Michael Tomasky: Ding! Round one goes to the dove with the dodgy name

"Ding! Round one goes to the dove with the dodgy name

Republicans used to beat Democrats on foreign policy every time. But now Obama is changing the nature of the fight"

link to full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/19/barackobama.uselections2008


"So, round one of the 2008 foreign policy debate goes to ... Barack Obama? Improbable as it seems, in the first direct rhetorical showdown of the general election campaign - over a question, foreign policy "toughness", that's been a perceived Democratic weakness since Vietnam - it was the guy with the thin foreign policy résumé, suspected by some of his compatriots of being a Muslim, who out-punched the war hero with the extensive résumé. And shall I add that the one with the thin résumé and the strange name has a dodgy position on the question at hand, and yet still won?"

snip: "After the Kerry loss of 2004, Democrats began to vow: we understand what happened. We're not going to let ourselves get outboxed and intimidated next time around, especially on national security. There was every reason in the world to think this was an empty promise. If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, it wouldn't be exactly empty, because the Clinton camp does know how to return fire. But it would be a dissatisfying thing for most Democrats to watch, because Clinton's returns of serve would consist of hawkish statements designed to prove that she could be just as tough as the Republicans (witness her recent promise to "obliterate" Iran).

Obama is doing something altogether different. He is standing for an alternative vision of how America should operate in the world, and he is defending it tooth and nail. I'm not sold on the idea that negotiations without preconditions with hostile powers are the world's best strategy. If the US had some leverage over Iran that might be one thing, but, in our current state, we have little. Still, this is one of those cases where the symbolic message of what Obama did last Friday is more important, for now, than the substance. He said: These people have screwed up foreign policy and security. I have a different way of doing things. And I'm not ceding an inch.

This is a good manifestation of why so many Americans have rallied to Obama as the breath of fresh air the country needs right now. He's taking some interesting chances. Could he fail? Of course. Take Cuba. He has signalled that he'd dramatically alter the US's hard-line Cuba policy. He's not alone in thinking it's outdated. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican foreign-policy high priest who worked for George Bush Sr, said last week that the American embargo "makes no sense" any more.

This freaks some people out. And in electoral terms, it makes them think that Obama has thrown away Florida, home of a large, conservative Cuban-American community. But Florida's Latino population is no longer majority-Cuban. And just this month, the news broke that more Latinos in Florida are Democrats than Republicans - a major historical shift. Could it be that Obama is on to something?

Make no mistake, the Republicans will put him through his foreign policy paces yet. But round one suggested that 2008 might look pretty different than the last two bouts."

link to full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/19/barackobama.uselections2008

:kick:

It's one thing to say "I have a different way" and another to actually spell out the distinctions.

That alone is a dramatic departure from our current course.

I think we've had quite enough of tough talk from way too many quarters.

Obama can't be shown to have weakness in his "Different way." He still has to be strong about it.

that "tough diplomacy" is an oxymoron. The GOP-ers have been advocating "no diplomacy" for a long time.

Bush attacked Dems from Israel, (ugly partisanship and obvious attack on Sen Obama), mcSAME chimed in with his agreements shortly afterwords. Senator Obama responded: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/obama-to-respon.html

(Directly quoted from article below)

"Some of the best lines:

"The president did something that presidents don't do ... and that is launch a political attack targeted to the domestic market" while speaking to a foreign audience.
"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country and has alienated the world. ... McCain embraced Bush's attack"
"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America that's a debate that I will have at any time in any place -- and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for."
"They have to explain why we are now in our sixth year in Iraq."
They've got to explain why Osama bin Laden is still at large. They have to explain why Iran and Hamas are now both stronger than ever. That's the Bush-McCain record.
"John McCain still has not spelled out one substantial way that he'd be different than George Bush when it comes to foreign policy."
"John McCain has nothing to offer but the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington alone will achieve our global objectives."

is that instead of trying to "out-hawk" the right-wing hawks in their rhetoric and bravado(which has been the dangerous tactic and failed campaign strategy of a number of Democrats over the past several years) - he turned the whole discussion around and exposed how irresponsible language doesn't strengthen America's credibility - it weakens it.

At the same time Sen. Obama didn't fall into the trap of having to prove that Democrats are just as dangerous, violent and irresponsible as Republicans. But actually demonstrated that perhaps there is a wiser and more prudent way; a way that demostrates real strength.

What do you think will happen?

Obama, if POTUS, is probably going to have to bomb a country to prove his willingness to back up his words. At some point early in his presidency, he will be tested (and probably it will be because of some meddling by the PTB that starts the trouble deliberately) and he will have to back up his words to show his mettle. I know an awful lot of people are going to be disappointed when that happens.

It is fine to say "I have a different way" and to think it is true. But the world doesn't allow different thinkers to simply declare their intention and proceed. The PTB -- the elite industrialists and globalists -- will not be constrained.

I am personally an anti-Imperialist and I frankly thought only Congressman Kucinich offered a rational vision.

Also, I happen to live in the Middle East and have for close to half my life.

But when given the choice between the kind of roughshod gunboat diplomacy advanced by the Neocons and their Democratic Party equivalents - I would rather chose the more cautious old-style hawks who at least are restrained by their definition of "national interest" than the crazy "visionary" "pseudo-utopians" of the neoconservative movement and their Democratic Party equivalents as exemplified by the Progressive Policy Institute or the New Republic.

I really don't expect President Obama to make peace with justice to reign on earth. I do expect that he will be following a policy more in the Brent Scowcroft, Bush Senior or Zbigniew Brzezinski mode which mixes the old style hawkish, "hard-nosed patriot" view of policy with a dash of liberal internationalism. This is not what I would like to see. But it is a lot, lot, lot less dangerous than the alternative. At least it has some predictability, some recognition of international law and international order - and it is not stark raving insane.

I wish we had better alternatives that actually had a possibility of prevailing in the current political atmosphere. But we don't. It is a harsh reality that the closet thing to an effective peace movement in Washington that can actually effect policy are the old style "national interest" hawks and "old stlye" liberal internationalist of the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. That is the current political reality.

My great fear is that many here are blind to the realities and cling to the hope they have vested in one man.

It really is a disservice to the man to expect him to be a savior. Those with a clearer view understand that he will not be able to implement much of what they want, of what we need, and of what the world needs. And realists know that he will be greatly tested and forced to prove himself as commander in chief early on. I fully expect that both Hillary and Obama would have to bomb something early in their presidency, just to show provocateurs that they will use the power of our military at will.

What will those who now blissfully hope for change do then? Think Obama has betrayed them? Or will they see that their naive wish for hope was used, cynically, to gain the WH?

I do not support Obama, but neither do I support Hillary. I'm very troubled by the blind idolatry I'm seeing in Democrats.

I think Obama's choice of advisers clearly indicates he plans to take a classic realist foreign policy stance. So I have no illusions about him using military force when it advances America's interests. In particular, he is the only candidate likely to put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, since he is the only one without financial or other ties to those countries. Bush's "war on terror" has been a joke because he won't touch these countries, which are precisely where Al Qaeda gets safe haven.

You are talking about Obama using the military to advance America's interests.

I am talking about using the military to show the world that he will, indeed, use the full power of the U.S. armed forces at will. That he isn't afraid to do so. That he has the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Because that will be part of the attack against him. He's already being painted as that brand of weak liberal they hate.

He will have to bomb something very early on.

expectation and I would anticipate there will be some very real disillusionment.

However, I have to look at matters in terms of choices between what is actually politically possible under current circumstances.

There is no question that Sen. McCain is favored by much of the neoconservatives and Sen. Clinton is favored by most of their Democratic Party equivalents.

The "Change that I Can Believe In" when it comes to Sen. Obama as I look at who is influencing his foreign policy thinking and what hints I try to pick up from his comments is actually a conservative return to old style State Department thinking. Is this what I REALLY want? Of course not. Will this bring peace and justice to the Middle East? Of course not.

But would this old style "national interest" with a touch of "liberal internationalist" thinking have brought us the current debacle in Iraq? I would have say, no. Would this thinking likely lead to the insanity of war with Iran and the unthinkable catastrophe that would go along with that? I would have to say, it is highly unlikely.

I rejoice in the likely election of Sen. Obama as President because I believe that his thinking and the thinking of those around him does not hold the launching of wars as an ideological imperative. This could likely save hundred of thousands if not millions of lives.

by the way - here is a very interesting article by Jonathan Steele of the Guardian on just this subject:

Obama says he'll reshape US foreign policy. But can he?

Jonathan Steele The Guardian, Wednesday May 14 2008

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/barackobama.usforeignpolicy

Good start. Wish he would take on the imperial bullying frame, but if he had the PTB would not have allowed him to get this far.