SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer." Just what judgements does a community organizer make?
If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Hmm, Bolton seems unconvinced that The One's 148 days in the Senate are enough
Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.
First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced.
It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative. Bush wasn't the first US President to be unliked in Europe
But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.
The successes Obama refers to in his speech — the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism — were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.
Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." Ever hear the one about "Fences make good neighbors?"
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict.
The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake. You go, John!
Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side — our side — defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.
Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.
The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.
A must see! Caught just the last part of this last night on Hannity as I was clicking during commercials (was watching Monk). Didn't take long to make it to YouTube
The Times Of London Columnist Gerald Baker reads his July 25th, 2008 column about Barack Obama
#5
These crowd estimate games piss me off. Take a flight over the crowd. Snap a few pictures. Then use ordinary techniques to produce an estimate that means something. There is no sense in putting up with these pretend numbers.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/26/2008 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
20,000 or 200,000 - it's a little alarming when any number of Germans get together and and start chanting some speech-maker's name.
In a stunning upset, Barack Obama this week won the Iraq primary. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal, he did more than legitimize the plan. He relieved Obama of a major political liability by blunting the charge that, in order to appease the MoveOn left, Obama was willing to jeopardize the astonishing success of the surge and risk losing a war that is finally being won.
Maliki's endorsement left the McCain campaign and the Bush administration deeply discomfited. They underestimated Maliki's sophistication and cunning.
What is Maliki thinking? Clearly, he believes that the Iraq war is won. Al-Qaeda is defeated, the Sunni insurgency is in abeyance, the Shiite extremists are scattered and marginalized. There will, of course, be some continued level of violence, recurring challenges to the authority of the central government and perhaps even mini-Tet Offensives by both Shiite and Sunni terrorists trying to demoralize U.S. and Iraqi public opinion in the run-up to their respective elections. But in Maliki's view, the strategic threats to the unity of the state and to the viability of the new democratic government are over.
Maliki believes that his armed forces are strong enough to sustain the new Iraq with minimal U.S. help. He may be overconfident, as he has been repeatedly in estimating his army's capacities, most recently in launching a somewhat premature attack on militias in Basra that ultimately required U.S. and British support to succeed. And he is certainly more confident of his own capacities than is Gen. David Petraeus.
Whether warranted or not, Maliki's confidence allows him to set out a rapid timetable for U.S. withdrawal, albeit conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation -- a caveat Obama generally omits. But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president, whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency.
So Maliki is looking ahead, beyond the withdrawal of major U.S. combat forces, and toward the next stage: the long-term relationship between America and Iraq.
With whom does he prefer to negotiate the status-of-forces agreement that will not be concluded during the Bush administration? Obama or McCain?
Obama, reflecting the mainstream Democratic view, simply wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Two years ago, it was because the war was lost. Now, we are told, it is to save Afghanistan. The reasons change, but the conclusion is always the same. Out of Iraq. Banish the very memory. Leave as small and insignificant a residual force as possible. And no long-term bases.
McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.
Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.
It is no mystery who would be the more pliant U.S. negotiator. The Democrats have long been protesting the Bush administration's hard bargaining for strategic assets in postwar Iraq. Maliki knows the Democrats are so sick of this war, so politically and psychologically committed to its liquidation, so intent on doing nothing to vindicate "Bush's war," that they simply want out with the least continued American involvement.
Which is why Maliki gave Obama that royal reception, complete with the embrace of his heretofore problematic withdrawal timetable.
Obama was likely to be president anyway. He is likelier now still. Moreover, he not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama, casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this presidential election.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"But Maliki calculates that no U.S. president, whatever his campaign promises, would be insane enough to lose Iraq after all that has been gained and then be saddled with a newly chaotic Iraq that would poison his presidency"
Maliki clearly doesn't understand about the Democrats.
#2
What other choice does Maliki have? He has to prepare for working with the new president, whoever he is. McCain will forgive him a few weasle words, BO may not, if offended by him. Maliki is covering himself. He needs to do this. I'm glad to see he has the moxie to take care of himself on this.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/26/2008 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Or he was mistranslated, which I thought I read here. But I've slept since then.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/26/2008 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki not once but several times expressed support for a U.S. troop withdrawal on a timetable that accorded roughly with Obama's 16-month proposal
That's the dominant narrative, but is is NOT the truth.
#5
Sounds like Maliki might be feeling a little frisky. And talk like this helps his stature at home.
I don't mind if the Iraqis want us out by 2010. We'll have done the job by then, and the IA can stand on its own. If the Iraqis are smart they'll let us stay for a while longer to help them, but international law doesn't ban national stupidity.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/26/2008 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Maliki Votes for Obama
My Oh My.. How the 'Shi-Town Machine' has fallen on hard times...
Why I remember when the demoCraos only let the Dead Vote...
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
07/26/2008 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
Reports that a number of international oil companies are on the brink of signing contracts with Iraq have prompted a furious reaction in certain parts of the media and on Capitol Hill. The deals have been widely characterized as no-bid contracts, implying that Big Oil has somehow used its political clout to muscle in on Iraq and renewing suspicion that the whole U.S. intervention in Iraq was primarily a grab for natural resources. In the Senate, senior Democrats have argued that like everything else they choose the contracts would heighten Iraq's sectarian tensions, and those lawmakers are threatening to cut financing for some nonmilitary programs in Iraq if the deals go ahead without prior passage of new hydrocarbons legislation.
These are gross mischaracterizations of the Iraqi contracts.
If the Iraq invasion was about oil, let the record show that that mission has been botched even worse than the war's toughest critics claim the military expedition has been. Iraqi oil production steeply declined after the conflict began, and only this year has it returned to the levels of the Saddam Hussein era. This recovery can partly be put down to better security, especially along the northern export pipeline. But international oil companies also deserve some credit.
More than 40 foreign oil firms - ranging from the largest Western giants to minnows - have signed memorandums of understanding with the Iraqi Oil Ministry over the past four years. The companies have provided millions of dollars worth of advice, field studies, training programs and, in some cases, guidance on procurement and reservoir management to an increasingly beleaguered ministry, all free of charge. None of the companies kept secret its hope that this help would position it well for the future, but the assistance has been vital to restoring Iraq's oil production, especially at the country's biggest-producing fields.
Last year the Iraqi Oil Ministry found itself in a bind. It realized that this one-way relationship could not go on forever, but with political disputes hampering passage of a hydrocarbons law and foreign investment, it needed to extend the remote assistance program. So last autumn, ministry officials reached out directly to nine companies - not all super-majors by any means - in a bid to formalize the relationships through a two-year bridging mechanism known as a technical support agreement. The goal was to contract with the companies to support the ministry's procurement, project management and field management tasks to increase production sustainably. None of the nine companies will operate on the ground, and all have one thing in common: They have in the past provided valuable help in managing the oil fields that Iraq counts on most.
Although the companies were sought out by the Iraqis, the past 10 months of talks have not been a cakewalk for the firms. Iraqi oil officials have proved to be tough and unyielding negotiators, seeking the best bargains for their country. Terms have not been made public, but the returns for the companies are thought to be low and the production targets challenging. Perhaps most significant, the companies have been told that the support agreements will not guarantee them preferential access to these or any other fields when Iraq eventually goes ahead with open bidding, which the Oil Ministry hopes will take place early next year.
To block the support agreements at this stage would be a major disservice to Iraq. Such action would deny Iraq's oil industry much-needed help from the companies with which Baghdad most wants to work. It would also rob the country of revenue that could improve its financial strength and ease the burden on U.S. taxpayers.
Senate critics are also doing a disservice to U.S. interests: Obstructing the deals simultaneously conveys to Iraqis the image of direct U.S. interference in their sovereign affairs and the impression that America is somehow seeking to impede their country's recovery. Given the record oil prices of late and concerns over the availability of crude supplies, delaying - or possibly quashing - a move by a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase its output by as much as 500,000 barrels per day is folly. The senators no doubt mean well, but it is difficult to see how their actions serve the long-term interests of Iraq or the United States.
The writer is a senior director at PFC Energy in Washington, where he heads the Iraqi Advisory Service, which advises oil and gas companies - including some of the nine mentioned in this column - on investment risk in Iraq. PFC Energy does not have a direct commercial stake in the Iraqi market.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/26/2008 11:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
serving the longterm interests of Iraq and/or the U.S. is not part of the Democrat Party strategy. Serving the Democrat Party is.
Used to be the political parties looked for votes and advancing national interests. The Donks seem to look to fight wars in areas that contain no national interests, and refuse to fight or win in areas that do. Cowards and self-promoting treasonists
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/26/2008 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"serving the longterm interests of Iraq and/or the U.S. is not part of the Democrat Party strategy. Serving the Democrat Party is."
The Dems drank deep of the "no blood for oil" crowd.
"It's all about the oil" has always sounded stupid to me. Now that it's 2008 and we've won in Iraq, I'm thinking that it sounds stupid to quite a few people.
But it's too late for the Democrats; The die is cast. They have to dance with the one who brung 'em. And I think it's going to cost them. Once again, I think the democrats are going to outcompete the republicans for blowing an election. And sadly, yet one more election cycle that I wish BOTH sides could lose.
Posted by: Bin thinking again ||
07/26/2008 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
America's first war over oil started on December 7th, 1941. Japan needed oil to support her industrial expansion and had none. Western powers refused to supply her additional oil because of her military adventures in China. Japan figured the best way to secure an adequate supply was to take the Dutch East Indies.
In order to take that oil supply and secure the supply route, Japan needed to knock out the US Pacific Fleet, and so was born the operation at Pearl Harbor. Ironically, Japan would have succeeded if it wasn't for one mistake. Not knowing where our carriers were spooked the Japanese command in charge of the raid so a third wave of bombing that was supposed to take out all the oil storage in Hawaii was called off, in part because of the great success of the earlier waves. They figured we would never be able to recover from the loss of so many ships that they didn't need to destroy the oil storage.
If they had destroyed that storage, all naval operations out of Pearl Harbor would have stopped and the Pacific Fleet would have had to be pulled back to the West Coast of the US. There would have been no battle of Midway and Japan would likely have taken the Hawaiian Islands.
As it was, we were able to send ships to Pearl Harbor and begin repair operations. We did not have tanker capacity to support operations in the far Pacific from the coast of the US, but we could do it from Pearl and it would have taken about 5 years to rebuild oil stocks in Hawaii if that storage had been lost.
World War II against Japan was America's first war over oil, when we were the number one supplier in the world.
You know how it is - to some of these folks, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Treason is the highest form of dissent. Implying that in their minds, treason is the highest form of patriotism.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/26/2008 13:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ah, alas its not even good Onion.
2. Immediately make offers to the 20% of your journalists and editors that we think can make the transition to digital (24/7 real-time blogging). These folks won't be hard to find, given that some of them are writing excellent blogs already. (Andrew Ross Sorkin, Floyd Norris, David Carr, Joe Nocera, Gretchen Morgenson, Brian Stelter, Saul Hansell, Paul Krugman, Landon Thomas, and a few dozen other folks jump to mind.) By the way, we don't mind if these folks continue to distribute their stuff in the paper, too, so don't worry about losing them. In fact, that would be great exposure for us.
Just go to powerlineblog.com and do a search on the lad.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."
