Opinion piece from Al-Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/09/20099248482648228.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/09/20099248482648228.html)
QuoteNetanyahu outmanoeuvres Obama?
By Mark LeVine
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.aljazeera.net%2Fmritems%2FImages%2F%2F2009%2F9%2F24%2F20099249255911784_8.jpg&hash=11d5f8cda6024f49f467b03e0a6663f0d033993c)
From left to right: Netanyahu, Obama and Abbas met briefly on Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations annual General Assembly in New York [GALLO/GETTY]
It lasted only for a moment, but in that brief instant their faces said it all. On stage right sat Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, grinning. In the middle was Barack Obama, the US president, smiling as camera flashes went off.
On stage left sat Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), looking sullen and abandoned, wondering why he was even there.
When originally announced, this week's meeting between the three leaders was intended to showcase at least a modicum of substantive progress in moving Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table under America's aegis. But Israel's steadfast refusal to any settlement freeze meant that no progress would be forthcoming at the "mini-summit".
Netanyahu, who has been playing the peace process game on the world stage since Obama was a 20-something community organiser in Chicago, knew full well that his intransigence on settlements would cost Israel nothing in terms of continued US aid and support.
At worst, Obama would chide both sides equally for failing to do their part to move negotiations forward, even though it has become clear to the entire world, never mind Israelis and Palestinians, that the refusal to halt settlement construction is the issue holding up a resumption of talks.
Abbas has said that he will not resume negotiations until a freeze is in place, while Netanyahu has said he is ready for unconditional negotiations.
Schooled by Netanyahu?
Violence against Israel from the PA-controlled West Bank and even Hamas-controlled Gaza is practically zero and Israel retains unchallenged control of the land and airspace of the two territories.
This left Obama with not much to do but ask Palestinians "to do more to stop incitement" - as if outdated Palestinian history textbooks, periodic anti-Jewish diatribes (which are no worse than the routine anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rhetoric by Israeli politicians and commentators), and not the half a million settlers, are what stand between occupation and independence.
He also called on Palestinians "to move forward with negotiations", as if the PA is the side that is refusing to accede to the confidence-building measures requested by the US.
As long as Obama continues to blame Palestinians as well as Israelis so as not to appear biased in favour of the former, Netanyahu knows he will get off with little more than a mild public reprimand, which is precisely what happened earlier this week.
The relentless attacks since the 2008 presidential campaign in the US and Israeli right-wing press accusing Obama of being "pro-Palestinian" have worked according to plan, forcing him into overt displays of "even-handedness" precisely when he needs to assign the blame firmly and honestly regardless of appearances.
Media spin
For its part, the mainstream press, generally sympathetic to Obama, has accepted the administration's spin on the meeting, and is describing Obama as acting the part of the "stern teacher lecturing two classroom miscreants," as Haaretz described the meeting with more than a hint of irony.
In reality, however, it is not Netanyahu and Abbas who were sent to the principal's office. Rather, to borrow a phrase from the president's beloved game of basketball, it was Obama who got schooled by Netanyahu.
There is a reason why the Israeli leader was the one wearing a genuine grin as Obama told assembled reporters about his "frank and productive bilateral meetings" (meaning the three leaders did not hold tri-lateral "talks" or discuss pending issues) with his two counterparts.
Spin, jump, and slam dunk. Game Over.
Or is it?
Obama in Hollywood
Arab and even Israeli media are aflutter with talk about Obama's weakness in the face of Netanyahu's intransigence.
One Likud Knesset member, Danny Danon, said: "I hope the summit stops the Hollywood movie in which Obama lives."
One could imagine any number of Hollywood fantasies that Danon believes Obama inhabits, but the most likely one has a script in which Israel actually freezes settlement-building before it determines that there is no more land worth the trouble of seizing.
When Obama once again renewed his call for a settlement freeze in his speech at the UN General Assembly, few observers in and outside the region took it seriously.
This is not because a freeze would be practicably meaningless even if Israel agreed to such a measure - and how seriously can one take Defence Minister Ehud Barak declaring a freeze a "national necessity" the day after approving 500 new units?
Rather, it is because everyone knows that the only way the US could force Israel to engage in a legitimate halt to settlement expansion would be through an overt threat to suspend military, economic and/or political support for Israel.
And Obama will not dare undertake such an approach.
Hope at the UN
Nevertheless, some are hopeful following Obama's strong declaration that the US "doesn't accept the legitimacy of continued settlement" and his urging of all nations to support Arab-Israeli peace talks.
But if one reads the president's speech carefully a more distressing dynamic reveals itself.
It is not just that Obama again focuses on Palestinian "incitement" while saying nothing about Israel's continued siege of Gaza.
And it is not only about his calls for an "independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory" when only a significant dismantling, not freezing, of settlements (bypass walls and the Wall) would enable this.
Nor is it his urging that Arab states support peace talks when they have already signed onto the far-reaching Saudi peace plan, which includes full peace and normalisation with Israel.
Instead, it is the slipshod way in which this intellectually gifted president framed his broader remarks to the assembly that reinforces the fear that he does not have the will to resolutely deal with the century-old Palestinian problem.
Time running out
This is partially evident when he says "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy" and pledged to work toward that end.
This is contradictory, particularly in the Middle East, where Obama has adhered to a realpolitik foreign policy that has all but abandoned anything beyond rhetorical pressure on Arab allies to stop torturing and effectively disenfranchising the vast majority of their citizens.
Ultimately, Obama's incapacity to seriously confront Israel is a symptom of his greater unwillingness, or perhaps inability, to discuss the radical changes in the world economic and political systems that will be necessary to bring peace, democracy and sustainable development to the developing world and avert global environmental disaster.
He is not the first president to turn from such a challenge; his predecessors at least since Ronald Reagan, the former US president, were no more honest or willing to risk their political futures for the common good.
But the cost of inaction today is far greater than it was one or two generations, or even presidencies, ago.
In interviews he gave to Israeli media on the eve of his trip to New York, Netanyahu bragged that he is the famous cartoon character Popeye, heroically withstanding US pressure to freeze settlement construction.
The comparison is instructive, even if many might consider Popeye's fair-weather friend Brutus - who by traditional definition is a bully - a more apt comparison.
But it confirms that Obama needs to find a can of spinach and get some strength soon, because time is running out.
Not just for Israelis and Palestinians, but for us all.
Mark LeVine is currently Visiting Professor at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, Sweden. His most recent books include Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009) and Reapproaching Borders: New Perspectives on the Study of Israel-Palestine (Rowman Littlefield, 2008).
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Despite whatever other merits the editorial may or may not have I do love that picture, and the part about Netanyahu being Popeye.
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
One Likud Knesset member, Danny Danon, said: "I hope the summit stops the Hollywood movie in which Obama lives."
:unsure:
I thought Al-Jazeera was supposed to be really objective and stuff?
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Would you rather have this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg42.imageshack.us%2Fimg42%2F580%2Farticle11723980494362d0.jpg&hash=e6fe7f9623b96c9634571c7fd62673c082fc16dc) (http://img42.imageshack.us/i/article11723980494362d0.jpg/)
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Sleazy salesman is why he's president
Well, so this latest Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative is nearly over before it starts? Seems that's the gist of things. Some say Pres Obama threw Israel under the bus in his UN speech, but otherwise he seems to have tossed the Palestinians under that same bus as well, perhaps even more so. :huh:
Is there any world leader who hasn't outmaneuvered Obama? The community organizer seems a bit out of his depth on the world stage.
Didn't Netanyahu used to bald?
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Shoulda put a Hil on it.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Shoulda put a Hil on it.
It's not like Hillary wouldn't be getting schooled by everyone else as well. She had no more experience at this stuff than Obama.
Now McCain...
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:00:09 AM
I thought Al-Jazeera was supposed to be really objective and stuff?
I've never watched it, but from what I understand their television channel is more objective. The web site has an obvious pro-Arab bias.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 11:29:34 AM
Didn't Netanyahu used to bald?
Maybe he's one of those special Jews who grow hair when they keep the covenant. Sort of like how Siege becomes impervious to bullets when he does the same.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Shoulda put a Hil on it.
It's not like Hillary wouldn't be getting schooled by everyone else as well. She had no more experience at this stuff than Obama.
Now McCain...
But he'd be dead in six months! Sarah Palin would outlaw evolution and give the death penalty for abortion!
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
It's not like Hillary wouldn't be getting schooled by everyone else as well. She had no more experience at this stuff than Obama.
Now McCain...
...did not get your vote :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 11:41:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
It's not like Hillary wouldn't be getting schooled by everyone else as well. She had no more experience at this stuff than Obama.
Now McCain...
...did not get your vote :contract:
His own fault. I wanted to give it to him, but he had to go and spurn me for some two-bit idiot with nice legs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 11:29:34 AM
Didn't Netanyahu used to bald?
he does look like he's starting to develop a thicker comb over from that shot. He's always had a very wispy why are you even bothering combover.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:44:30 AM
His own fault. I wanted to give it to him, but he had to go and spurn me for some two-bit idiot with nice legs.
I knew you & grumbler would bail on him even before Palin hit the scene. Anyway, enjoy that community organizer president you voted for!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:27:25 PM
also would not have faced down Bibi.
It'd be fun to see those two square off, though.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:27:25 PM
also would not have faced down Bibi.
It'd be fun to see those two square off, though.
"And wave'em like you just don't... can?"
McCain also has no serious foreign policy creds. It isn't like if McCain was in office he'd be putting people in their place left and right. Obama do the right thing and cut ties with Israel.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
Now McCain...
Yeah,when he visited a foreign country they locked him up for five years.
Quote from: Jaron on September 30, 2009, 03:45:04 PM
McCain also has no serious foreign policy creds.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:00:09 AM
I thought Al-Jazeera was supposed to be really objective and stuff?
No. It's supposed to have good reporting.
This article does point out the obvious fact that for a US president trying to influence Israel's behavior the levers are not that easy to pull. My guess is (anyone know for sure?) some or all of the $3 billion a year in aid is tied to the Camp David treaty.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Shoulda put a Hil on it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fugly.com%2Fmedia%2FIMAGES%2FRandom%2Fhillary_clinton_scary_smile.jpg&hash=727443609d73a417b6843239ca9f85848885ccef)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 30, 2009, 11:05:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
That grin is reallys starting to grate on me. US president is supposed to be the alpha male, not a sleazy salesman.
Sleazy salesman is why he's president
Yep.
Obama reminds me a lot of my stepfather--and that is NOT a compliment. My stepfather was a back-slapping, glad-handing salesman, and I detest the type.
Disconcertingly, except for the skin tone and hair, Obama even looks a bit like my stepfather.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 05:16:35 PM
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/hillary_clinton_scary_smile.jpg
Like I said.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 03:50:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 30, 2009, 03:45:04 PM
McCain also has no serious foreign policy creds.
:lmfao:
Berk, I don't claim to be an expert on US politics, but a quick search throws this on his political career in the Senate
1986 Armed Services Committee, Commerce Committee and Indian Affairs Committee
1991-93 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affair
1995-1997 Indian Affairs Committee chairman
1997 Commerce Committee chairman
2005-2007 Indian Affairs Committee chairman
His credentials on Foreign Affairs seem hardly impressive, unless you consider Indian tribes independent nations. As far as I know (and I could be wrong) he has never even belonged to the Foreign Relations Committee, and there seems to be little reason to consider him significantly more experienced than Hillary Clinton. Both are very far from being experts.
Don't even start.
Now, THIS is creepy:
http://theridiculant.metro.co.uk/2009/09/the-eternal-smile-of-barack-obama.html
Quote from: Alatriste on October 01, 2009, 01:00:17 AM
Berk, I don't claim to be an expert on US politics, but a quick search throws this on his political career in the Senate
:huh:
He's the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. That's a very foreign policy heavy committee.
McCain has been actively working foreign policy pretty much his entire political career - in fact, you could argue that foreign policy and defense are his specialties. Head of the Armed Services Committee for however long, the guy has visited pretty much, well, everywhere innumerable times in the course of his duties.
He is as qualified from experience as anyone who hasn't been President or Secretary of State possibly can be, at least from the foreign policy perspective.
Quick blurb from some article abck when he was running about his FP experience:
Quote
Now 71, he was born in the Canal Zone, where his father, a naval officer, was stationed. A graduate of the Naval Academy, Mr. McCain flew in Vietnam and was a prisoner of war for more than five years. In the Senate, he is the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
He has visited every region of the world, including Antarctica and the Arctic Circle, and frequently meets with leaders of the countries to which he's traveled, both when he visits their countries and when they visit the United States.
Mr. McCain has been across the world so many times that aides named off the tops of their heads some 69 countries he's visited — including Azerbaijan, Estonia, Laos, and Palau — and warned the list was far from exhaustive.
Aides say he keeps up to speed on the politics and policies of many nations — a passion he regularly displays to reporters traveling with him — and understands the long-term ramifications of having well-established personal relationships with foreign leaders.
He makes it a point to meet with up-and-comers, too. Aides say he met Angela Merkel at a Munich conference several years ago before she became German chancellor. In summer 2004, Mr. McCain met at a restaurant with Viktor Yushchenko before the Orange Revolution when he was elected Ukrainian president.
Next week, Mr. McCain is expected to meet with Prime Minister Brown of Britain for the first time, and President Sarkozy of France for the third time. He met and corresponded with Mr. Sarkozy both before and after he was elected. The two last saw each other last summer.
Mr. McCain has relationships with every leader in Israel he plans to see, including Prime Minister Olmert, the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, the defense minister, Ehud Barak, and the hawkish opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The senator last met with Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq last Thanksgiving, and he's also gotten to know other members of the Iraqi government.
He returns with two of his chief presidential supporters, Senators Lieberman, an Independent of Connecticut, and Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, but he insists it is a fact-finding venture, not a campaign photo opportunity.
"There's nothing like being on the ground," he said. Mentioning a mountainous area in northwestern Pakistan, he added, "I went to Waziristan once and it gave me a much better understanding of how difficult it is to get Osama bin Laden."
You can knock McCain for a lot of things - but not having foreign policy cred isn't one of them.
Europeans have trouble with the link between the armed services and foreign policy. They don't appreciate how strong the link is in the US.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 05:16:35 PM
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/hillary_clinton_scary_smile.jpg
Like I said.
Oddly enough, that's not a Hillary picture that IMO should be on fugly.com. There are quite a few others that fit the bill, though.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 11:44:30 AM
His own fault. I wanted to give it to him, but he had to go and spurn me for some two-bit idiot with nice legs.
And this is the way it would have been; gut-based "mavericky" decisions on par with picking Sarah Palin or supporting his friend in Georgia after he launched a war because he was off his mood altering medications.
Not to mention that as a Republican he couldn't really ever hope to put any kind of pressure on Israel, or do anything other than say "Israel is America's greatest ally and the only Democracy in the middle east and all the
colonies happy camps in the West Bank are ultra awesome, and full of comely Israeli maidens, who doth frolic among the rosebushes and sing merry songs."
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
And this is the way it would have been; gut-based "mavericky" decisions on par with picking Sarah Palin or supporting his friend in Georgia after he launched a war because he was off his mood altering medications.
Not to mention that as a Republican he couldn't really ever hope to put any kind of pressure on Israel, or do anything other than say "Israel is America's greatest ally and the only Democracy in the middle east and all the colonies happy camps in the West Bank are ultra awesome, and full of comely Israeli maidens, who doth frolic among the rosebushes and sing merry songs."
How do you know he wouldn't have been a slave to the Republican establishment about Georgia and gut-based mavericky about Israel?
Okay so visiting countries gives you " foreign policy " credit.
Unless you are Obama, then its just vacation. :rolleyes:
Give me a break Berkut. You'll do anything to build this guy up. He didn't win because he is infinitely less experienced and qualified than Obama to do the job.
McCain would have gotten bitch slapped in every foreign policy decision he made. It would have been an angry old man wagging his cane at the younger passerbys leaving trash on his lawn. What a joke of a politician that man is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 06:22:57 PM
How do you know he wouldn't have been a slave to the Republican establishment about Georgia and gut-based mavericky about Israel?
McCain's insane rhetoric during the Ossetian war managed to push Obama's initial rational position towards a totally pro Shaakash. And he is as pro-Israel as anyone I know. I don't think there is a reason to believe his position would change so much.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 09:13:51 PM
McCain's insane rhetoric during the Ossetian war managed to push Obama's initial rational position towards a totally pro Shaakash.
If his insane rhetoric could push Obama, it could probably push the rest of the world. Problem solved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 09:13:51 PM
McCain's insane rhetoric during the Ossetian war managed to push Obama's initial rational position towards a totally pro Shaakash.
If his insane rhetoric could push Obama, it could probably push the rest of the world. Problem solved.
Yup.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatangledweb.squarespace.com%2Fstorage%2Fmushroom-cloud.jpg&hash=990310a03eb6669144174e98dc1c59595ee6bdac)
You think better than that Yi. You aren't Berkut.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the Russkis will send all their nukes at Chicago.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 09:52:28 PM
Maybe we'll get lucky and the Russkis will send all their nukes at Chicago.
:P
I'd only die if the fallout head in a weird direction. And I know that I should cover my entire body to avoid inhaling fallout.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 09:57:33 PM
And I know that I should cover my entire body to avoid inhaling fallout.
You can use your sex sheets! :lol:
Quote from: Jaron on October 01, 2009, 08:53:49 PM
Okay so visiting countries gives you " foreign policy " credit.
Certainly moreso than not visiting countries. What do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?
Quote
Unless you are Obama, then its just vacation. :rolleyes:
Did Obama visit lots of other countries on vacation? Meet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?
Quote
Give me a break Berkut. You'll do anything to build this guy up. He didn't win because he is infinitely less experienced and qualified than Obama to do the job.
Right.
Quote
McCain would have gotten bitch slapped in every foreign policy decision he made. It would have been an angry old man wagging his cane at the younger passerbys leaving trash on his lawn. What a joke of a politician that man is.
Well, it is clear you are thinking objectively and rationally, as always FB.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 09:59:54 PM
You can use your sex sheets! :lol:
:huh:
Is this some reference to a story I don't remember telling?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 09:59:54 PM
You can use your sex sheets! :lol:
:huh:
Is this some reference to a story I don't remember telling?
It's a reference to your Mormonism. :P
QuoteWhat do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?
To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important. It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II. I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm. I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.
QuoteMeet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?
Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do. Or Minsky. He's lived there. He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too. McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 10:05:08 PM
It's a reference to your Mormonism. :P
Never worn them, never will, and I'm going to drink a beer right now just to prove you wrong.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 10:07:15 PM
QuoteWhat do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?
To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important. It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II. I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm. I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.
QuoteMeet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?
Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do. Or Minsky. He's lived there. He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too. McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit.
SO you evaluation is pretty much completely based on your views of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Makes sense then that you think his FP would suck.
But that doesn't mean he lacks FP experience or credibility - just means you don't agree with him.
"Studying" and area is fine - but it doesn't really count as FP credibility. McCain has certainly studied the area, and visited the area, and dealt with their leadership, etc., etc. etc.
If you are going to argue that McCain lacks FP cred, then you have to argue that it isn't even possible to get FP cred as a US senator, because McCain has spent 30 years as a US senator focusing largely on FP.
There isn't even any point in comparing him to Obama, as a candidate. Obama spent 6 years in the Senate studiously avoiding any kind of foreign policy work. There is simply no comparison. Even if Obama spent his 6 years trying to focus on FP to the exclusion of domestic policy, he still could not possibly match what McCain did over 30 years.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2009, 10:16:56 PM
If you are going to argue that McCain lacks FP cred, then you have to argue that it isn't even possible to get FP cred as a US senator, because McCain has spent 30 years as a US senator focusing largely on FP.
In Republican Rome, Senators were expected to command armies and deal-in person-with kings and chieftains, and to fight as equestrians.
This isn't Ancient Rome. This is the United States Senate, whose primary purpose for the last 30 years has been to make government reform so difficult as to make governing this country a fantastically arduous task.
I don't think McCain had the right temperament to become a great leader in terms of American foreign policy, at least at the moment. We are vastly over extended and need a militaristic maverick like we need a nuclear terrorist attack.
Madame Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience. :bowler:
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 09:48:16 PM
You think better than that Yi. You aren't Berkut.
Since you haven't picked up on it, I'm being facetious. Didn't think your rant about McCain and Georgia was worthy of a serious response.
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 09:58:17 AM
Europeans have trouble with the link between the armed services and foreign policy. They don't appreciate how strong the link is in the US.
Actually over here there would be a ruckus if the Defense Committee tried to meddle in foreign policy (although Defense ministers have been known to interfere on occasions with their Foreign Affairs colleagues).
In fact our Foreign Affairs ministers more often than not belong to the diplomatic service, it's seen as a very demanding and politically 'neutral' field, better left to professionals. That politicians generally suck at speaking foreign languages certainly helps too!
Quote from: Queequeg on October 01, 2009, 10:07:15 PM
QuoteWhat do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?
To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important. It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II. I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm. I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.
Experience and aptitude are not the same. Besides, nothing that Biden or McCain could have done could possibly as big a failure as Obama's policies have been.
QuoteQuoteMeet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?
Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do. Or Minsky. He's lived there. He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too. McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit.
And that is why Obama fails. He's gone native.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:04:35 AM
In fact our Foreign Affairs ministers more often than not belong to the diplomatic service, it's seen as a very demanding and politically 'neutral' field, better left to professionals. That politicians generally suck at speaking foreign languages certainly helps too!
Odd. Over here, Foreign Affairs is usually the #3 job in the cabinet, sometimes #2 depending on the time period. No civil service wonk would ever get such a lofty position, and foreign languages are not important to the job, since Canada is an English-speaking country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 03:51:14 PM
This article does point out the obvious fact that for a US president trying to influence Israel's behavior the levers are not that easy to pull. My guess is (anyone know for sure?) some or all of the $3 billion a year in aid is tied to the Camp David treaty.
It had no conditions. It was part of a bigger package (20 bln to Saudi-Arabia and 13 bln to Egypt), meant to keep peace in the region, to keep their ally the strongest in the region, bla bla bla. I doubt these kind of gifts to Israel will have conditions. Far too risky, because Israel is doing what Israel wants. Obama knows that now too.
More from Al-J
QuoteNetanyahu's 'yes we can' moment
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.aljazeera.net%2Fmritems%2FImages%2F%2F2009%2F10%2F1%2F2009101121541513708_8.jpg&hash=083c8661e309d6c45a89a2afbb43941625ffbab5)
By Rime Allaf
Obama (centre) hosted talks in September with Netanyahu (left) and Abbas in New York [EPA]
Big speeches with grand accompanying events marking an 'umpteenth' rekindling of the strangest and longest peace process have been Middle East fixtures for decades, as have the inevitable follow-up periods of analyses and projections.
No matter where the leaders in question stood on the scale of left to right, or to which party they belonged, little new ever emerged; peace talks had fallen into a vicious cycle of deja vu.
Not this time, however.
If only to recall the US president's motto of change, and his rallying cry of "yes we can", credit must be given where credit is due: Obama has accomplished what no other US president before him managed to do.
Despite Israel's refusal to comply with his demand to freeze settlement expansion - which amounted to a political slap in the face - Obama still hosted a meeting between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
And he announced, in all seriousness, that "permanent status negotiations must begin, and begin soon".
Obama 'humiliated'
For many observers, it beggars belief that the most powerful country in the world could be scorned in this manner by a much smaller one.
Israel itself has depended on US political patronage and financial aid to defy dozens of UN Security Council resolutions and the will of the vast majority of the real international community.
So early in his mandate, having been publicly humiliated by Israel, Obama backtracked and allowed its arrogance to reach new highs.
Having set a precedent, and seemingly gotten away with it, Israel is now unlikely to be pressured - let alone forced - to comply with the will of the international community on any issue.
Indeed, Israel can claim that there is change under Obama, as it now can confidently say "yes we can" as non-diplomatically and defiantly as it wishes.
It may have been unrealistic to expect the US president to be more regal than Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, when the man supposedly defending Palestinian interests - albeit without a legitimate mandate - has ignored Israel's transgressions.
If Abbas can overlook them and meet with Netanyahu while Gaza continues to starve under siege, why shouldn't Obama?
Unfortunately, the entire fiasco was predictable, following the complete failure of the president's special envoy, George Mitchell, to achieve anything during several months of selective diplomacy.
For all the contrived hype surrounding Obama's hesitant engagement, the so-called high stakes were nothing more than a partial freeze of Israeli settlements for a limited period – hardly ground-breaking measures.
This unprecedented psychological victory, relieving Netanyahu of having to pretend he would abide by US wishes, has turned the Israeli prime minister's audacity into insolence.
Gaza war
"Israel can now claim that there is change under Obama, as it now can confidently say "yes we can" as non-diplomatically and defiantly as it wishes"
In fact, Israel seems to have become so accustomed to getting its own way that Netanyahu's indignation may not have even been feigned as he admonished the United Nations for daring to protest Israel's actions in Gaza.
It is disturbing to recall that this prime minister was elected because the proponents of the Gaza war earlier in the year weren't considered brutal enough by Israeli voters.
While 94 per cent of Israelis supported the government's attack on Gaza in January this year, they clearly did not not feel that enough had been done.
Netanyahu's defiance of the US and, in particular, of Obama is not going to be unpopular.
The media's attention may have been captured by Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, who many consider to be openly racist and xenophobic, but even he is small fry compared to the real loose bull in Israel - Netanyahu.
In only a few days, he not only ensured Obama retract the demand for a settlement freeze demand and warned the world and the UN Human Rights Committee about criticising Israel, but he also turned the attention away from Gaza and on to Iran.
These developments augur very grim prospects for the future of the region, and the time may have come to drop the pretence and not bother sending Mitchell on yet another pointless trip.
Israeli 'intransigence'
If the Obama administration was serious about its involvement, it would find the will, and the way, to make Israel get out of the land it illegally occupied and force it to recognise Palestine's right to exist.
It has become more imperative in the face of Israel's growing intransigence to impose such a solution.
For the time being, however, the US doesn't seem to have reached this conclusion and continues to pander to Israeli demands at the expense of Palestinians and the Arab world at large.
The White House and the State Department, disappointingly, have relaunched their drive for "normalisation" and increased the pressure on Arabs to make "tangible and credible goodwill gestures" toward Israel.
Instead of pressuring those they should, they are pushing those they can.
If Mitchell goes back to the Middle East, it is hard to imagine he would have any mission other than putting the onus, once again, on the victims - thereby forcing the Arabs to "normalise" with Israel in return for nothing.
That might buy the US and Israel time, but it will never bring peace.
I like how Abbas always looks so gloomy in these pictures. He reminds me of Eeyore.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 02, 2009, 09:29:14 AM
I like how Abbas always looks so gloomy in these pictures. He reminds me of Eeyore.
Who's the guy taking a standing up dump in the background?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 01, 2009, 09:52:28 PM
Maybe we'll get lucky and the Russkis will send all their nukes at Chicago.
The bombs need to drop when the Blackhawks are out of town & everybody else is home, so that they can become America's Team...
:shifty:
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 06:47:56 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:04:35 AM
In fact our Foreign Affairs ministers more often than not belong to the diplomatic service, it's seen as a very demanding and politically 'neutral' field, better left to professionals. That politicians generally suck at speaking foreign languages certainly helps too!
Odd. Over here, Foreign Affairs is usually the #3 job in the cabinet, sometimes #2 depending on the time period. No civil service wonk would ever get such a lofty position, and foreign languages are not important to the job, since Canada is an English-speaking country.
Ranking here seems to be
Prime-minister (job: boss)
Chancellor of the Exchequer (job: money)
Home Secretary (job: keep the voters happy)
Everybody else (job: keep quiet, do as your told, do not fuck up publicly.)
We do ensure our foreign secretaries are politicians rather than diplomats though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 11:58:18 PM
Since you haven't picked up on it, I'm being facetious. Didn't think your rant about McCain and Georgia was worthy of a serious response.
<_<
Rant? McCain was talking out of his ass. Every (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8284046.stm) serious report in the aftermath of the conflict has pointed to Georgia for blame as much/more than Russia. Even The American Spectator (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/01/we-are-all-georgian-aggressors) recently ridiculed McCain for saying during the conflict that "We are all Georgians".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 02, 2009, 09:52:42 AM
Who's the guy taking a standing up dump in the background?
Looks like Barney Frank. As such, maybe he's not taking a dump.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 11:58:18 PM
Since you haven't picked up on it, I'm being facetious. Didn't think your rant about McCain and Georgia was worthy of a serious response.
<_<
Rant? McCain was talking out of his ass. Every (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8284046.stm) serious report in the aftermath of the conflict has pointed to Georgia for blame as much/more than Russia. Even The American Spectator (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/01/we-are-all-georgian-aggressors) recently ridiculed McCain for saying during the conflict that "We are all Georgians".
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
Georgia may have acted foolishly in instigating the Russians and giving them an excuse to invade another nation and forcibly take over a chunk of it (supported by such bastions of free and Western ideals like Venezuela), but that doesn't mean they bear the responsibility for being invaded.
McCain was completely correct.
Quote
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
South Ossetians and Abkhazians don't particularly like Georgia, and in the first case the Ossetians have always been the majority in the area, and in both cases there is little to no Georgian population there left.
So Georgia
A) Fired the first shot against
B) an area that didn't want to be a part of Georgia and
C) Was occupied by an army of near infinitely greater capability than the Georgian
This would be little different from Serbia invading modern Kosovo or Bosnia. Actually, the Serbs would have a lot more reason to, as the Kosovo Albanians have been mistreating the indigenous Serbs, while what Georgians were in Abkhazia and Ossetia have long since left.
You can argue (correctly) that the Russian response was disproportionate. You can't argue that the Georgians were smart for attacking, or even that they deserved our tacit or logistical support, or that "WE ARE ALL GEORGIANS." That's not just profoundly ignorant, it is dangerous.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 11:49:42 AM
Quote
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
South Ossetians and Abkhazians don't particularly like Georgia, and in the first case the Ossetians have always been the majority in the area, and in both cases there is little to no Georgian population there left.
In the second case, though, Georgians have been the majority, until the genocide carried out with tacit approval and some level of support from Russia.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2009, 11:34:18 AM
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
Georgia may have acted foolishly in instigating the Russians and giving them an excuse to invade another nation and forcibly take over a chunk of it (supported by such bastions of free and Western ideals like Venezuela), but that doesn't mean they bear the responsibility for being invaded.
McCain was completely correct.
Didn't know you were part of the "proportional response" crowd. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 12:45:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2009, 11:34:18 AM
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
Georgia may have acted foolishly in instigating the Russians and giving them an excuse to invade another nation and forcibly take over a chunk of it (supported by such bastions of free and Western ideals like Venezuela), but that doesn't mean they bear the responsibility for being invaded.
McCain was completely correct.
Didn't know you were part of the "proportional response" crowd. :rolleyes:
I am part of the "Don't invade other countries under the pretense of saving your supposedly beleugered ethnic minority" crowd, actually.
Russia had not business making *any* response, proportional or otherwise.
Funny to see the lengths the faithful will go to defend their Chosen One, even to the extent of taking sides with Russia and Putin if necessary, just to validate his anemic response to naked aggression.
Spellus is a traitor.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2009, 12:49:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 12:45:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2009, 11:34:18 AM
That would be a compelling point if in fact anyone bought into the idea that Georgia is at fault for being invaded by Russia.
Georgia may have acted foolishly in instigating the Russians and giving them an excuse to invade another nation and forcibly take over a chunk of it (supported by such bastions of free and Western ideals like Venezuela), but that doesn't mean they bear the responsibility for being invaded.
McCain was completely correct.
Didn't know you were part of the "proportional response" crowd. :rolleyes:
I am part of the "Don't invade other countries under the pretense of saving your supposedly beleugered ethnic minority" crowd, actually.
Russia had not business making *any* response, proportional or otherwise.
Funny to see the lengths the faithful will go to defend their Chosen One, even to the extent of taking sides with Russia and Putin if necessary, just to validate his anemic response to naked aggression.
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
<_<
Rant? McCain was talking out of his ass. Every (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8284046.stm) serious report in the aftermath of the conflict has pointed to Georgia for blame as much/more than Russia. Even The American Spectator (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/01/we-are-all-georgian-aggressors) recently ridiculed McCain for saying during the conflict that "We are all Georgians".
I'm unable to get your BBC link to work so I'm unable to confirm that "every serious report" has blamed Georgia as much/more than Russia. I do know that virtually every claim Georgia made during the incident has been discredited, but that's not the same as bearing the blame for instigating. I also know that the long sequence of Russian provocations is documented and not subject to challenge.
But I'm still happy describing your comment about McCain sending us to war as a rant. Very similar to the rants one heard all the time here and in the press about the inevitability of Bush sending us to war with Iran and North Korea. Of course now that Bush is out of office and those 100% certain outcomes didn't come true no one is going to own up to those predictions. Neither can we test the assertion that McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Although we do know with certainty that if Bush had not vetoed the Senate bill Obama voted for our troops would have been pulled out before the surge, before the Sunnis of Anbar switched sides.
Calling McCain a half-crazed warmonger was effective election spin, but the election is over Squeelus.
Quote
But I'm still happy describing your comment about McCain sending us to war as a rant.
Hyperbole, but I don't think I was being any more hyperbolic than him. It was an utterly unjustified gut reaction that totally warped his view on the conflict, and if he had been president our relations with Russia would have been more severely strained than at any time since Perestroika, and all for the sake of the Manic-Depressive president of a country of minimal strategic importance to us that is deep in Russia's sphere of influence.
Quote
Very similar to the rants one heard all the time here and in the press about the inevitability of Bush sending us to war with Iran and North Korea. Of course now that Bush is out of office and those 100% certain outcomes didn't come true no one is going to own up to those predictions. Neither can we test the assertion that McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Although we do know with certainty that if Bush had not vetoed the Senate bill Obama voted for our troops would have been pulled out before the surge, before the Sunnis of Anbar switched sides.
I supported the surge then, and I support having troops in Iraq now. I don't think we should pull out of Afghanistan until it is reasonably function and has entered a phase of sustained stable development. I didn't think that Bush was going to launch a war with Iran after 2006.
I'm not a dove. I'm not Fireblade.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 04:34:11 PM
I supported the surge then, and I support having troops in Iraq now.
Did you oppose Obama's vote in the Senate to withdraw all troops before the surge?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 02, 2009, 04:34:11 PM
I supported the surge then, and I support having troops in Iraq now.
Did you oppose Obama's vote in the Senate to withdraw all troops before the surge?
Yes. This was before Palin came on the scene, and I was still considering voting for McCain. I wasn't as far to the left back then, and on foreign policy I'm still just about where I was.
If the old board was here, I'm sure we could dig up some thread. Pity, though.
I think Nato has came out saying that it was in fact the Georgians who shot first.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 04:48:37 PM
I think Nato has came out saying that it was in fact the Georgians who shot first.
Well, any way you look at it, Greedo is dead.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 04:48:37 PM
I think Nato has came out saying that it was in fact the Georgians who shot first.
It was the EU and they admitted that Georgia was provoked. Thus, the provocateurs are to blame for starting the conflict.
Looking at the Geography, perhaps the Americans should mediate a settlement where the Russians get South Ossetia, and the Georgians keep Abkhazia.
After all, after Kosovo, Nato and the west does not have a leg to stand on over South Ossetia.
You'll probably like this article, Raz:
QuoteOctober 3, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Missing From the Georgia Report
By JÖRG HIMMELREICH
BERLIN — The Russian-Georgian "five-day war" in August 2008 did not end the political conflict: It has all the potential to explode into a new armed confrontation any day.
This week, a much-anticipated report by an independent European Union fact-finding commission, of which I was a member, into the origins and causes of this conflict confirmed the common view that the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, bears responsibility for the outbreak of the war and that Russia is equally responsible by escalating the political pressures that led to the hostilities.
But the report has a major flaw. It fails to thoroughly analyze the decisive role that the United States played before, during and after the conflict. Only a detailed assessment of President George W. Bush's Georgia policy and its failures can fully explain the outbreak of the war and help the E.U. and President Obama shape new policies toward Russia and Georgia.
At the beginning of his presidency, President Bush in many regards continued the Georgia policy of President Clinton, accepting Georgia's Western orientation and rejecting Russia's claim to a sphere of influence in its "near abroad"; supporting Georgia's aspirations for membership in NATO; and viewing Georgia as important for American and Western security and energy interests.
After 9/11, however, President Bush changed the policy toward Georgia, introducing two elements that developed into serious strategic disadvantages. Mr. Bush not only made Georgia into a partner in the "war on terror," but he promoted Mr. Saakashvili and Georgia into a centerpiece of his "promotion of democracy." In Tbilisi in 2005, Mr. Bush proclaimed Mr. Saakashvili's Georgia "a beacon of liberty."
Even as President Bush became increasingly aware that he needed the Kremlin's help in Iran and for other American interests, he was kept a prisoner by this exaggeration of Georgia's importance for U.S. foreign policy.
Senior officials of the Bush administration claim they warned Mr. Saakashvili against using force against Russia. But having invested so much ideological importance in the Georgian president, Mr. Bush couldn't warn him publicly — or, as it turned out, stop him. Having become so dependent on Mr. Saakashvili's success, the United States lost the political influence to stop him.
Once the war broke out on the night of Aug. 7, President Bush decided against any U.S. military action, and instead to encourage President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, then holding the E.U. presidency, to seek a cease-fire. That was also a strategic mistake: Only the United States had the political clout to negotiate and enforce a serious peace agreement with Russia.
Mr. Sarkozy deserves credit for stopping the war, but he had to accept onerous Russian conditions. Since then, the E.U. has had to swallow constant Russian violations of the cease-fire agreements. President Bush's policy failure was thus not doing rather than wrongdoing: not stopping Mr. Saakashvili and not taking the lead in the peace settlement.
Today, with Russia's refusal to prolong international peacekeeping missions, the only political framework for American political engagement in the conflict is the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership agreement to rebuild Georgia's military — hardly a vehicle for conflict resolution.
A rethinking of U.S. diplomacy and policy toward Georgia is urgently needed. The Obama administration should follow the E.U. lead and set up its own commission of inquiry — not only to fill in the gaps in the E.U. report, but to prepare the ground for a new, balanced policy toward Georgia that takes into account the "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations.
Jörg Himmelreich, a senior trans-Atlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, served on the European Union's fact-finding mission on the conflict in Georgia, whose report was issued this week.
It's beginning to look as if that EU report maybe wasn't 100% apolitical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2009, 05:25:56 PM
It's beginning to look as if that EU report maybe wasn't 100% apolitical.
Unpossible!
Quote from: citizen k on October 02, 2009, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 04:48:37 PM
I think Nato has came out saying that it was in fact the Georgians who shot first.
It was the EU and they admitted that Georgia was provoked. Thus, the provocateurs are to blame for starting the conflict.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,578273-2,00.html I'm pretty sure, when I read NATO it meant NATO.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 02, 2009, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2009, 04:48:37 PM
I think Nato has came out saying that it was in fact the Georgians who shot first.
It was the EU and they admitted that Georgia was provoked. Thus, the provocateurs are to blame for starting the conflict.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,578273-2,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,578273-2,00.html) I'm pretty sure, when I read NATO it meant NATO.
Indeed it did. I apologize for leaping to conclusions since I had only heard about the EU report. :hug: