If one of the things you’re looking for in a Commander-in-Cheif is someone who can think on their feet and for themselves, look no further than Barack Obama. He’s quickly demonstrating to the world that he’s got his S**T together on foreign policy. You may disagree with some of the things that he says, but you can’t dispute that he is much more well received by the world and has much better grasp of the problems and possible solutions than McCain or Bush ever did or will. Well I guess you *can* dispute that but it’s an argument I think you’ll lose, just read this article from the non-neutral viewpoint of the Jerusalem Post about Obama’s conciliatory rhetoric about Israeli/Palestinian relations… especially this part in the beginning :
President George W. Bush… was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.
John McCain… looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.
Barack Obama… spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.
oh, and I just had to throw a few quotes from the above linked article from the Chicago Tribune about Obama’s overseas trip:
The Berlin speech and the excitement over Obama in Europe serve as potent reminders that his biography and personal qualities also can be assets in international affairs, potentially enhancing America ability’s make its case to the world. And, as Obama often argues, the capacity to summon international support can both multiply U.S. power to confront challenges such as terrorism and reduce the burden that must be shouldered by American taxpayers.
and this…
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who probably owes more to President George W. Bush than any foreign leader, offered an endorsement of sorts. On the eve of Obama’s arrival, Maliki publicly backed a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq with a time frame similar to Obama’s plan for a redeployment. Maliki’s action, responding to domestic political pressure from a public impatient with the U.S. occupation, undercut criticism of Obama’s plan from McCain and the Bush administration.
3 comments ↓
I’d rather have 5 people try to come to an understanding- or help ‘change the angle’ so both sides can see the same picture than one guy confidently walk in and fuck up a precious chance at negotiating with possible major pillars of stability within the middle east. running a country isn’t a one man effort, no matter how ‘competant’ the figurehead may appear
Why stop at five? How about a committee of twenty or more? Who was it who said,” a camel is a horse designed by a committee”? We need a real “decider”.
Bill, if Bush had gone into this interview with only one advisor, would that have contributed to your “cowboy” image of him?
Justin, nice post. Seriously. I have to admit that I like Obama’s answers. I do share the concern of one of the Jerusalem Post commentors on whether Obama is only talking loudly while carrying a small stick. I hope not. What I found most interesting was how he answered the questions on Iran. I have copied them below for ease of reference…
“Can you assure the people of Israel, and beyond, that as president you will prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons?
What I can do is assure that I will do everything in my power as president to prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons. And I think that begins with engaging in tough, direct talks with Iran, sending a clear message to Iran that they shouldn’t wait for the next administration but should start engaging in the P5 process [involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council] that’s taking place right now, and elevating this to the top of our national security priorities, so that we are mobilizing the entire international community, including Russia and China, on this issue.
One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military.
How do you address the concern that the Iranians, even in the “tough negotiations” that you envisage, will play you for time while moving towards a nuclear capability? Ahmadinejad said today, “We’re not pulling back… not one iota.” They are very adamant.
I think it is important in mobilizing the international community to make clear that this is not just a game that we’re playing, but this is of the utmost seriousness - to send messages to Russia and China that in our bilateral relationships this is a top priority, not just a secondary priority. And one of my strong beliefs is that, to the extent that we are showing a willingness to negotiate but are very clear and direct in our goals, and are displaying a sense of urgency - that if the Iranians fail to respond, we’ve stripped away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action.”
Since your post is titled Judgement on Iran = Stellar, I felt these responses worthy of comment. How he answered these questions on presumptive American foreign policy toward Iran sounds eerily similar to our foreign policy toward Iraq in the mid to late 1990s. Remember that we attempted to give Saddam a diplomatic option. We attempted talks. We attempted sanctions. We attempted to work with “allies” to ensure that Iraq was at the top of the international debate. Unfortunately, Russia and France were in bed with Saddam with Oil for Food and took similar positions to those taken by Russia and China now with regard to Iran. There stance so far has been, “so what if they are thumbing there noses at the international community as long as we get rich selling them technology.” It’s strange how the stage is set for another grand debate on the military option in 3-5 years. It will be interesting to see how Obama will handle Iran (of course if he’s elected) differently than Bush handled Iraq. At what point will “serious action” truly be considered? What will Obama do when Russia and China don’t care about Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Will he take a more unilateral approach? Or is “serious action” just empty words with no real substance?
I also found interesting his answer with regard to Israel’s defense…
“I’ve said in the past and I will repeat that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security.”
So the Israelis have the permission of Obama to go it alone if they deem that doing so is in their best interest. Why is Obama so critical of our decision to “go it alone” with regards to Iraq. Though I agree with his statements on Israeli security, this seems to me hypocritical or a double standard in international security affairs.
Leave a Comment