any case, in the end Obama's foreign policy will be set by....Barack Obama. Tea leaf reading will have to wait a while longer, I guess.
Only Nixon could go to China.
No accusation is "impossible" for Republicans.
let me just expand on xtalguy's point.
there is a certain clever-clever case to be made for keeping a republican figure-head like gates in charge in order to make it harder for republicans to use their 'backstabbing' myth against democrats in the future.
harder, but, as xtalguy said, they'll do it anyhow.
that said, there is *no* argument, not even a half-clever one, that putting hillary fucking clinton in charge of our withdrawal from iraq is going to prevent republicans from saying that we stabbed our troops in the back.
kevin, you and ross asshat are living in some world where the electorate give a damn about "centrist" democrats versus "liberal" democrats. they don't.
no voter in 2012 is going to say 'well, the withdrawal from iraq was a lot messier than i had thought, but, still, we can't blame obama and the liberal wing of the democratic party for that: it was those *centrist* democrats in charge! so i'll vote to re-elect obama and the liberal democrats!"
by spelling that out, have i made it sound stupid enough? because it's really stupid.
so stupid i'm not surprised to see ross asshat pushing it.
remember: he's the blogging world's billy kristol.
My own problem isn't with one or two of Obama's rumored appointees, but with the fact that his team doesn't seem to have even token representation from the liberal wing of the party.
I am from a rust belt union belong'in liberal family and consider myself a liberal. Nonetheless, I find many of the liberal FP voices just as unworkably dogmatic as the neocons.
So Kev, I do not share your concerns.
The main thing the Obama administration needs to do is hire serious people and not forget to frame Iraq and the economy as Bush administration cleanup operations.
but with the fact that his team doesn't seem to have even token representation from the liberal wing of the party
I'm interested to see the fate of Howard Dean (not really liberal wing but at least unapologetic wing).
I'm also interested to see how conservative (or experienced in environmental matters) the new interior secretary will be. I've seen some good names and some not so good names.
teams, gov'ts come and go but uncle remains; nor can he split in two.
gov'ts r mere managers; managing affairs of amer plutos.
that's why reps wanted clinton impeached for sex offense and not for mismanagement. wakey, wakey!
Ross Dillhat says: "the progressive movement ends up being better off in the long run if Hillary Clinton, rather than someone to her left, is at the helm when a spasm of violence pushes Iraq back on to the front pages"
Do the American people have a firm idea that Hillary Clinton is more hawkish, more like a kick-ass Republican, than Obama?
It's a classic pundit fallacy (more likely a necessary fallacy for their job) - assuming the American people have any idea what they are talking about. Obama played up the fact that he opposed the war - from the start, contra Clinton - in the primaries when only us nerds and wankers were paying attention. Going forward, there wasn't any substantive difference between the candidates on plans for withdrawal.
If Mr. Dillhat is only alluding to the ability of liberal hawk columnists like him to wring a column out of some small marginal differences in hawkishness between Hillary and Obama, and how the hawkier of the two might be able to better withstand a withering verbal critique from liberal hawk columnists, in a Nixon goes to China sense, well then, I guess he's right. But who cares? We are firmly in circle jerk territory - normal people have no idea what he is talking about.
And if you think that this marginal difference will stop the hardcore neo-cons like those at the Weekly Standard from whining about liberal foreign-policy weakness, that's crazy talk too. (Truthfully, I don't think they care when or how we pull out, they want to move on Iran, and a descent into chaos in Iraq is pretty good for their prospects of more war in the area).
it will be virtually impossible for conservatives to accuse him of "losing" the war in Iraq.
Ye of little faith, NOTHING is impossible for these folks. They can find a way to blame Obama and the Dems for a rainy day. The only way Obama could escape blame for Iraq (in wingnut eyes) will be if the place magically transforms into a peaceful pro-American pseudo-democracy, like the one they imagined they were always on the verge of ushering in. Anything short of that will be 100% Obama's fault. It's Dolchstosslegende or bust for wingnuttia.
I am a neophyte when it comes to political tea-leaf reading, but I sense that I have a certain feeling about BO - that has been borne out by his actions as well as his mo. It's as follows:
BO is a crafty operator, in the best sense of the term. One thing every frustrated liberal can take from the past 3 decades of misery is the need to carry on policy in one direction while paying lip service (read: lying) about what is being accomplished. I think this is what is being attempted - whether intentionally or subconsciously. Or, it could all be wishful thinking on my part and its not a chess game that BO is playing, merely a straightforward bipartisan approach to a centrist hell (I call it that because with every swing of the pendulum, things end up just a wee bit right of center and there is no attempt to restore parity).
I have not read BO's books, but based on a constant barrage of anecdotes that my wife has been feeding me, this is my take on Obama. (BO - didn't realize what that sounded like).
I can hope can't I?
-- r
kevin, you and ross asshat are living in some world where the electorate give a damn about "centrist" democrats versus "liberal" democrats. they don't. no voter in 2012 is going to say 'well, the withdrawal from iraq was a lot messier than i had thought, but, still, we can't blame obama and the liberal wing of the democratic party for that: it was those *centrist* democrats in charge! so i'll vote to re-elect obama and the liberal democrats!"
Yeah, what Mr. Bitzer said.
Further. Mr. Drum said, "My own problem [...] is with the fact that his team doesn't seem to have even token representation from the liberal wing of the party"
Who are these progressive foreign policy people Mr. Drum imagines? Name one prominant leftish politician who loudly opposed the Iraq invasion, in real time. Name one columnist from the NYT or WashPo, name one Mid-East think tank person. Lots of people opposed the war ,just none of them in positions of much power. Looking into the reason for this - the incentives, institutional pressures, the biased selection process for these positions - might start to explain how we got there.
Kevin, I do acknowledge and appreciate your point, which you have made before, that the SOFA will (if it passes) provide some political cover for Obama. You may be right, but I don't have much confidence in this cover being very beneficial to Obama for more than a week or so.
And I just can't work up any concern over republican perceptions of how we get out of Iraq. For the most part, they will continue to dislike, vote against, and speak out against Obama and democrats no matter what. They will criticize Gates just as they did Clinton's republican defense secretary. I think it was a mistake to even mention the possiblity of republican cabinet appointments, even if such appointments are a possibility.
Gates stood on the stage of history during the Iran-Conta affair and came up short in my view. Why trust him? Powell, a very likeable and seemingly competent man, failed the same sort of test during the run up to the Iraq invasion. Why would the opposition party (democrats) even consider placing them in such high positions?
Finally, I doubt that republicans make much distinction between H. Clinton and Obama when it comes to Iraq. I certainly never saw reason to do so and I think both will work effectively to get us out.
Shorter Douthat and Drum - if things go bad in Iraq people will blame Clinton not Obama. Ah, so the stupid public won't think the buck should stop in the Oval Office.
All this rationalising about how Obama really really isn't choosing the right people because of their ability to do the right thing just winds up insulting Obama. Obama would think he can get away with not having responsibility or he can con others he doesn't? Well, that's a pretty low view of him.
But when it comes down to it this is all just another round of Clinton bashing. It's the blogosphere jerk circle "me and Sullivan hate Clinton so therefore Obama have some secret plan that explains how she's just some pawn".
And from Douthat -
"By "their agenda" I mean specifically the withdrawal from Iraq, which Chris Hayes, the world's smartest progressive, has long insisted is the one issue where Obama absolutely has to deliver for the left if he doesn't want to provoke a full-scale progressive revolt."
Oh the "left' the "progressives" when this is really just a very small number of pundits and columnists for The Nation in one very small echo chamber. I doubt Obama is the least concerned with a "revolt" in that quarter.
Well, one of the big foreign policy issues that is going to erupt in the near future is Mexico, where the drug cartels are in open revolt against the government and which revolt has already begun to spill over the border. ( Atlanta is deeply involved. )
Meanwhile, both Russia and China are making forays into Latin America; and Somalia is becoming another terrorist haven. Reportedly, the Kurds are now importing weapons from Bulgaria of all places ( whatever that means )
The idea that Obama, Hillary, Gates, the unnamed leftist, some wingnut, or anyone else in Washington is going to set the agenda is anachronistic. Rather they will be responding to events as they unfold.
Kevin! You are repeating yourself on the lack of liberal or progressive nominees to the national security team.
So I will repeat my comment of the other day. Who are these people? Name one serious liberal or progressive person who would qualify.
Someone mentions Howard Dean. How exactly does a medical doctor turned politician qualify?
Amplify, explicate, nominate please.
Just to amplify what a few other commenters have already said:
If there's any lesson to be learned from the last decade of American politics, it's that there's no such thing as an accusation which is so outrageous that the Republican's simply can't make it. Whether the accusation is accepted as the truth by the American people is another matter, but we have clearly seen that the accusations will be made; so there's no point trying to arrange conditions such as to prevent the accusation.
The SoS has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq war, nor has he/she ever had, other than advocating for it at the U.N. and with other countries. Nobody blames Colin Powell for the war -- either the decision to go ahead with it or the disastrous way it and the occupation were carried out -- they just blame him for lying about it at the U.N.
If the troop withdrawal turns out to be a debacle, good luck trying to somehow pin it on the SoS who wasn't involved in it while absolving the president who decides to do it and the sec. def. who carries it out.
This is a really, really, really silly theory. Luckily, Obama isn't that silly.
Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam.
Who are the members of the liberal wing of the party who ought to be getting jobs? Could somebody give names?
Who are the members of the wing who ought to be getting jobs?
R u s, s F e, i n g l d ?
B e r, n i e, S a n d r (s)?