Obama's Foreign Policy Too Homeopathic

The New Republic: What Is The Role Of A Conciliating Candidate In An Unconciliating World?

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Leon Wieseltier.

---

What you think of a presidential candidate is in large measure determined by what you think of the world. Different circumstances call for different talents, different sensibilities, different approaches to power. "Leadership" comes in many forms. A sterling individual may be historically inappropriate; and a person whom it is impossible to admire may accomplish significant things. The question of whether Barack Obama will make a fine commander in chief finally depends on your view of the direction of history in the coming years. I cannot escape the foreboding that we are heading into an era of conflict, not an era of conciliation. I do not mean that there will be many wars, though I cannot imagine that the threat to American security from Al Qaeda and its many associates can be met without a massive and sustained military operation in western Pakistan, and I cannot imagine any Pakistani government ordering such an operation. It is not "the politics of fear" to remind Obama's legions of the blissful that, while they are watching Scarlett Johansson sway to the beat, somewhere deep inside a quasi independent territory we might call Islamistan people are making plans to blow them to bits. (Yes, they can.)

One of the striking features of Obama's victory speeches is the absence from these exultations of any lasting allusion to the darker dimensions of our strategic predicament. He makes no applause line out of American defense. And jihadist terrorism is only one of the disorders in an increasingly disordered world. The most repercussive fact of our time is surely the transformation of China. The "metrics" are all staggering. Quantities, quantities, quantities. China already has the power to wreck the American economy. However many tanks and fighters it has, its hoarding of American dollars is itself a kind of arsenal. And the bounty of wealth that it promises American business, the fantasy of greed-fulfillment that it represents, makes it almost impossible to conduct a serious discussion of the implications of this emerging world power for American principles and American interests -- certainly not in Washington, where, when it comes to the art of dodging debate, Beijing is better than Bandar. What China wants, China gets. Not even the gold medal in tyranny that Beijing will win in its Olympics will make a difference. Meanwhile the authoritarian Putin has punkishly succeeded in restoring Russia to its inglorious heritage, reminding the world of the old formula that capitalism plus state power equals fascism. In Iran, none of Ahmadinejad's domestic troubles seem to have modified the state's sense of ascendancy, or its will to nuclearize itself, or its appetite for instability in its region. In Iraq, the streets are safer but the sects are not sweeter. In the Korean peninsula, diplomacy has gone ominously cold. In Palestine there are two Palestines, and one of them belongs to Hamas. In Darfur -- well, you know, because everybody knows. In Latin America, the failures of liberal economics have sullied the reputation of liberal politics. And so on.

All this even before we attend to the elimination of poverty. And into this unirenic environment strides Obama, pledging to extract us promptly from Iraq and to negotiate with our enemies. What is the role of a conciliator in an unconciliating world? You might think that in such conditions he is even more of an historical necessity -- but why would you think that all that stands between the world and peace is one man? George W. Bush was not single-handedly responsible for getting us into our strategic mess and Barack Obama will not be single-handedly responsible for getting us out of it. There are autonomous countries and cultures out there. The turbulence that I have described is not caused by misunderstandings. It is caused by the interests of powers and the beliefs of peoples. Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, Islamabad, Gaza City, Khartoum, Caracas-does Obama really believe that he has something to propose to these ruthless regimes that they have not already considered? Does he plan to move them, to organize them, to show them change they can believe in? With what trick of empathy, what euphoria, does he hope to join the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds in Iraq? Yes, he made a "muscular" speech in Chicago last spring; but I have been pondering his remarks about foreign policy in the ensuing campaign and I do not detect the hardness I seek, the disabused tone that the present world warrants. My problem is not with "day one": nobody is perfectly prepared for the White House, though the memory of Bill Clinton's "learning curve" is still vivid, which in Bosnia and Rwanda cost more than a million lives. My problem is that Obama's declarations in matters of foreign policy and national security have a certain homeopathic quality. He seems averse to the hurtful, expensive, traditional, unedifying stuff.

"False hopes?" Obama told a crowd in New Hampshire. "There's no such thing." How dare he? There is almost no more commonplace trait of human existence (and of African American existence) than false hopes. I want universal health care, but I do not want to be relieved of the little that I have understood, and learned to accept, about the recalcitrance of the world. After Bush, who is not for a fresh start? But there is something unfresh about Obama's movement for freshness. We have been this young before. "She starts old, old," Lawrence wrote, in his discussion of the Leatherstocking Tales, "wrinkled and writhing in an old skin. And there is a gradual sloughing off of the old skin, towards a new youth. It is the myth of America." So can we agree on a ground between cynicism and myth? Or must we have Camelot once more? After all, being young again is also a way of living in the past. There was something mildly farcical about the Kennedys' endorsement of Obama -- of this candidacy that is alleged to signify an alternative to the dynasties, and a break with ideological antiquity; but worst of all was its brazen delight in mythologization. (Thanks to the Obama campaign, millions of Americans now hold that John Kennedy was a great president and that Lyndon Johnson was not responsible for making civil rights and voting rights into law.) I understand that no one, except perhaps Lincoln, ever ran for the presidency on a tragic sense of life; but if it is possible to be too old in spirit, it is possible also to be too young.

[tibu987]

My concern now is the course the "Super Delegates" will take. Any underhanded handling of these votes will bring about a strong rebutttal by the public. They had best honor our votes and give their "Super Electoral" votes to the popular vote/mandate of the people. Our voices, our votes, had better be taken seriously or I see a rise in revolt against the electoral system, the Democratic Party, and the politicians that used their votes unfairly.
Should Obama NOT receive the Super Delegates vote if he wins by plurality, I will vote for the Green Party candidate and protest loudly against that obvious lack of honesty of the electoral process.

[tibu987]

I am confident that should Obama win the presidency, he will, like almost all presidents have (except Bush), surround himself with highly intelligent and qualified advisers of all manner of world affairs specialists, economists, military leaders, et al. No one person can be the sole fountain of good deeds and smart decisions, that must be delegated to others.
Of course, the ultimate decision rests with the President, and the buck stops there.
We have all seen the negative side, the neocons who advised President Bush and how ill-fated, negative, and divisive their approach has been. Hopefully, the next President will be a wiser and more intelligent person.

[barbjc1]

perception5, I have to agree with you about the promotion of Obama since Sept 2006. There is something terribly wrong here. I wonder how much of the national media is owned by foreign interests. Look how the Saudi''s bailed out Citicorp.
I repeat what I have stated before, all of the Clinton garbage is being resurfaced but there doesn''t seem to be anything wrong with Obama.
Americans you are being fed a bill of goods. African-Americans, and I know this will offend you but I am sorry, you are being sold the old"40 acres and a mule" routine. AMERICANS of all races, religions, cultures, WAKE UP. You elect Obama and we will be at war fighting for our very existence, because the man will sell us down the river.

[drband36]

It seems the author has only listened to a few of the rallies Obama has given after victories --- and even then, only sound bites.

If he had attended a Town Hall Obama had given, or bothered to read the copious, detailed policy notes that Sen. Obama has published, he would feel differently.

Obama would have put troops where they actually would have done some good: Afghanistan (remember Bin Laden? Remember him? The Republicans have gotten us so far into the weeds in Iraq due to W''s "daddy issues" and our oil fixation that we seem to forget about Bin Laden). He would have avoided involvement in Iraq, and the hundreds of billions of dollars it has cost us.

Our infrastructure is literally crumbling. Our schools have become a joke and our children cannot compete on any kind of international level. Even the poor grammar I''m seeing on this site is indicative of our slide into the muck, educationally. Our own nation is hurting immeasurably.

Meanwhile, if a martian dropped in from Planet 10 and began listening to W''s speeches, he would understandably assume that W. is president of IRAQ, not the USA. The attention, the fixation, the money...it''s all going over there. McCain would do very little to change that trajectory.

Obama would be a wonderful President of the UNITED STATES --- not a continuation of Bush II: President of IRAQ.

Elise in NH
http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com

[esyrdr413]

If Barrack Hussein Obama,Is the democrat chosen to go
against John McCain,(John McCain will be the next president).!!!!!!

[ioweign]

The Clintonistas are done. The only hope they have now is to try and steele the election thru the secret delagates.

Would they stoop so low to try? Thats the real question

Posted by hillaryin08 at 09:19 AM : Feb 13, 2008


Diebold is Republican owned...

[clestes-2009]

here is the link

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=88919

[clestes-2009]

For anyone who thinks Obama has the wrong idea on foreign policy read this article. The Iraqi parliment is dissolving! So far from being a success the surge has accomplished NOTHING because the Iraqis have accomplished NOTHING!!

What the hell is our purpose there?? Why did we invade??

Obama is DEAD RIGHT. We must not only change our foreign policy, we must change the entire MINDSET that promotes these kinds of disasters.

What has been learned from Iraq? That we must CONINTUE this costly and damaging foreign policy. Leave troops in Iraq for 100 years?? Invade Iran?? Who else do we invade??

[old300d]

The USA bombed the heck out of Iraq ! ! !
We destroyed their police force and army ! ! !
Why did we attack them with such force ? Because we thought they had WMD. Remember ?
We were wrong ! ! !
We bombed the heck out of that country, destroyed their police and army, put them in a civil war and now we just leave ?
We have to rebuild their army and police ! ! !
The next president is going to have to deal with the mess Mr. Bush made out of Iraq.
Removing our troops from Iraq will not stop the civil war the USA started back up over there ! ! !
Our troops are doing their best over there to stop the killing.
How can Obama be so not caring about the people we caused to suffer so badly ?
He says he will stop the war. How ?
Telling people he will stop it by removing our troops is not being truthful.

[hillaryin08]

The Clintonistas are done. The only hope they have now is to try and steele the election thru the secret delagates.

Would they stoop so low to try? Thats the real question

[skyk-2009]

We need to start talking about the "issues"

And America''''s corrupt MSM wolfpack press needs to stop their "pro-Obama propaganda campaign".

Where am I wrong?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by perception5 at 08:20 AM : Feb 13, 2008
+ report abuse

You mean Issues like how a party and a leader take over a government with a BALANCED Budget and a SURPLUS and turn it into record deficits? How a Leader can LIE to the American People over and over to send their son''s and daughters off to die in a War that NEVER had to be? You mean issues like turning our Justice Department into a dumping ground for 4th rated attorneys for no other reason than Politic''s? Man EVERY day on these boards we ARE talking about issues and LISTENING to the canidates out there. So far I''ve heard NOTHING from McCain but the same tired old line we''ve heard for decades... I''ll cut taxes, cut spending and balance the budget...trust me!! LOL If you are still buying that lie you need serious help. There can be no debate when ONE side, the Republican''s, have NOTHING but the same tired old things.

[skyk-2009]

I''m tired of seeing my Tax Dollars used to defend "American Interest". I''m tired of American Kids dying so some Corporation can ship their jobs off to some third world country. These "Interest" want protection? Let THEM pay for it! I''m tired of LIES upon LIES to kill American''s. 935 of them told by the man in the White House and His Administration. Whoever the Democrats pick we HAVE to give them a chance to get this nation back on the path we need to be on.

[perception5]

The "promotion" of Obama since September 2006 by the most corrupt institution in America, our MSM wolfpack press, is doing a "great disservice" to our nation.

At some point we need to warm up to the concept that "popularity (generated by our corrupt MSM) is no substitute for substance.

We need to start talking about the "issues"

And America''s corrupt MSM wolfpack press needs to stop their "pro-Obama propaganda campaign".

Where am I wrong?

[mcvet]

Great article. The problem with Obama''''s foreign policy is that it is too simple for today''''s world. His promise goes like this: I will immediately pull the troops home and end (lose) the war. Then I will travel the world personally and talk everybody out of wars and being jerks like Mr. Chavez and abra cadabra over there in Iran. He will raise our taxes, turn inwards from the realities of the world and we will be attacked again and again. This is not the time for a "kinder gentler nation".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by scottyusa at 05:32 AM : Feb 13, 2008
+ report abuse

You either can''t read or are just a simple minded nazi who puts out what he is fed. Either way I really doubt it will help you freaks this time. Sieg Heil Bush!

[clestes-2009]

What a load of crock! The biggest reason the world is "conflicted" is because the US runs around bullying whomever it wants!

There would be far LESS antagonism towards us if we STOPPED MEDDLING in other countries affairs and closed up UNNEEDED bases all over the world and tried to take a tack of WORKING TOGETHER instead of bumblng around like an overweight buffoon!

Obama is right. I know there are plenty of people who just shake in their boots at the thought of diplomacy or closing unneeded bases for fear of being attacked, but really, who the hell is going to attack us, if we retreat to our own borders and act RESPONSIBLY??

The "terrorists", who are justifiably angry at us for planting our troops in THEIR country and meddling with THEIR politics?

Russia, who is angry because they see us as threatening them with bases on their borders and building up the weapons bases?

We are an ocean away from any threat. Those countries DO NOT want war with us, they just want to be left alone to live their lives without interference from a self interested bully who robs them of natural resources and forces their politics and religion on them.

I don''t think these scaredy cats have any idea of how much meddling the US has done since WWII.

Obama is right. It is past time for a new mind set.

[quatrops]

Why do they title themselves the "NEW Republic" when all they give is is the same old, same old?

When will these conservative rags understand that the American people have had it up to HERE with Cheney and his lap dog''s FEAR mongering?

McCain is right about one thing . . . his 100-year war is the only way we can keep the current Iraqi government in power. What has the Iraqi "government" accomplished in the past 3 years? Practically nothing, except to continue to milk the American treasury. Unfortunately, Mr. Straight-talk, the treasury won''t last 100 years (or even 5 years at the current rate).

[scottyusa]

Great article. The problem with Obama''s foreign policy is that it is too simple for today''s world. His promise goes like this: I will immediately pull the troops home and end (lose) the war. Then I will travel the world personally and talk everybody out of wars and being jerks like Mr. Chavez and abra cadabra over there in Iran. He will raise our taxes, turn inwards from the realities of the world and we will be attacked again and again. This is not the time for a "kinder gentler nation".

[lordjacor]

Leon Wieseltier,

Your analysis is quite harsh, but understandable. The foreign policy of America has had its ups and downs over the decades and the past eight years have only increased the challenge in tackling it. However, I do believe Obama outlined the proper steps for moving America forward in his foreign policy speech, which you do reference. Coming to terms with Pakistan is no simple task. A duality of increasing pressure while reinforcing Afghanistan to diminish gains by the Taliban is an obvious step. Bush''s policy of training Pakistan rugged terrain special forces also makes sense. But with a beleagured military force, any further steps will be impossible. We must get out of Iraq now before we can have any additional options on the table for Pakistan. Clearly, Obama recognises this.

He has in the past referenced the defense of America, especially in terms of reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism. Allowing for the possibility of a decisive but isolated military strike against bin Laden was one such step. Striking against Al Qaeda''s main leadership operation would have the most profound impact against their recruitment efforts.

Perhaps you and I can agree that of the options we do have, these are clearly among the best. No other candidate has offered any other clear alternatives.

[ashheels1]

Leon Wieseltier has apparently not listened to Obama speak on the campaign trail nor has he watched any of the debates. Obama has been very clear that Pakistan is a serious threat and that we should be more focused on Pakistan (and Afghanistan) as we redeploy out of Iraq. He has spoken of bringing our jobs home from China. He has been forceful regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He has not only spoken about Darfur, but has been one of Congress'' leaders on the issue. If you''re going to slam a candidate via your journalist''s platform, please do your research first.

[jjarden]

We need to face it...America is declining rapidly...but ignorant Americans (The Majority) are too uneducated and too caught up with their Superbowl & Reality TV show amusements to even know what is going on...ultimately, America is doomed.