Wow. Our experiment is off to a great start—let's see if we can finish it off sooner than expected.
Dan Drezner imagines Obama giving a campaign speech about the difference between foreign and domestic policy:
As president, I have to address both domestic policy and foreign policy. Because of the way that the commander-in-chief role has evolved, I have far fewer political constraints on foreign policy action than domestic policy action. So let's think about this for a second. On the foreign stage, America's standing has returned from its post-Iraq low. Al Qaeda is now a shell of its former self. Liberalizing forces are making uneven but forward progress in North Africa. Muammar Gaddafi's regime is no longer, without one American casualty. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winding down. Every country in the Pacific Rim without a Communist Party running things is trying to hug us closer.
Imagine what I could accomplish in domestic policy without the kind of obstructionism and filibustering that we're seeing in Congress — which happens to be even more unpopular than I am, by the way. I'm not talking about the GOP abjectly surrendering, just doing routine things like actually confirming my appointments. I've achieved significant foreign policy successes while still cooperating with our allies in NATO and Northeast Asia. Just imagine what I could get done if the Republicans were as willing to compromise as, say, France.
Roger that. In other foreign policy news, President Obama announced today that we'd be pulling all our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year:
According to a White House official, “this deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave, but the Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay. We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn’t want to give immunity.
“So that’s it. Now our troops go to zero,” the official added.
That last line is now mysteriously missing from the ABC News story, but it was in the initial version they emailed me. No immunity, no troops.
I wonder what Republicans are going to say about that? I'm sort of afraid to look. In a normal world, pretty much everyone would agree that if a host country won't cut some kind of immunity deal for military troops in what's still, after all, basically a warzone, then the troops have to come home. But we don't live in a normal world, so I imagine Republicans are going to turn this into some kind of massive appeasement/apology tour/lack of willpower outrage on Obama's part, frittering away the hard won gains of the Bush administration etc. etc. Or something. Let me know in comments.