February 20, 2008
Obama, McCain and foreign policy
So, it looks increasingly inevitable that it will be Obama v McCain. What will that mean for the foreign policy debate? The two men actually actually broadly agree on quite a lot: a preference for multilateralism, closing Guantanamo, a tougher line with Russia and China. But there are also big differences, mainly about the Middle East. The Swoop site summarises the main issues, in an admirably terse fashion.
The two main differences, it seems to me, will be over Iraq and Iran. Obama wants to get out of Iraq fast. McCain is talking about a committment that could last generations. Reality might force both men to be a bit more pragmatic. But - for now - there is a clear difference. Obama is also in favour of unconditional talks with Iran and the countries once known as the “axis of evil”. McCain sounds much more cautious and wants to tighten sanctions against Iran and Syria.
Interestingly, some of the pro-Israel lobby seem to be particularly hostile to Obama. They don’t like his advisers and they don’t like his talk of holding a summit with Muslim nations. Take a look at this vituperative note from Tom Gross.
The Tom Gross link is just a precursor of noise that is likely to come soon to the mainstream media in the US. The arguments have been well outlined since Obama first came onto the field.
Three emerging issues/developments are increasingly likely to reshape the foreign policy debate:
1) Cuba. Bush’s remarks are lacking in subtlety and confirm that he is clueless as to what Westphalian cheese taste like. I doubt that he has more than a passing knowledge of the Monroe Doctrine or who/what Batista really was. Doesn’t matter to him. He wants Cuba fully onside with the US for his legacy.
2) Kosovo. If it goes wrong in the next few weeks, it will go badly wrong. The frontline risk is likely the integrity of the EU. Bush-Cheney and the Neocons have never really been fond of the Old-Europe EU. With Neocon-perhaps-Scientologist Sarkozy preparing to take the keys for Brussels, a fire in the Balkans could grow out of control quickly. The UN already appears irrelevant in this picture.
3) US nuclear tests. Post-test-ban bombs and delivery systems have been developed and are said to be ready for testing. Clearly, Bush is the only one who could find political pleasure in such tests. They will put the candidates on the spot.
Brzezinski, as both RCS and I have noted, spent last week running around the Middle East. Lord knows what he was achieving, but I heard that he took his Cairo Four Seasons breakfast Sunday a week ago looking rather natty and acting quite as though State will be (if not in title) his mandate. He is not the man Obama needs. The sooner Hillary’s increasingly convent-school campaign is shut down the better. Who from her team will come over?
Pacifist’s quote from Buchanan that McCain would make Cheney look like Gandhi seems quite probable. His failings would be due less to his policy blueprints, and more to his conflicted personality, reactive leadership style and absurd Rule Britannia (US) patriotism.
Posted by: WCM | February 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Report this commentThe US cannot zap out of Iraq Zapatero style, in the same way that a strategic investor in a company cannot sell his stocks without triggering a landslide in their value. Therefore, if Obama is elected, he’ll have to renege on his promises, and that will spell the (early) doom of his one-term Carter-like presidency (which possibly will possibly also coincide with a recession).
I had predicted it would be Obama versus McCain (as I never tire of repeating) since before the New Hampshire primary. I still think that the second part of my prediction will also transpire — that McCain wins. When the moment of truth arrives on election day, there will not be found enough Americans willing to take the plunge and vote for a known unknown. It is true these are the same voters who voted for Bush — but actually they voted for Gore: In 2000 it was the Supreme Court which invested Bush with the presidency (2004 was warped by the events of 9/11). So let us hope that this time reason will prevail over fad and fashion.
Dear WCM,
I thank you for the honour of mentioning me in you post, but you had the agreement about Brzezinski with someone else (AYC, if I’m not mistaken).
Posted by: RCS | February 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm | Report this commentI don’t think McCain, even if he wins, is likely to get the country to go along with his “100 years in Iraq” venture, but, unlike the Bushies, he is closely tied to reality when it comes to what the military can and cannot do.
Besides, just as Nixon was able to go to China when no Democrat would have dared to do so, McCain would be in a unique position to wind down America’s military madness, if he chooses to, without being called a traitor. No Democrat would have that option, as long as the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters, Sean Hannity’s and Bill O’Reilly’s of this world dominate the airwaves.
Posted by: Roger Algase | February 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this commentWhether Barack or McCain, the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East will not be fundamentally redressed. Obviously not with McCain - and as for Barack; maybe slight deviations, but no major variations.
If we take the British venture into Iraq as an example and the different British governments that descended from and ascended into power because of their botched forty year endeavor, you will not notice any fundamental changes in their policy toward Iraq during that forty year period; just a grudging acceptance of reality and conforming their mission to correspond to that undesired reality.
My point is, changing a nation’s foreign policy - particularly a nation with preponderant interests and the means to pursue those interests - is not going to occur with the election of a president.
I am an avid supporter of Barack (I just voted for him today)and I also want our mission in Iraq to end - but I can’t imagine him withdrawing from Iraq; just think of the domestic and foreign policy ramifications! It would weaken him domestically and risk all the other domestic reforms he is touting.
barmakid
p.s. Tom Gross; what a joke.
Posted by: Barmakid | February 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Report this commentlast month the US blasted china for destroying one of its own rusted weather satellites with a surface to air missile, calling for space to be free of military aspirations. Yesterday, the same country that launched star wars and is developing a missile shield in Europe to threaten china and russias defensive capability, while simultaneously developing a third generation of nuclear weapons to be used pre-emptively, had launched a missile from a US navy frigate to shoot down one of its own spy satellites in space.
US foreign policy can be summarized very simply as follows. “Do as i say, not as i do”
Does anybody honestly think this principle will change under any new administration?
Posted by: Reza | February 21st, 2008 at 5:08 am | Report this commentI agree with some of Barmakid’s views concerning the inertial properties of the US foreign policies.
Policy will tend to move along the trodden path even though catastrophic.
However I believe that sooner or later the current financial crisis will force an abrupt change especially if some other shock is combined with it. This shock can be political, diplomatic or military in nature.
Too may things are going wrong at this very moment. Afghanistan is failing. No final scenario can be envisaged in Iraq. The continentals (especially the germans) have no confidence in the american elites. Consider the twelve questions
Helmut Schmidt is posing to the candidates in “Die Zeit”:
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2008/02/10471.php
(The german text can be accessed from the english
translation i am providing). Consider the last two questions he is posing:
Q11 Will your budgetary amd monetary policy bring
the mammoth foreign trade balance into equilibrium? Will America stop consuming a large share of the savings and capital formation of other nations? Do you support an oversight of the highly speculative global finacial markets?
Q12 Is the charter of the United Nations binding international law?
Die Zeit is a very serious paper and it is unlikely that Schmidt does not reflect the main elites of Germany.
If this hypothesis is right then it means that Germany is changing direction. The finacial crisis
has morphed into a political crisis and the american unilateralism is making the germans angry. They will act on it.
You can expect that Sarkozy’s atlanticism will be stymied. There is no chance that Blair will be acceptable to the Germans. German attitudes toward
Posted by: MP | February 21st, 2008 at 5:13 am | Report this commentanglosaxon finace practices will toughen a lot.
The Lichtenstein story is connected to this. etc etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/21/northernrock.banking
So G Brown leaves the lucrative stuff of Northern
Rock in the hands of his rich friends whereas the British taxpayer gets to drink the toxic cool aid
(as Buffet puts it) while potentially in for 150B
STD loss.
The Germans will definitely not be amused by this.
Posted by: MP | February 21st, 2008 at 6:25 am | Report this commentGideon,
I wish you would expand on your post. You have bumped into the elephant in the room and then just walked away.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Posted by: David Seaton | February 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am | Report this commentHelmut Schmidt asks (according to MP’s translation): “Will America stop consuming a large share of the savings and capital formation of other nations?”
Why not ask: will other nations stop investing a large share of their savings and capital formation in America? Helmut Schmidt’s question is pure inanity. And it seems that he is trying to pick a fight with despised America, rather than pose serious policy questions. Typical 1970s Socialist. Die Zeit? Es ist nicht deine Zeit.
Posted by: RCS | February 21st, 2008 at 8:11 am | Report this commentIt seems I have twice agreed with RCS in as many days. I will take some fresh air in a moment.
Re: Mr Schmidt’s point, the US is out of balance and there is a politically driven co-dependency between it and the Oil Producers, Japan, China and other reserve-burdened nations that is indeed dangerous. When in history have their not been such dynamics? Economics is not accounting; it was once classified amongst Humanities in US schools. Messy stuff.
Like most today, I have been taught to regard the US as a model nation-state. To seriously question this, particularly in economic terms, seems valid for the first time in my life. The US is beginning to make better sense if I look at it as a casino and ponder the evidence that the only licensed house on the planet may be bankrupt. Shareholder-value mantras and a few too many symbiotic relationships with its biggest clients top the reasons.
Today’s geopolitical crisis is institutional and structural. Much of the problem is in discourse that remains tied to the values and principles set forth in our treaties and charters and mandates.
Citibank built its business model on the precept that borders were in the way. It played the system better than others (at least for awhile) by building a network that mirrored national borders (it obtained local charters in every country as opposed to a mightly mother ship with subsidiaries docked in every port). Nonetheless, John Reed was quoted in Institutional Investor, when the bank was in the midst of a regulatory fight in Washington in the late 1980s, that Citi did not NEED to be a US based institution. He could just as easily headquarter what was then the Number One Bank in the Cayman Islands.
Reed was, perhaps is, a masterful cynic and one well steeped in international principles. His ideas was simple. Forget nations. Look at how many inidviduals on this planet spend money each day and give them a product that would organise their pockets. Some global pop numbers and back-of-envelope calculations and you have the modern global banking system. It is a relatively young concept, and yet nearly everything we speak of today keys on it.
When I have raised questions about the cherished principles of Westphalia, which I rather prefer to government by Citibank, which evolved into the pre-Chavez master of Visa-card economics in Mexico and Latin America and then the world, it is to highlight the risk of its irrelevancy. An immediate risk is to see the geopolitical and hegemonic games of the few who are far more cynical than Mr Reed, who I suggest looks like a wide-eyed prince in comparison, redefine our planetary landscape.
The Frankenstein that has come out of Mr Reed’s lab is a world where Westphalian governments are little more than human resource departments for the visible corporate and invisible private wealth organisations that are really allocating our global resources and setting our priorities. Our blindness and inability to govern the casino are the cause of the institutional crisis we are in.
As for Sarkozy, I can tell you that Parisians are openly discussing scenarios as to WHEN he will fall. Sadly, I think they are deluded. The many comedies being played out on Paris stages at the moment seem well scripted. I fear he is as cynical about the EU as Mr Reed was of banking regulation. Mr Reed’s imagination and character were far more insîring, however.
Posted by: WCM | February 21st, 2008 at 9:03 am | Report this commentRe: the US campaign.
Pacifist–I suggest you take a look at salon.com today. Their lead image and story by Hooman Majd confirm how the anti-Obama game may most effectively be played out. Okay article, but loaded positioning.
McCain-Rice. A late-night scan of US sites suggests that this rumour is taking life. I am on record as holding her in low esteem and I predicted this combination in response to Obama on this blog a few weeks back. Looking at its potential power today, I’m unsure that she brings much to the table for McCain. For starters, she is politically untested and uncomfortable when off her tightly and carefully worded scripts.
Posted by: WCM | February 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am | Report this commentI think my PC has gone very PC (politically correct) and refuses to display the Tom Gross link that Mr. Rachman alludes to.
Salam Agha Reza and Barmakid: I think most people agree with you that nothing fundamental will change in the US positions, regardless of who gets into the White House. Nevertheless, taken at face value, McCain supports the Iraqi entanglement and sings “bomb, bomb…Iran” and Obama doesn’t.
Therefore, probably naively, I think Obama represents the lesser evil.
What worries me about him is that the void in his foreign-policy experience might be quickly filled with all those “experts” that seem to fill every US think-thank that is concerned with Middle East and Near East, all of whom owe allegiance (and finances) to the pro-israel lobby.
WCM: Thank you for the link. As, I think, you suggest, this kind of “praise” is a double-edged sword for Obama that will lose him a lot of white votes and will coalesce the pro-Israeli (including fundamentalist Christians) behind McCain. At the same time, being ” perceived by Muslims abroad like no other candidate” will not do him much good as foreign Muslims don’t vote in the US elections.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am | Report this commentBy the way, Sen. Pat Buchanan was extremely perceptive when in 2003 he published the following article, entitled “Whose War?”:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
His claim that “A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.” is a graphic description of what has gone wrong with America during the Bush presidency and is a warning of its continuation under a McCain or Clinton presidency.
And then there is this observation that resonates everyday in this blog and elsewhere:
Quote
Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentIt seems that some us have not fixated enough on the implications of Schmidt’s questions:
Q1: How would you end the war in Iraq? What means would you use? What will Iraq look like at the end?
Let’s parse this one:
The Germans know that the attempt to use the Shia community to fight the Sunnis led to the insurgency. Short of genocide of Sunnis the instability will be permanent in Iraq.
None of the candidates has addressed this very serious issue of political balance in Iraq.
My personal opinion is that they don’t have the foggiest idea about the final state of Iraq because of many reasons not least because Americans are allergic to complexity.
Besides the human resources needed to solve the Iraqi problem are not available. (Michael Mann’s
idea in “the Incoherent Empire” )
So the Germans through Schmidt’s mouth want to disengage from unsolvable problems and badly designed policies. This explains their refusal to
participate in operations in Afghanistan.
Add the foreign mess to the Greenspan induced finance debacle and you begin to get a sense that
Posted by: MP | February 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentcountervailing forces are building up to force real change to mad schemes in foreign policy.
Bushism of the day from Slate.com
“A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive.”
— By W. Bush after touring a genocide memorial, Kigali, Rwanda, Feb. 19, 2008
I find this inspired thought coming from the US president incredibly ironic. Let’s hope that all the presidential hopefuls will learn from his few moments of wisdom.
Posted by: KCF | February 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentMP–I agree with you that the US candidates are clueless on Shia-Sunni dynamics. The good news is that US actions are putting the two more often around the same beds if not in them. Look at the political and finanical exchanges that have begun to expand between Iran and Gulf oil producers.
Neither the State Department nor the political chattering class in the US give a damn about Iraqi sovereinty. They care as much for Shia-Sunni history as they do for Hapsburgian maps of Serbia. The US has reinvented itself on its (mistaken) belief that the world expects it to lead us and manage all–increasingly for fees.
A future US-bound Kurdish state and its oil; construction of a Eurasian air defence and logistics platform; the rebuilding and expropriation of Iraq’s oil infrastructure; regime change in Iran; and a strategic corner on Brzezinski’s Grand Chess Board next are US policy objectives. None are aligned with either Westphalian principles or the post-WWI international order.
It has been argued that Iraq’s weak government, infighting and social unrest have been helpful to the US in providing cover for the US’ rebuilding of remote oil-related and security infrastructure.
McCain-Obama-Clinton: From what can be ascertained thusfar, one has little reason for a substantive shift in US policy. Obama’s style captivates many of us at the moment, but a close look at his foreign policy team shows as many conflicting backgrounds as does McCain’s economic team.
It is sad to realise how many quietly hope that a sharp markdown of the US economy might force a decoupling. While Martin Wolf’s Mother of Meltdowns scenario makes a good story, I increasingly doubt that justice will be delivered to those who cooked up this bubbly mess.
Posted by: WCM | February 21st, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Report this commentI just wish to remind folk that the Shia-Sunni divide has existed in Iraq for 13+ centuries and never has it resulted in anything remotely like the bloodshed that we have witnesses since 2003. They have managed to co-exist reasonably well since independence and way back through British, Ottoman and other rules. The Shia really lost out after they rebelled against British colonialism in 1920. “Churchill urged the employment of mustard gas, which had been used against Shia rebels in 1920.” See article:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2004/0617iraq1917.htm
The above leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the intercommunal violence was encouraged and inflamed as a means of dividing and ruling Iraq.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentWCM,
While it may be true that the candidates are “clueless” about sunni-shia dynamics, the provincial reconstruction teams and the commanding generals are not; these are the people on the ground that count. But even if you disagree with me, the instability in Iraq has less to do with intra-religious quarrels than it does with trying to establish a stable and unified government within the Westphalian system. It is not an effective mechanism for buttressing Middle Eastern governments; and btw, stability is not the only criterion of effectiveness.
The Westphalian system has failed in Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and anywhere else it has been implemented. It has proven to be an impotent mechanism of governance, but a powerful facilitator of geostrategy and pursuing one’s national interest.
Salam Pacifist, Pat Buchanan is someone who I can disagree with for the rest of my life. Indeed, we occupy very different positions on the U.S. political spectrum, but nonetheless, he seems to have an astute awareness of politics in the U.S. And also, I would not refer to Barack as the lesser evil. Though I understand that if you live outside the U.S. your opinions of a candidate are formulated around their prospective foreign policy, he brings a lot more to U.S. democracy than his prospective foreign policy.
This is the second time I can vote in a presidential election and I am so proud to have a candidate like him to vote for; so in my humble opinion, there is nothing evil about him but about some of the institutions he will have to conform to.
Posted by: Barmakid | February 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Report this commentP,
Can’t you see that equating NeoCons with Jews is inherently anti-semitic? Would you appreciate it if I said I don’t oppose Iranians because they are Shias, I oppose them because they are fanatical fundamentalists?
BTW, Ariel Sharon, a grandmaster of strategy, opposed the invasion of Iraq; the Israeli leadership at the time didn’t understand the American administration’s obsession with Saddam Hussein and would rather have had seen a concentration of efforts on Iran.
Posted by: RCS | February 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Report this comment…and would rather have seen…
Can’t get those tenses right!
Posted by: RCS | February 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentWCM, P:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/7b69cea6-df56-11dc-91d4-0000779fd2ac.html
The above is the url in the Lex column (20/2) which records facts relating to the decoupling that is happening in the real economies.
I will go out on the limb and say that the effects of the so called us meltdown will be marginal for NE and SE Asia and Europe.
I read M Wolf’s presentation of Roubini’s 12 step descent to finacial hell. I find it highly unlikely on mathematical grounds. (I am a theoretical physicist).
Simply stated each of these steps has a probability less than one. Consequently the sequential concatenation of all these occuring is smaller than any of the 12 factors. In fact almost impossible.
Most of these people give metaphysically dogmatic properties to economic events. In fact any particular event can be made to change its course
because of human intervention.
But back to the thread’s discussion. Consider the fact that for the last 200 years the Persians have not invaded anybody. (On the contrary others invaded them). Presently most people concentrate on what Ahmed-dinejad says and do not pay attention as to what Persian diplomacy is doing in the gulf and in S Arabia. They are doing a lot.
In other words they are trying to bring the gulf to their side. They seem to be successful: Most of the sanction busting is done by companies in the gulf. Further, it is not to their interest to make Iraq a vassal state. They see this.
My conclusion: Sectarian violence will abate once the yanks pull out and the iraqis come to some arrangement among themselves. The Turks will see to it that the Kurds remain in Iraq and do not become a separate state.
Posted by: MP | February 21st, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this commentRCS,
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Indeed the neocons inside the administration were predominantly Jewish - but that is definitely not to say that all Jews are neocons or all neocons are Jews.
In fact, the mostly Jewish neocons I speak of wrote a policy paper and sent it to Benjamin Netanyahu describing how they could increase Israel’s security by deposing Saddam and reinstalling a Hashemite government in Iraq. They reasoned that a Hashemite government would gain legitimacy with the majority Shia population because of the emphasis Shia place on the descendants of Muhammad. In turn, the disaffected Sunni population and the land they occupy would gradually be absorbed into Jordan, creating a viable Sunni state that has the capacity to absorb Israel’s Palestinian population. Now, I have described this in a nutshell, but George Packer wrote more elaborately about it in his book, “The Assassins Gate.”
Anyways, the eight signatories of this paper went on to serve in high levels of the Bush State Department, Defense Department, and executive staff. If my memory serves me correct, some of these signatories were Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfawitz, and lesser known others of their ilk.
Though you might not appreciate Pacifist’s statements, they are indeed grounded in reality and not some baseless conspiratorial sentiment. What shouldn’t be appreciated is that a nation like the U.S., with much broader interests (domestic and foreign) was taken to war on such a parochial basis and with such a myopic strategy.
So your comparison about Iranian Shia and fanatical fundamentalists blah blah blah is not apt. Iran did not start a War to promote some other nation’s security. Iranians are not the cause of daily suffering endured by Iraqis and Palestinians. The only people that suffer from the clerical leadership in Iran are indigenous Iranians.
barmakid
Posted by: Barmakid | February 21st, 2008 at 8:37 pm | Report this commentUnbelievable. Now I’m stepping to RCS’ defence!
He is correct that the Israelis were at least retiscent about the Iraqi invasion and expressed caution to the Administration in Washington. One of the very last meetings Saddam Hussein had before the US began bombing was with a personal emissary sent to Baghdad by Ariel Sharon.
One must recall that secular Iraq had long been a sort of ally of Israel. One must also recall that the Americans raised the temperature in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. I’ll leave it at that.
MP–I do not now and never have subscribed to any 12-step programmes, but I can understand why you may think that I do. My point is that I do concur that the US is fundamentally a bankrupt economy; the questions are as to how much of the cost has bee/is being/will be transferred to the global economy. So far, the Fed has put a lot of the bill on others. Decoupling, as Wolf notes, will likely be a short-lived term. I’m one who would like to see it become policy, even if I know better to than to say such.
You miss my point on Iraq. The ground and political struggles are second tier issues. The bigger objectives–oil and regional defence infrastructures–are largely being achieved. This is why George and Dick have those strange grins. The question remains as to whether this has been the right policy–not for Iraqi citizens who have paid absurd prices in human and livelihood terms, but for US hegemonic objectives.
While I dismiss empire theories vis-à-vis the US, their Iraq strategy is a cornerstone in their new empire plan.
Your comments on the Kurds and Kurdistan suggest you need to look into this topic more closely. Begin with the fact that Ammadinezad’s career was built on his role as governor of Iran’s Kurdish province in the years when it was besieged by the US-funded Iraqis with US-made chemical weapons. You will then understand why this man is where he is today. As war heros go, McCain pales in comparison.
Misinformation is a US art.
Posted by: WCM | February 21st, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Report this commentWCM,
I accept that the Israelis were reluctant to see a US war with Iraq, but I was partly responding to RCS’s statement; “the Israeli leadership at the time didn’t understand the American administration’s obsession with Saddam Hussein…” I think they very well knew what was up, but that doesn’t mean the leadership supported it.
Also, I know Saddam was more or less a secular leader…but can you please elaborate for me on how Saddam’s Iraq was some sort of Israeli ally?
And btw, I do appreciate your understanding of Iran’s, particularly Ahmadinejad’s, history and how that relates to today’s affairs.
barmakid
Posted by: Barmakid | February 21st, 2008 at 11:10 pm | Report this commentWCM,
Here is another type of divide and rule dream:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=5311&p=2
I am sure you know Luttwak: He wants Persia broken into several pieces: Azeri,Arab,Kurd etc. He thinks
a Yugoslavia operation is possible without a hard fight with the American military.
I do not think this is possible. Furthermore, i must say that i am in disagreement with you re:
the establishment of military infrastructure in Iraq, The Oil grab, the establishment of a Kurdish state in Iraq.
No matter what gets written down in treaties, agreements etc with the present Iraqi government
the structure will be weak owing to political factors.
Iraq, a secular state on the threshold of first world status gets reduced to third world status,
400 high level academics get assassinated.
Most of the elite of Iraq was Sunni. In spite of the oppression of Saddam the Shias felt Iraqi first.
So let us assume that PSA’s get signed with American majors and the Yanks get 99year basing agreements. How long do you reckon this can last?
We are in the era of NOC’s.
In summary i believe the Iraqis have a collective national identity which will manifest itself violently and successfully against their occupation.
What is your view?
Posted by: MP | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 am | Report this commentIn response to MP: “In summary i believe the Iraqis have a collective national identity which will manifest itself violently and successfully against their occupation.”
Hello MP,
There are many factors impeding the development of Iraq today, and all of them deserve attention, understanding, and analysis. Yet, there is one condition that must be understood before all other events or facts can be comprehensively analyzed. Iraq does not enjoy the benefit of an underlying consensus of political community (shared nationhood), which would allow them to differ peacefully over lesser issues and interests. Ultimately, this underlying condition is integral to understanding the political and social developments of Iraq today. Barring an elaborate analysis of Iraqi history that would surely elucidate a disintegrated political community and political will, I would simply like to highlight a few things that I believe deserve emphasis if one wishes to understand Iraq’s socio-political dynamic and its relationship to the state.
When one speaks of Iraq and Iraqis, it conjures up hollow notions of statehood and nationhood. The state of Iraq was created before a nation existed to collectively support its creation and perpetuation. Since its inception, Iraq has lacked a collective civic identity linked to the state. Cultivating such an identity became the task of Iraq’s leaders, who quickly abandoned a collective approach to governance. The socio-political dynamic was - and still is - simply not conducive to such an approach. Instead, they embraced the alternative, an expedient approach aimed at developing networks of patronage in order to perpetuate their regime, not the state. Consequently, an exclusive identity linked to a regime was fostered as opposed to a collective identity linked to the state. Thus, when a certain regime ceases to be, so too does the exclusive identity linked to it, thereby creating an identity vacuum alongside a power vacuum.
This is what has occurred, unsurprisingly, in post-Saddam Iraq. Understanding how and why this has occurred is critical to understanding the country of Iraq.
Posted by: Barmakid | February 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 am | Report this commentBarmakid,
” The only people that suffer from the clerical leadership in Iran are indigenous Iranians.”
So how about the Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis and others who are under the thumb of the terror groups funded and supported by Tehran? Not to mention the victims of the terror attacks carried out at the behest of the Iranian leadership - AMIA building in Argentina for example.
Precisely why McCain should not speak to them.
Posted by: AYC | February 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am | Report this commentDear RCS,
Given the high level of your erudition and intellect, I can only assume that when you advance such weak arguments, (i.e., accuse me of equating NeoCons with Jews), you are simply setting up a “Strawman” and are trying to obfuscate. The fact that we have discussed this several times before and you keep repeating yourself, convinces me even more!
Can I suggest that you read a book on elementary set theory? To say that A is a subset of B, does not mean that A = B!
To say that NeoCons’ positions are mostly indistinguishable from the right wing of the Likudniks and to point out the large number of people of the Jewish faith that can be categorised as NeoCon is not to “EQUATE” Jews with Neocons. Therefore, please stop trying to pass off your own extremism as “Jewish” and any opposition to it as anti-Jewish.
For sure, there are a lot of Jewish people who disagree with the NeoCon project. In Britain there is the organisation called “Independent Jewish Voices” the group of prominent Jews who called for a debate on Israel with household names like Stephen Fry, Harold Pinter, Mike Leigh, Jenny Diski, Nicole Farhi, Eric Hobsbawm and Susie Orbach.
http://www.ijv.org.uk/
You cannot put a cigarette paper between the views they express here and my own views (does that make these people anti-Jewish or does it make me a iberal Jew?):
Quote
We are guided by the following principles:
1. Human rights are universal and indivisible and should be upheld without exception. This is as applicable in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as it is elsewhere.
2. Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives.
3. Peace and stability require the willingness of all parties to the conflict to comply with international law.
4. There is no justification for any form of racism, including anti-Semitism, anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, in any circumstance.
5. The battle against anti-Semitism is vital and is undermined whenever opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as anti-Semitic.
These principles are contradicted when those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people. The Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip face appalling living conditions with desperately little hope for the future. We declare our support for a properly negotiated peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people and oppose any attempt by the Israeli government to impose its own solutions on the Palestinians.
Unquote
The above is just one organisation. There are other organisations and individuals (from Chomsky to Rachman) who are Jewish and not NeoCon.
Finally, contrary to what you say, Israelis were in favour of the invasion of Iraq and still support it. What they dislike, is that it has not been extended to Iran and Syria.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am | Report this commentThanks to all for their comments, and a reminder that the topic of this post is Obama, McCain and foreign policy.
Damian Carrington, interactive editor, FT.com
Posted by: Damian Carrington | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am | Report this commentP, the funny thing is you betray your own argument with practically every post. You are the one who constantly raises questions about people’s ethnicity in support of their arguments. It’s simply the equivalent of the disgusting slurs against Obama that because he was allegedly radicalised in a Madrassa in Indonesia (untrue), or that he has a Muslim middle name, his foreign policy must be suspect. However, as I, WCM and others have pointed out, his foreign policy is a major weakness because of his lack of experience and because of the quality of his advisors. Didn’t your mother tell you that you can judge a man by the company he keeps?
btw, your support for the views of IJV neither makes the signatories anti-Jewish or you a liberal Jew, but simply demonstrates that you agree with these people’s (at least the drivers of the group) profound antipathy for Israel. You might also be interested to know that the group is on the verge of breaking up due to the ideological motivation of the drivers (perhaps where you come in?), rather than the (perhaps misplaced) humanist motivation of other members. Again a similar fracture that we see in US politics - a profound, sometimes deliberate, misunderstanding of the situation on the ground, to support a pre-determined point of view. That is what is so dangerous about Obama’s lack of experience - he is less able to tell what the right course is and argue against his advisors (or rid himself of them). This is in fact a similar argument advanced in criticism of Bush.
Damian, perhaps you might like to unfreeze my post from last night, when you have a moment.
Posted by: AYC | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 am | Report this commentDear AYC,
Kindly stop giving the rest of us (including the moderator) a headache by persisting in off-topic discussions, particularly when they start off with untrue statements like this:-
“You are the one who constantly raises questions about people?s ethnicity in support of their arguments”.
Thanks in advance,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am | Report this commentRe: the discussion of what is unfolding in Iraq, I think the state of political and civilian life in Iraq is sufficiently understood, even if details are in dispute. Next to nothing, however, is reported on the cordoned-off strategic oil and defence infrastructure projects. Too little is reported on the Blackwater-type labour supply which is conscripted from places even worse off. Nothing is really known about the capital that is financing these Grand Chessboard schemes.
My point is that what is happening in Iraq confirms that the US and other powers have departed not just from the letter and spirit, but from the historic context of international law.
It is reported that US officials have deemed the Iraqi government categorically incompetent to manage its oil resources (a point that I am unlikely to challenge). The protected development that is underway seems void of any respect for sovereign domain or the rights of the people who are nominally the rightful trustees of resources within their borders.
Embedded journalists; a media that is increasingly employed to advance “officially sactioned” scenario-management plans; and financial and corporate powers that have long considered what remains of Westphalian governance to be an inconvenience at best. Not a good picture.
Is this period no less risky than the years that followed the end of World War II? Or are we traversing minefields that remind us more of the 1930s? Is too much of this lively discourse irrelevant?
My expectations that the new face on the stage in the US will enlighten us are lower by the day. Nonetheless, he represents considerably more promise than his well-encumbered and tiresome opponents, even it is only theatre.
Posted by: WCM | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am | Report this commenthttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/545e9bfa-e0e8-11dc-b0d7-0000779fd2ac.html
I think most poeple here will have seen the above squirming apology by the British Foreign Secretary about allowing the “rendition” flights by the US planes to land in British airports.
The fact that even the uncritical, abjectly loyal, Brits have been forced to distance themselves so publicly from the actions of the US government, speaks volumes about how the rest of the world views the Bush regime’s deeds today. Torture, committed by the leading world power in the full knowledge of the world opinion, is not
a recipe for world leadership, much less a licence to lecture others on Human Rights and democracy.
I think a good place to start any future American administration’s foreign policy review is by correcting the fundamental disregard that the US has developed for others’ rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
If you want to be taken seriously:
You cannot advocate Human Rights with one side of your mouth and order torture with the other;
You cannot demand demand security for yourself but expect whole nations to be consigned to prison camps;
You cannot demand adherence to UN Security Council resolutions when you support your closest ally’s flouting of 60 resolutions;
You cannot decry other people’s missile tests and practise shooting down satellites yourself;
You cannot breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in every which way and protest against other nations’ peaceful development.
The list can go on and on….but simply put, you can only expect co-operation, respect and sympathy when you are willing to reciprocate and you can only expect adhererence to the rules, when you respect the rules yourself.
Is there any candidate with a set of advisers who understand these? I think the answer is a firm NO.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm | Report this commentThank you P for your double-edged kind words (thank you for the positive edge).
I agree you do not have to be a chemist to know elementary set theory, but I assume that some of the people who express themselves like Pat Buchanan nevertheless do not know any — or if they do, then they are acting in bad faith. AYC nicely points out the disingenuous behaviour of many an anti-Zionist, who hide their true motives under a false veil of universal humanism.
Posted by: RCS | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
The whole of my post, including the compliments, were sincere.
The flip side of anti-semites posing as mere anti-Zionists are those Zionists who try to portray land-grabbing, terrorism, militarism and virtual apartheid as Jewish values and any opposition to it as an expression of hatred towards the Jews.
As ever, extremists of the opposing sides feed each other.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentTo get back to the thread, P (please note Damian), given the comments by several senior Iranians over the past couple of
days, it seems that McCain is right to be
cautious about talking to the messianic cult currently running Iran. Even the BBC now recognises it as a cult:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7255602.stm
What could McCain say that would possibly have an effect on these fanatics? And they must be hoping desperately, fervently, for the
acceding to power of the foreign policy debutante, Obama. Carter in short trousers, you might say.
Syria may or may not be different. That is to be explored further and there is a case for talking to Assad. Something McCain should look at,
should he be elected (and I believe he will be).
P, you migth note that the charge of anti-Semitism is not levelled at those who criticise neo-cons, Israel, or Jews, when that criticism is in line with criticism levelled at any other group, country or race. It is when Israel or the Jews are singled out and demonised beyond the boundaries of fair criticism (Neo-cons = Jewish cabal seeking to control the world through US foreign policy; Israel = racist / apartheid state
Posted by: AYC | February 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Report this commentseeking to control the world through domination of the Palestinians / Lebanon / the middle east / US foreign policy; Jews seek to control the world by grabbing the levers of international finance) all of which
have appeared in one form or another at one time or another on this site, and far, far beyond.
Firstly, apologies for the dual posting above. The first one is supposed to be deleted, but the attempt seems to have failed.
This question of criticism of Israel as a political nation and the risk that such is targeted or imputed to be anti-semitism fuels too many posts. Nonetheless, a report I found in the French press (from this past Monday) on comments by Malcolm Hoenlein about Barack Obama raise serious questions on this topic. Hoenlein is the vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Jewish organisations (aka a backbone of AIPAC).
In this citation, Hoenlein remarks that while Obama “counts many Jews amongst his advisors and supporters, one must question the spirit of his campaign. The change he speaks of, does it not risk restarting the debate as to the support without fault/fail that the US will bring to Israel.”
With hesitation, I pose two questions:
Why should such support to an independent sovereign state be “sans faille”?
Why should not Israel then be a part of the Union (the US)?
(Certainly, US taxpayers would see advantages in a statehood solution.)
It is fine for me for anyone to question Obama’s policies, contradictions, inclinations (or lack thereof) commitments and support. Nonetheless, the comments suggest that any questions on the exceptional relationship are restricted for discussion amongst les Grands Elu des Ordres de Sagesse. Balance, rethinking and openness are needed. The risks aren’t so great.
French report: “Obama inquiète les lobbies juifs. Barack Obama donne quelque inquiétude aux lobbies pro-Israëliens. Malcolm Hoenlein, vice president de la Conférence des présidents (qui regroupe les principales organisations juives), ne le cache pas: “Il compte de nombreaux juifs parmi ses partisans comme dans son entourage”, mais on peut “s’interroger sur l’esprit de sa campagne”. Le “changement qu’il appelle de ses voeux ne risque-t-il pas de remettre en cause le soutien sans faille que les Etats-Unis apportent à Israël?” (I’ll note that the article’s brevity and tone suggest a bias.)
Posted by: WCM | February 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Report this commentObama, McCain Foreign Policy…
Huge differences…Brookings and New American Foundation thinking-(Obama) v AEI thinking-(McCain)…Obama will no doubt appoint Dr. Susan Rice to a key position, then Africa will finally get the attention and commitments that it so much needs from US to address its problems and turmoil. The Aipac crowd may lean toward McCain but the organization does not not represent most Jewish voters…I voted for Obama in the primary and cannot wait to vote for him in the general …and who knows, in an Obama administration we may see Gary Hart in a position of influence especially US -Russia foreign policy…another good reason to support him.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | February 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 am | Report this commentHello, Lisa– Your comments suggests that many sidelined activists now see their chance and are running behind Obama punching in the air. Not sure this scenario works for me. “We”–and I trust many American voters–will like to see a bit more awareness that American needs to listen and participate before it takes charge. We have had two decades of Americans-really-know-best activism in foreign policy. More circumspection and respect for those who are funding will be expected.
Gary Hart managing Vladimir Putin. I can hear the Monday morning strategy meetings. Not sure.
Perhaps Obama has made policy statement on Kosovo. I will look for it. My concern has been that the EU has let the US shape its future once again, and won a strategic objective for its “activists”. There are many dangers; some key ones will take on clear definition after Sarkozy extends his Elysée-Versailles palace network to take on Brussels (officially) in July. And during a US presidential. I doubt he will take much a traditional French vacation this year.
Posted by: WCM | February 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 am | Report this commentWCM”“We”–and I trust many American voters–will like to see a bit more awareness that American needs to listen and participate before it takes charge.”
Why would you think that Obama is not a listener? Unlike his Dem opponent, there is NO arrogance there…just one of the most thoughtful and refinded minds that the world of politics has ever seen…on Hart: he would be an asset in any DEM administration, I have no memory of the Hart of the 1980’s …but his writings of late show him to be a man of and for the 21st century…and that is where we are even though many policy people and the politicians they serve don’t seem to understand that…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | February 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentIf his campaign advisory team and the ghostwriters are getting it wrong. How is his administration going to be?
Kennedy times are long gone. And let’s face it he is NOT Kennedy. But even his road to the White house wasn’s as “clean” as it should have been.
No matter what we want to see in Obama, one thing is true. HE BELIEVES that he is going to win and that’s what Hillary lacks.
Posted by: Kay | February 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Report this commentIs it my inexperience with American voices and accents or does Hillary’s voice sound trenchant, vile and v. offputting to others too?
I was listening to the clips of their latest debate and hoped we don’t have to keep hearing that voice constantly for the next 4-8 years.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this comment