Rich Lowry makes the point about Barack Obama over at The Corner.
Carter arguably didn’t do enough to support an Iranian government faced with a popular revolt; Obama isn’t doing enough to support a popular revolt against an Iranian government. Carter’s foreign policy was achingly idealistic; Obama’s foreign policy is cold-bloodedly “realist.”
Realist or idealistic, both are waged in the same wrongheaded ideological assumptions.
For all the talk of Obama’s realism, he is pursuing a policy driven by a fantasy about international affairs—that all disputes can be resolved through negotiations and governments can be talked out of their interests. He is giving the Iranian demonstrators the cold shoulder partly because he believes he can deal with Khamenei and persuade him to give up Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The chances of this happening are quite remote. Fundamentally, then, Obama isn’t turning his back on the protestors out of hard-headedness but on account of a gauzy illusion, although one with a realpolitick veneer.
Well it’s not to avoid the playing of the “meddling” card, which the Iranian government has already accused the U.S. of doing. You wonder why Obama, who believes he is some force of revolution himself, would be so resistant in offering at least a kindred spirit of some kind. Maybe the administration feels the revolt is a failure from the beginning, why pour more bad blood on an already testy nuclear problem? Still, Obama runs a Jean Luc Picard school of dealing with international crises.
Obama’s treatment doesn’t do much to dispel the conservative gripe against liberals, that they never met a dictator or dictatorship they didn’t like.
Whatever happens, the lack of international gravitas makes me miss a certain cowboy from Texas. Somehow I feel Bush wouldn’t be giving the same cold shoulder.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
The further we move into this presidency, the more I miss and respect George W. Bush, and his lovely wife. I already respected and supported them while they were serving, and I always thought he was trying to do what he thought was best for our country (and yes, I know he made several mistakes along the way). Now, with this crew running things, I can’t tell their motivations but I do know whatever they do seems to make every situation worse. Lowry’s theory seems to be as good an explanation as any others I have read recently.
I miss Bush too.
BHO will keep fooling around talking everybody to death until someone assassinates the modern equivalent of Archduke Ferdinand and then he’ll be backed into a corner he won’t want to deal with.
GWB would never let this opportunity in Iran pass without laying out some definitive plans in advance.
Interesting. I hadn’t quite worked it out to that point yet, but I can see what you’re saying now that you have.
Despite being pilloried in the press for the press’s own inadequacies and inability to satisfy women, we *are* still following Plan Bush in the Obama administration, they haven’t come up with anything to replace it with.
Granted, there were some mistakes made in the GWB days, but none nearly so bad as the press would have you believe. I often think “Wow, if Gore had won and 9/11 came, we’d be at war with half the freakin’ world now, instead of just 2 countries. What a bargin!”
“Whatever happens, the lack of international gravitas makes me miss a certain cowboy from Texas. Somehow I feel Bush wouldn’t be giving the same cold shoulder.”
That certain cowboy from Texas would do the same thing he did for the Georgians or his father did for the Chinese or Clinton did for the Ugandans. Nothing.
No Fred… he would at least do use the bully pulpit thing — which is important. Out of those two one has actually done something to liberate people. Unlike Bush I and Clinton and apparently Barry O — GW Bush acted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obviously we’re not going to go to war with Russia over Georgia or send troops to China, etc. So your snarkiness is more than a tad unfair. It’s not a zero sum game. There are many ways to support a revolution that don’t involve troops and bombs.
Platitudes don’t stop bullets. If your support doesn’t include troops and bombs, what real difference does it make?
For better or for worse, Bush built a democracy with troops and guns, not a bully pulpit. They didn’t revolt and then we supported; we bought them their freedom. While exporting democracy is not without its own problems, it was at least effective.
What is the best case scenario in Iran? How does that change one way or another with Barry O making a stand?
Encouragement matters a great deal Fred. The other support is under the table — weapons, logistics, etc. Outside guns and bullets aren’t always needed — or maybe they are to some degree.
I think we agree that action needs to be taken it sounds like though — maybe how much is required in relation to Iran. I think there’s a stronger groundswell (hope I should say I have only a few friends with family over there so I won’t claim to have a “feel” for all Iranians) than the Iraqis. We’d already hosed them once after Gulf War I and Saddam more overtly abused his people than the mullahs do… plus Iran is huge and a lot more populous.
I would imagine there are (or would be under Bush) special operators inside Iran giving help if it gets into a hot civil war.
Ask the Polish people if Reagan’s words helped them during the Cold War. Many have said yes.
If words meant nothing, then why did we have “Radio Free Euorpe” all those years?
The best case senario in Iran would be that a more moderate government would evolve. But I am afarid that moderation isn’t a word very well understood in this part of the world.
WE GOT A DEBATE GOIN’ ON!!! YEE-HA!