Democrats grow up
According to Ross Douthat the Democrats have grown up and accepted responsibility for the post-9/11 world. His evidence: Libya intervention and the death of Osama bin Laden.
“There is good news for the country in this turnabout. Having one of their own in the White House has forced Democrats to walk in the Bush administration’s shoes, and appreciate its dilemmas and decisions. To some extent, the Bush-Obama convergence is a sign that the Democratic Party is growing up, putting away certain fond illusions, and accepting its share of responsibility for the messy realities of the post-9/11 world.”
Of course, it’s always gratifying to belong to a group that someone has declared grown up. But the quasi-smug assessment here leaves out a number of relevant issues: political party dynamics and the economic power of military-industrial-security complex that has eroded presidential powers and bought off the Congress.
What else am I missing in this slippery piece of argumentation?
Well, for starters, his correct first name: which is, of course, Ross rather than Russ. Or maybe this merely more “irony” sans quotation marks?
Thank you. Corrected, Joff.
Just more partisan spin – of course, some think folks at CW are “naive” but the notion of balance and objectivity in political and econom,ic discourse (not to mention Chujrch matters) is long gone.
Was Ross trying to throw a damper on President Obama’s success? Not worth trying to comprehend, imho.
Maureen, otoh, was great Sunday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08dowd.html?scp=2&sq=maureen%20dowd&st=cse
That indeed seems to be a remarkably weak piece of argumentation, and one that Bush defenders like to hype perhaps because it seems to dilute Bush’s fecklessness by involving Obama or perhaps burnishes Bush’s reputation by associating it with Obama’s greater effectiveness in the so-called war on terror.
The argument does seem one that would united Bush partisans with many liberals who also see no daylight between Obama and Bush policies, especially as regards civil liberties.
But a few rejoinders to Douthat’s argument:
Bush invaded Iraq, the most ill-conceived and grandiose front in the war on terror. Obama opposed the invasion and is in the process of shutting down that theater of operations.
Bush quickly gave up the effort against terrorism in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden, while Obama re-focused on Afghanistan and made getting bin Laden a priority, and succeeded in that effort at least.
Bush sanctioned torture and set up the extra-judicial apparatus of tribunals and Gitmo. Obama has foresworn the use of torture and is shutting down Gitmo and wants to use regular judicial trials. (Both of those last efforts have been stymied in part by the GOP, but it’s a vast difference.)
Obama has made diplomacy in the Arab world and multilateralism among allies a centerpiece of his approach; Bush did not.
I think we could go on. Libya was no Rummy/Cheney intervention, to be sure.
PS: It seems this is part of the “false equivalency” meme that the GOP is cycling around. One also sees it on the deficit/budget debate, with the argument that “both parties” are at fault. Well, uh no.
Krugman scores a number of direct hits on the “right” side of the op-ed page today, irony of ironies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks for the Krugman araticle, David G. His usual clear appeal to basic evidence.
[Has anybody besides me had trouble accessing the NYT since it instituted online subscriptions? I subscribed, but can't get to articles. Offline advice would be appreciated if you solved the problem. So far, the NYT hasn't been able to help me.]
Ross assumes the Democrats were not aware or accepting of the messy realities when they argued against war in Iraq, torture, etc.
He also assumes that the Bush admin was aware of messy realities when it argued for war in Iraq, torture, etc. That is not the impression given by Bush or other advocates at the time.
But setting aside his ignorance of the maturity of the Democratic positions in the past, and the immaturity of Republican position, his argument makes perfect sense.
Douthat is clearly calling for heightened vigilance and more checks and balances against an imperial presidency, along the lines proposed by the far left and the libertarian right. I would have thought that message would be applauded on this site but the “Obama is awesome” song seeems to drown out the slightest discordant murmurs.
Perhaps the underlying issue here is that no one, far left, libertariam right, and everything in between can stop this juggernaut known as the “indispensable nation.”
Patrick –
I agree that we need some checks and balances, but I also think that Douthat is right to say that the initial problem is what he calls “frontier” law, and what I have called “vigilante law”. When there are new, severely threatening circumstances, new actions/ laws must be made, and sometimes prudence requires that individuals act before the law is codified. But later the laws must be spelled out, and, as you say, checks and balances must be included.
“What else am I missing in this slippery piece of argumentation?” (Margaret O’Brien Steinfels)
What is being missed is the need for reasonable caution and prudence in reacting to official government statements:
http://www.infowars.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax/
Am I convinced that the recent report of the killing of Osama bin Laden is a hoax? No. But, at least at this point, I am unwilling to stake my life on the truth of our government’s statement.
Does that make al Qaeda’s announcement of the death of bin Laden part of a conspiracy to replace the Saudi with the American-Yemeni everyone is so excited about?
“David G. His usual clear appeal to basic evidence.”
There’s a difference between assertions and evidence. Lay evidence next to David’s assertions:
1. Bush invaded Iraq, the most ill-conceived and grandiose front in the war on terror. Obama opposed the invasion and is in the process of shutting down that theater of operations.
- Pres. Obama was serving in the IL State Senate at the time of authorization for the IRaq War, so it is a curious claim that he “opposed the invasion”, unlike, of course, our VP and Sec. of State who both voted IN FAVOR of the invasion together with a sizeable majority of Democrats. Of course once he was in the US Senate, the President voted AGAINST an early-withdrawal timetable, and as far as I know never publicly supported de-funding the war.
2. Bush quickly gave up the effort against terrorism in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden, while Obama re-focused on Afghanistan and made getting bin Laden a priority, and succeeded in that effort at least.
- Bush can be rightly criticised for short-circuiting Iraq, but the major point to support the latter assertion is that Obama killed Osama. To my ears, the Bushies have given ample praise to Pres. Obama’s decision, and it is entirely possible that what appears to be Bush “giving up…the hunt” for OBL likely resulted from the evidence about his whereabouts going cold. Of course liberals at the time widely lambasted then-Pres. Bush for his comments about getting OBL (as they did then-candidate Obama as well for some of his comments). FInally, many would suggest that Pres. Obama’s “refocusing” in Afghan. is adding up to be as big a mistake as the IRaq invasion, so I wouldn’t put that feather in my cap as of yet.
3. Bush sanctioned torture and set up the extra-judicial apparatus of tribunals and Gitmo. Obama has foresworn the use of torture and is shutting down Gitmo and wants to use regular judicial trials. (Both of those last efforts have been stymied in part by the GOP, but it’s a vast difference.)
- This assertion truly has an “Alice in Wonderland” feel to it. To accept it, it seems, one must accept that the President is “shutting down” Gitmo and military tribunals by actually endorsing both recently. Moreover, I must have missed Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and Andrew Cuomo’s defections to the GOP, as they opposed civilian trials in NY. Finally, the Pres. signed at executive order on his first day in office ordering Gitmo to be closed within one year of that date. He of course inherited sizeable Democratic majorities in BOTH houses of congress, and it was TWO years hence that the House changed hands. Yet we are to believe that the President and his Democratic MAJORITY were stymied in their efforts by (what was frequently described at the time) a feeble, disoriented, disheartened GOP Minority?
4. Obama has made diplomacy in the Arab world and multilateralism among allies a centerpiece of his approach; Bush did not.
Well of course Pakistan might quibble with this assertion today. Moreover, to support this assertion, one has to discount the progress Pres. Bush made in opening new relations with India (pro-democracy, surging economy), as well as his anti-AIDS initiatives in Africa. But I suppose multi-lateralism, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.
5. [Finally], Libya was no Rummy/Cheney intervention, to be sure.
- Indeed, those gentlemen could only dream of the day they launch military action (or is it a dynamic intervention?) without nary a word to the American people nor the people’s representatives in Congress. And what of the “anti-war” movement? Code Pink? Cindy Sheehan? Protests in Nantucket?
So I submit when you lay evidence against the assertions made, Douthat’s following statement lingers: “For most Democrats, what was considered creeping fascism under Bush is just good old-fashioned common sense when the president has a “D” beside his name. “
Jeff, as you say, “There’s a difference between assertions and evidence.” There’s also a difference between facts and fables!
“There’s also a difference between facts and fables!”
And they are, in reference to my response in particular?
That Pres. Obama was NOT serving in the US Sen. at the time the Iraq War was authorized? VP Biden/Clinton’s votes? His vote AGAINST withdrawal? De-funding?
That Afghan. “refocusing” is increasing concern? That the trial for OBL went cold? That Pres. Obama had a sizeable Dem. Majority for the FIRST YEAR of his admin. when he PROMISED to close Gitmo? That he recently REFUSED to close Gitmo? That he recently APPROVED military tribunals? That NY delegation opposed civilian trials in NYC? That Pres. Bush increasingly opened new relations with India/Africa? That the Pres. UNILATERALLY INVADED Pakistan to get OBL? That with respect to Libya he failed to explain to us BEFORE launching military attacks?
So where, pray tell, are these fables you see?
“Does that make al Qaeda’s announcement of the death of bin Laden part of a conspiracy to replace the Saudi with the American-Yemeni everyone is so excited about?” (Margaret O’Brien Steinfels)
Mrs. Steinfels and other Commonweal writers and readers may be interested in Paul Joseph Watson’s analysis of the above issue:
http://www.infowars.com/us-government-contractor-claims-al-qaeda-has-confirmed-bin-laden-fairytale/
“the quasi-smug assessment”
Well, heck, he’s an official New York Times conservative. As everyone knows, they can’t be expected to get even smug right. Pathetic. And he’s a Catholic, to boot. Shame!
As previously discussed on this blog it is Maureen D. who is smug central. And she’s a Catholic too. Could it be something in the baptismal water?
The Dowd column on bin Laden was a bit chilling as well. Smug is a dish best served cold?
@Jeff Landry (2:29 pm)
1 – You are, of course, correct that Obama was not in the US Senate at the time of the Iraq AUMF resolution vote. He was in the Illinois Senate and spoke publicly in opposition to going to war against Iraq. In fact, if I recall correctly, he spoke at an anti-war rally at which he stated that he did not oppose all wars, but did oppose this one. (It was this position that gained Obama some of his early support from anti-war Democrats; Clinton and Edwards—the other primary contenders for the nomination—had voted for the AUMF.
2 – (I think you meant to write “Bush can be rightly criticised for short-circuiting (Afghanistan)”. Am I right?) Personally, I’m hesitant to speak to definitively about what happens in the “secret world”, and about what happens in the “fog of war”. However, many observers across the political spectrum have drawn a connection between the Bush administration’s “pivot” to Iraq and “evidence about (bin Laden’s) whereabouts going cold”.
I agree that it’s unclear (at best) whether Obama’s “refocusing” on Afghanistan will be, in the long term, a net positive for the US and the world. (As someone who voted for Obama despite his pledge to escalate the Afghanistan War, I continue to hope that he follows through on his previously expressed intent to begin withdrawing US forces this summer.)
3 – Two issues here: torture and Guantanamo. Again, we’re dealing with the “secret world”, but it appears there has been a shift under Obama away from elements of the previous administration and back to the historic norms of US foreign and military policy that we do not torture. Obama did not (and does not) have the support of a faction of congressional Democrats who, for a variety of reasons, oppose closing Guantanamo and the use of civilian trials for prisoners held there. That, combined with the unanimous opposition of congressional Republicans, has kept Guantanamo open despite Obama’s stated preferences.
4 – I suppose multilateralism is partly in the eyes of the beholder. To my eyes Obama’s overall diplomatic approach is more like that of H. W. Bush, and thus a change from that of W. Bush. In terms of the Arab world, W. Bush initiated the Iraq War despite the opposition and/or lack of support from many of the allies who supported and participated in the first Iraq War. Obama, by contrast (whether for better or worse is unknown), took military action in Libya only after UN action, and only in a limited and supporting role.
Pakistan may well feel differently, as you say. In Obama’s defense, his actions last week were consistent with his campaign statements.
What’s perhaps most surprising to me about Douthat’s column is the apparent assumption underlying the statement that “the Democratic Party is growing up, putting away certain fond illusions, and accepting its share of responsibility for the messy realities of the post-9/11 world” that the Democratic Party has somehow been the “childish” party on international affairs and terrorism.
It was the Clinton administration that first targeted bin Laden, and set up a counterterrorism center within the White House. It was the Clinton administration that advised the incoming Bush administration of the danger al-Qaeda posed to the US and its interests. It was the Bush administration that largely ignored that warning and then seized on 9/11 as an excuse to go to war against Iraq.
I don’t think implying that our political opponents are “childish” (or, in this case, were childish but now have grown up) is particularly helpful—either in clarifying our recent history, or in figuring out how to move forward.
“Could it be something in the baptismal water?”
If that’s the case, what’s Krugman’s excuse?
Professor McCarraher, if you’re around, your views are vindicated.
@Luke Hill -
I take your overall contention to be that Obama has succeeded in rounding out some of the rougher edges of Bush’s rhetoric, but no fundamental shifts (MAYBE with the exception of torture). I am in accord with that, and I also think that that is not on the whole bad, as a lurching foreign policy doesn’t strike me as a good idea. I also think part of the “rounding” was bound to happen whoever succeeded Bush, in part at least because Bush’s “rough edges” were always a bit more over-hyped than in reality (by his own administration as much as the media/punditry). It should pointed out that immediately after 9/11 the Bush Administration was roundly lauded for reaching fundamental agreements with Pakistan to fight terrorism. And if we’re talking about the eye of the beholder, Bush II generally gets very high marks from the Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland, etc., as well as from India and Africa, so the truth is a bit more complicated.
I don’t have any idea what’s in Douthat’s mind, but I read “childish” as more in the vein of St. Paul: that once the Democrats inherited the reigns of power and saw the full panoply of challenges, there was a natural tact to the more conservative (in the sense of preserving) so as to avoid over-acting.
Re: Obama’s comments while in the IL Senate, let’s just say I’ll vote “present”.
Luke Hill 4:51: “I suppose multilateralism is partly in the eyes of the beholder. To my eyes Obama’s overall diplomatic approach is more like that of H. W. Bush, and thus a change from that of W. Bush. In terms of the Arab world, W. Bush initiated the Iraq War despite the opposition and/or lack of support from many of the allies who supported and participated in the first Iraq War. Obama, by contrast (whether for better or worse is unknown), took military action in Libya only after UN action, and only in a limited and supporting role.”
The comparison of Bush I’s foreign policy to the emerging Obama policy is very helpful. Bush I was immensely helped by Brent Scowcroft and James Baker; Bush’s own experience as CIA director and ambassador to China no doubt tutored him in ways that George W. Bush lacked. One big question for me is whether Obama’s foreign policy team is anywhere near as good as HW Bush’s.
“The comparison of Bush I’s foreign policy to the emerging Obama policy is very helpful. Bush I was immensely helped by Brent Scowcroft and James Baker; Bush’s own experience as CIA director and ambassador to China no doubt tutored him in ways that George W. Bush lacked. One big question for me is whether Obama’s foreign policy team is anywhere near as good as HW Bush’s.”
Just curious, but did you have that opinion of Bush I’s foreign policy at the time he was President? Most Democrats opposed the first Persian Gulf War (certainly more Democrats supported the second Iraq war), so just curious what effect time has on these things.
I don’t think Douthat’s basic premise is arguable. President Obama became the Democratic nominee primarily by running against President Bush’s foreign policy, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re still in both places, and it’s difficult to see that his policies have notably improved the trajectory of events in either place.
His reversal on closing the detention center in Guantanamo can’t be understood except as a major embarrassment.
Arguably the most worrisome foreign policy development during the Obama presidency has been Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear capability. The Obama administration has failed to deter Iran thus far.
He also is perceived to have dithered during the democratic uprising in Iran – an uprising that in retrospect was the first in a remarkable series of uprisings throughout the Middle East, whose overall success has been mixed. In my personal opinion, the failures in Iran and other countries will be seen as tragically missed opportunities to transform the world – as opposed to the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe in the 1980s.
His scrapping of the missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe is widely seen as a betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic.
His famous speech in Cairo marked a new, more diplomatic approach to the Middle East. I can’t point to any significant accomplishments that have flowed from the speech or the policy. Iran, Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – all are still troubled.
It’s too early to know what the outcome of this Libyan venture will be, but there isn’t much reason to be confident in a quick and decisive end that will be favorable to the US.
In summary, my view of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, so far, is a mixture of coming around to Bush Administration policies, and initiatives of his own that have, for the most part, failed. In my estimation, the world is a more dangerous place, and the United States is weaker, than when President Obama took office.
Wow! Jim Pauwels do I ever disagree…. back later.
JLandy: I thought HW did a good job of rounding up a coalition against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; and I believe CWL said so at the time. I thought Baker and Bush’s effort to rein in the West Bank settlements by cutting U.S. funds was a daring and robust effort that as we see failed. Bush and Scowcroft wrote a book together after they were out of office and did a good job of arguing their positions. And of course, the Bush I administration managed the Central and Eastern Europe departure from the Soviet Union pretty deftly imo. So whatever other Democrats were saying back then (you don’t actually name names), that’s where I was and where I though many other Democrats were as well. Now, toward the end I think Eagleberger and Baker did not do well by Yugoslavia’s break-up (Baker, “we don’t have a dog in that fight”).
I’ve tried to find the full list, but Joe Biden, John Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Teddy Kennedy all voted against the Resolution. The link below recalls the infamous incident from Alan Simpson of Al Gore, who according to Simpson agreed to vote in favor of the resolution only if assured that he could speak on the floor in primetime. This led to Simpson branding Gore “Primetime Al”.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=tom_delay
Indespensable Nation (“gens necessarium”) or Manifest Destiny (“Manifestum fata”)?
(I’m practicing for membership in the “smaller purer church” – or should I say: “melior Ecclesia minor?”)
“I’m practicing for membership in the “smaller purer church” – or should I say: “melior Ecclesia minor?” (Jimmy Mac)
I tried that, too! Sadly, got stuck at “People called Romanes they go the house.” :)
I wonder if part of the reason many conservatives and Republican-leaners or whatever see Obama as “coming around” to W’s foreign policy — still a laughably weak argument — is that they bought into the idea (listening in their own echo chamber too much) that Obama was some mushy-headed foreign policy liberal. He is and always has been much more of a “realist” or pragmatist, and he vowed during the campaign debates to go after bin Laden as a priority and to go into Pakistan if necessary. That’s one example. But I think as with so many issues — abortion rights comes to mind — the reality of who Obama was is consistent with who Obama is now, though not with the caricature of Obama put out by political opponents. Now one may or may not like the Obama of then and now, but I think there is a consistency.
Jim Pauwels at 6:15:
“I don’t think Douthat’s basic premise is arguable. President Obama became the Democratic nominee primarily by running against President Bush’s foreign policy, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re still in both places, and it’s difficult to see that his policies have notably improved the trajectory of events in either place.”
Steinfels: Bush provided the way out of Iraq–or at least the U.S. under Bush: getting control of Anbar Province. Obama has kept to the deadlines and whatever DOD Secretary Gates was doing trying to get an extension, it’s not likely to happen, i.e., Obama is sticking to his promise to leave Iraq. Having allowed a “surge” in Afghanistan, he will start pulling out troops in August as promised.
“His reversal on closing the detention center in Guantanamo can’t be understood except as a major embarrassment.”
Steinfels: Obama and AG Holder were prepared to hold trial in civilian courts and close Guantanamo. The U.S. Congress (Lindsey Graham in particular) would not appropriate the funds to move the prisoners and the U.S. Congress would not permit civilian trials. NYC’s otherwise more or less rational Mayor Bloomberg joined in; I think Obama and Holder would have stuck to their guns otherwise.
“Arguably the most worrisome foreign policy development during the Obama presidency has been Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear capability. The Obama administration has failed to deter Iran thus far.”
Steinfles” Iran’s nuclear capability is continually pushed down the line (2015 last I read). The Stuxnet worm disabled centrifuges for an unknown period of time. Obama has not gone to war nor supported Netanyahu’s desires for the U.S. to go to war on Israel’s behalf. Recall that GW Bush was no fan of going to war either, as was the recently retired head of Mossad, who recently opined, “Going to war against Iran is nuts.”
“He also is perceived to have dithered during the democratic uprising in Iran – an uprising that in retrospect was the first in a remarkable series of uprisings throughout the Middle East, whose overall success has been mixed. In my personal opinion, the failures in Iran and other countries will be seen as tragically missed opportunities to transform the world – as opposed to the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe in the 1980s.”
Dithering??? don’t thinks so. Just wouldn’t invade–a very sound decision.
“His scrapping of the missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe is widely seen as a betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic.”
Steinfels: Military-Industrial pork barrel. Aren’t they building the damn thing somewhere else?
“His famous speech in Cairo marked a new, more diplomatic approach to the Middle East. I can’t point to any significant accomplishments that have flowed from the speech or the policy. Iran, Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – all are still troubled.”
Steinfels: Still troubled? Moubarak gone. Treaty between Fatah and Hamas. Iran and Israel still troubled, that’s true. But they’re not at war! And Iran may be slowly imploding, cf the fights between Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader.
“It’s too early to know what the outcome of this Libyan venture will be, but there isn’t much reason to be confident in a quick and decisive end that will be favorable to the US.”
Steinfels: Who knows. In any case this will be France’s, England’s and the EU’s problem.
“In summary, my view of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, so far, is a mixture of coming around to Bush Administration policies, and initiatives of his own that have, for the most part, failed. In my estimation, the world is a more dangerous place, and the United States is weaker, than when President Obama took office.”
Steinfels: The world is a dangerous place, always will be. Obama stepped back from Bush policies–and from Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright’s foreign policies as well. We see that no president creates foreign policy anew, not Obama and not anyone else. If we are weaker (which I don’t know), we have Bush economic policies to thank and the off-budge wars that Bush started and which have now been put on the budget.
As I said above, I don’t think Obama has the strongest foreign policy team in the world, but given who he’s working with he’s done better than Clinton or GW Bush.
“According to Ross Douthat the Democrats have grown up and accepted responsibility for the post-9/11 world. His evidence: Libya intervention and the death of Osama bin Laden.”
Mr. Douthat should stop wasting his time calling his fellow Americans names and join with the President in liquidating our enemies and their families wherever they may be hiding and in marginalizing the filth who corroborate with the United Nations such as Philip Alston and Richard Goldstone who try to deny America and the Jewish state their right to self defense.
Richard Goldstone? A little more sobriety MAT.
Oversimplification and misrepresentation are pretty common on the internet, but some of these comments are extreme even by internet standards. Obama turned the war on terror away from Iraq, which had little to do with it, and refocused our efforts on Afghanistan which was Al Qaeda’s home base. This foreign policy shift, advocated during the election, is described as 1> running against Bush’s foreign policy and 2>adopting Bush’s foreign policy.
Obama gave a speech in Cairo declaring “The United States [was] born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world.” Because this did not instantly resolve Israeli-Palestinian tensions, or remake Iran, no “significant accomplishments” can be traced to it. It doesn’t matter that revolutions against tyranny sprang up in Cairo and other places since then. Not that Obama’s iconic hope and personal story were the most important factors in Arab uprising, but the image of the son of a Kenyan muslim rising to become leader of the US must have resonated with those subject to tyrants in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc.
Stop trying to force Obama’s policies into the box of Bush’s. He is working on a different level altogether. Even when they express the same doctrines, Bush does it as an apparent xenophobe trying to impose his ideology on the rest of the world, while Obama does it as someone who has lived as a son and brother to the people of Africa and Asia.
“Richard Goldstone? A little more sobriety MAT.”
It is not a lack of sobriety to criticize enemies of President Obama. If Mr. Goldstone wants to revise his understanding of the Fourth Geneva Convention to be more consistent with the Obama Administration’s understanding of the same, the American people will be glad to welcome him as a friend.
@Jim McK (10:35 pm) I agree with much of what you say. I would quibble with your description of W. Bush as “an apparent xenophobe”. In his public efforts to tamp down anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11, in his support for comprehensive immigration reform, and in other actions taken both as president and as governor of Texas, Bush challenged and disagreed with the xenophobic wing of his party—much to his credit, in my view.
Perhaps another way to make your point is to contrast Bush’s lack of engagement with (and apparent lack of interest in) the rest of the world to Obama’s (and indeed, H. W. Bush’s) travel and engagement with other countries and cultures.
It is a big mistake to turn strategic and tactical approaches to foreign policy and war into a partisan issue. It clouds judgement and perception.
The morality of the methods involved need to be evaluated based on a different set of criteria than tu quoque.
GD: It also clouds the realization that most presidents don’t get the foreign policy issues they want or are capable of dealing with. They inherit the policies of their predecessors and turning the ship, if that is their goal, is immensely difficult. There is the domestic foreign policy establishment and then there’s the foreign policy establishment of others and then there’s the whole world of “stuff happens.”
The demise of OBL is not likely to turn the ship but all the “players” here and everywhere will have to rethink and recalculate their plans and policies.
The account in today’s (May 10) NYTimes suggests a president deeply engaged in the effort to capture/kill OBL. It focuses on his demand that the troops have a way out if Pakistan intervenes. I am curious why so many details keep coming out. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&hp
I would agree with George D that the tortuous partisan positioning here has given me whiplash: Obama is simultaneously a marked, dramatic break with Bush’s (fill in whatever slander you want) and at the same time a continuation with the same policies.
I think there has been an evolution in tone, but fortunately in my view, there has not been a fundamental shift in most areas. Libya would not have been possible (in my view) without GW Bush. I’d like to see us return to a norm where most Presidents basically continued the same approach as their predecessor with respect to foreign policy.
I wish some of those knocking W. Bush as a (again, whatever you want to label him) would do a little digging into his relationship with India, as well as his initiatives in Africa, both which largely received good reviews. I am no Bush apologist, but it adds some color. Unfortunately I realize that in this highly partisan context we seem to live and breath, the Rorschach test of seeing in the Presidency whatever bogeyman we wish to see will preclude some agreement.
Margaret:
George D: I am so obviously much older than you–not that that’s a virtue or a benefit. I remember when people didn’t criticize presidents to the degree they do now. And hyper partisan attitudes toward foreign policy emerged only with Vietnam and with the Nixon-Kissinger wheeling and dealing over Vietnam.
My childhood household was not a fan of Eisenhower but I think he was respected for his war record and his ability to govern. I much admire the speech you cite but I don’t think I knew about it until long after it had been given and I had become immersed on a strictly amateur basis in U.S. behavior abroad.
Anyway to your point: I do think U.S. foreign policy has changed perhaps in subtle ways. Congress has a more limited role than it once had. The president has more lee way. The CIA and the DOD have become more powerful both in war policy and foreign policy. U.S. policy often seems misguided by large concepts and/or slogans. I was an admirer of Madeleine Albright (and Bill Clinton in her tow), but I have come to realize that the phrase, “indispensable nation” has become an albatross around America’s neck. I keep spying ways in which Obama is trying to make us a little more “dispensable.” Not everyone will agree, but I think our policy in Libya points in that direction. Let the French and English do it.
“Dithering” = the antithesis of “fire, ready and, if necessary, aim.”
Ross walks it back a bit:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/debating-the-bush-obama-era/
He uses Sullivan’s critique as a foil, but there were more on point ones out there.
Ms. S. –
What you said
It’s hard to know whether the changes will be for the better or not. The world has also changed, and especially the ME as we’ve known it seems to be dissolving before our eyes. Or is it really?
Prof. Olivier: I don’t think the ME is dissolving before our eyes–or at least not yet. The internal upheavals we’re seeing seem to be as much demographic as anything. That seems to be the story in Tunisia, Egypt, and perhaps Libya. Educated youth with no jobs, no money, no prospects. The Gulf–Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen seemed to have fizzled perhaps to rise again in some other way, let us hope not under the banner of al-Qaeda. Syria!! it’s own story, which we barely know because there are almost no journalists there. Anthony Shadid of the NYTimes seems to have been allowed in to interview apologists for the elite…telling message; if we go, Israel will be in real trouble. I guess that’s one way to find allies though I doubt Israel would be in trouble. It is perfectly capable of defending itself and it has a well-armed air force.
I suspect that there is going to be turbulence for a good long time to come in the ME. Some nations will remake themselves, some won’t, and some will face urban insurrectionary troubles.
The ME countries have the revolutionaries, then, but no middle classes to support them? It seems that revolutions require middle class money and organization and the guts to oppose those in power, but the ME countries don’t seem to have middle classes in any Western sense (except maybe Turkey?). There are a lot of affluent people in the ME but they seem bound by their clergy to be political followers, not leaders.
Sometimes I wonder if there can possibly be change there unless and until the Islamic fundamentalism loses its political c] lout, but that’s basically a theological issue, and there’s no freedom of speech in those countries to oppose the clergy and unseat them from their political positions.. It all seems so hopeless.
My impression is that Egypt and Tunisia both have middle classes of some numbers–unfortunately many of them emigrate. I have noticed in the news, however, how many of those being interviewed and speaking English report that they have returned, at least temporarily. I would guess Syria has a middle class but not necessarily of the investing sort. If history is any guide here, I think you need a middle class willing to invest and/or start businesses. In Egypt (and reportedly in Pakistan), it’s the military that has middle-class money and they seem to put it in army-based enterprises.
Again only my impression, Islamic fundamentalist do not have sway YET in the North African countries which are mostly Sunni. I am not convinced that the Islamic brotherhood is a fundamentalist group like the Wahhabis in Saudia Arabia and/or the so-called Salafi groups that do seem to harbor terrorists. Almost sounds like the French Third Republic–many factions and tendencies to say nothing of Islam’s own religious varities.