Intelligent Diplomacy and Statesmanship- Obama For the Win

jayboat

Banned
Andrew Sullivan sets the neocons' pants on fire with this blog post.

A Neocon Panic

If you believe that the only strategy America can have is bombing, invading and torturing, today's events must be a little disorienting. Here's Goldfarb desperately trying to spin against the administration:

There seems to be real bipartisan support in both the House and Senate for Congressionally-mandated sanctions that are not held hostage to this president's naive focus on diplomatic engagement and the faith this president obviously has in his own powers of persuasion.

Heh. Then this piece of undigested prose from another Kristolite. Jonah Goldberg approvingly reprints the following email:

So let me get this straight, our crack intelligence community knew about this second Iranian nuke plant a year ago (so it couldn't have been that big of secret to begin with) which means our Wonderful and Gracious Dear Leader knew about this second facility and STILL felt the need to reach out to the Iranians as if they were rational actors who could be trusted along with canceling the missle defense site site in Europe?

The sheer simple-minded dumbness of these people never ceases to amaze. Obama has maneuvered these past few months to isolate Iran without seeming to bully or dominate. Because of that, he has a decent chance of getting real sanctions approved by Russia and maybe even China. But this delicate piece of diplomacy and public relations infuriates the unchastened neocon right. They like their foreign policy crude and simplistic and ... well, Cheneyesque. Even after such an approach failed to provide any real results except the occupation of two countries and the nuclear empowerment of North Korea and Iran. Ideology remains entrenched, immune as ever to the facts on the ground.

Obama is more the conservative than they will ever be.

And then he really brings the hammer down with this email from one of his readers in response to the aforementioned blog entry. Neocon Panic indeed.

It must drive them nuts to see a clear, if limited, victory for a strategy that is diametrically opposed to their own. Their ideology being discredited by events, and so they characteristically fall back into blind fits of intransigence, like screaming, foot-stomping children.

That Goldberg emailer fails to see what has happened. Obama has known about this facility from day one. At Cairo, he reached out the Muslim world, undermining the Iranian regime's ability to engage in arm-waving, fear-mongering anti-Americanism. He built himself a triumvirate with Brown and Sarkozy, who actually have an intelligence presence in Iran. He used that presence to build an airtight case. He cut a deal with the Russians. He reached out to Iran, knowing that they would likely reject or ignore his overtures. Then, when Ahmadinejad comes to New York, having to face Western journalists, Obama announces the the existence of the Qom facility, turning the spotlight on Iran when they are unable to hide behind state-controlled media. Obama, cool and calm, pulled off a near-perfect diplomatic pincer.

Finally, after years, we're starting to get somewhere with no threats and no bombs. Like I said, it must drive the neocons nuts. Obama did in eight months what George Bush couldn't do in eight years. How long do you think it will take for Krauthammer find a way to twist this victory into an accusation of naivete?


We know where the naivete exists: among the neocons who predicted an easy, quick victory in Iraq, a country they assured us had no real sectarian tension. I take full responsibility for believing them. But I learned something which they apparently haven't: their claims of hard-headedness are delusional. They don't actually know how the world works. Obama, it seems, may have a better grip.

*

Go ahead and slam me for the cut and paste- it's the truth and all of you know it. Sullivan and his reader just say it a whole lot better than I ever could. Our current president knows how to play the game to win.
 
YEAH RIGHT.

The word intelligent and Obama don't go togeather.

Take away his teleprompter and he is a stammering idiot.
 
Hoorah for the Aloha Kenyan who can relate to Islamics.

We were right to go to Iraq. We are wrong to still be there.

When will Mr. Obama get out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

When will he realize that the backlash against his socialist health care plan will be staggering?

The people who produce in this country are gott-dammed tired of supporting those who do not. The notions of the Michael Moores of the world and the "tax the rich" mentality of the neophyte token prince will drive anybody with the capital to make things happen in this country elsewhere.

But the liberals, neo-socialists and washed up hippies who want a bigger piece of what they do not produce will be here.... taking, taking, taking.... and nobody making anything for them to suckle off of. Those who produce will be gone. And we will have bread lines like every other socialist country.

Obama needs to learn economics fast. And I don't mean Chicago math. ;)

Sorry if this wasn't cut and pasted from somebody who does my thinking for me. :)
 

Attachments

  • dellusionobama2.jpg
    dellusionobama2.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 7
Go ahead and slam me for the cut and paste- it's the truth and all of you know it. Sullivan and his reader just say it a whole lot better than I ever could. Our current president knows how to play the game to win.

Ummm, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's just some guys opinion who gets paid to write it.

I happen to disagree, but that's OK. :) What troubles me is that ,in your mind, that makes me an idiot. :USA::USA::USA:

I'm heading out to go crabbing, before they outlaw it! :D
 
The only flaw in this thinking is that you're assuming Iran will act rationally and in their own best interests.

Iran is much closer in ideology to North Korea than they are to most western nations. Sanctions have had zero effect on N. Korea simply because they're willing to let their population bear the suffering of the effects. Iran had no problem sending hundreds of thousands of barely-armed teenage boys against Iraq's mechanized infantry during the Iran-Iraq war. They won't sweat some UN sanction that inevitably will be back-doored. Keep in mind, we can't stop a ragtag band of gureillas from moving back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan nor have we been all that successful in stemming the flow of war materials into Iraq from Iran. So with no military presense, what are we going to do in an embargo?

Beyond all that, the Russins aren't going to play ball. You can talk about "closer" all you want but it isn't going to happen. They need Iran's money. And when Iran detonates a nuke in Tel Aviv, you can say "well, we almost got there" as the world plunges into a global depression fueled by a "limited" nuclear war centered in the world's energy supply region.

Sometimes shouting "STOP!" works on the bad guys and sometimes you have to shoot them.
 
By the way, GWB didn't bomb Iran. He spent his 8 years working toward a non-military solution. And he had the exact same results as Obama has.

Don't make the mistake of putting a check mark in the win column prematurely.
 
First quarter win predictions are the best ones. :)
Two minutes into the first quarter is even better.

I was absolutely freaking exhausted last night and I had no idea what I posted. It sure cracked me up when I re-discovered it this morning. :D

Good morning Jay! Make it a great day.
(Or, at least wait until someone comes along and re-distributes the great days so that everyone who is entitled to a great day at least has a mediocre one.)
 
Ummm, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it's just some guys opinion who gets paid to write it.

I happen to disagree, but that's OK. :) What troubles me is that ,in your mind, that makes me an idiot. :USA::USA::USA:

I know it's his opinion- I just happen to agree with it. And I don't think you are an idiot because you have a differing point of view than me- misguided maybe :), but not an idiot. :USA:

The only flaw in this thinking is that you're assuming Iran will act rationally and in their own best interests.

Iran is much closer in ideology to North Korea than they are to most western nations. Sanctions have had zero effect on N. Korea simply because they're willing to let their population bear the suffering of the effects. Iran had no problem sending hundreds of thousands of barely-armed teenage boys against Iraq's mechanized infantry during the Iran-Iraq war. They won't sweat some UN sanction that inevitably will be back-doored. Keep in mind, we can't stop a ragtag band of gureillas from moving back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan nor have we been all that successful in stemming the flow of war materials into Iraq from Iran. So with no military presense, what are we going to do in an embargo?

Beyond all that, the Russins aren't going to play ball. You can talk about "closer" all you want but it isn't going to happen. They need Iran's money. And when Iran detonates a nuke in Tel Aviv, you can say "well, we almost got there" as the world plunges into a global depression fueled by a "limited" nuclear war centered in the world's energy supply region.

Sometimes shouting "STOP!" works on the bad guys and sometimes you have to shoot them.

I agree that SOMETIMES the military option is the only answer. But it isn't ALWAYS the answer. And I do not believe there is anything rational about the current Iranian regime. They have been exposed for what they are- in a word, thugs.

Russia may want Iran's money, but that's a very shortsighted plan and Moscow probably knows it better than most of the rest of the world. The Iranian economy is based SOLELY on the price of oil and with the turmoil in that country of late there is much uncertainty for the near-term prospects of stability and sustained viability of the current ruling theocracy. You are ignoring the fact that Iran is on the verge a cosmic change- and not because of anything we have done. The government has completely lost the people because of the recent sham of an election. It will be interesting to see how this plays out- it may be a year, or two... but change is coming to that country.

As far as their nuclear ambitions- it's years away according to some of the experts. My opinion is that there are too many forces (diplomatic and military) aligned against them for it to ever come to fruition. If diplomacy or the impending sea change don't alter their course, the Israelis will do it for them.

But back to the point of this thread- and that is diplomacy and engagement is better than belligerence and alienation.

here's a good overview of the state of the Iranian economy
 
Last edited:
But back to the point of this thread- and that is diplomacy and engagement is better than belligerence and alienation.

Actually, when observed through the lens of literary criticism, the main point seems to be that Obama is better than Bush.

Your author is much more clear that Obama is a winner as opposed to Bush as a loser. He doesn't use the "winner" literary construct to describe diplomacy as much as he does to describe The One. You as well are obviously coming from the position of "Obama as winner" rather than diplomacy as a superior tactic. In your own words (which one needs to refer to the thread title to find) you say "Obama for the win."

I could re-write it for you as a non-partisan endorsement of diplomacy if you would like to see the difference. ;)

Your attempt to spin this as a non-partisan intellectual endorsement of diplomacy is cute, if not accurate. :)
 
Its all theory and reality Jay, in theory if his plan works, everyone is happy, the reality is it wont. same as his goal for the US. you cant legislate people into doing the right thing.
 
I completely agree that wars are hideously expensive, both economically and in human terms.

Iran is controlled by a dictatorship operating under the guise of a theocracy. We're years- decades- away from substantive change in Iran. And I fear that it will get worse before it gets better. Even though they got cheated out of an election, the person they were voting for is a mere figurehead- he works for the mullahs. They can't be voted out. In the meantime, Iran is hurtling headlong towards becoming a nuclear state. The only thing happening swiftly. I hope you're right and I'm wrong- that Iran succedds in a democratic movement. But at the same time I don't think we can sit back and wait for the outcome.

Bombing Iran would have serious and very expensive global consequences. If I had to bet, this one is going to get pushed to the brink. It'll take us dragging Russia to the edge of the abyss and showing them our willingness to make this painful for them. Right now we have conflicting interests with them. We need to take them to that spot where it will be painful for everyone and convince them that we're better able and more willing to take that pain. I know one scenario that can't happen- Iran can't get the bomb. If we have to kill them all, that's just the price.
 
the worlds going to end december 21, 2012... so what does it really matter?? the simple fact about any country in the middle east is that for the last few THOUSAND years, they have been tring to conquer, divide and kill each other...If anyone thinks a few sanctions, or camp david summits, or beers at the whitehouse is going to change that...your high.
 
Its all theory and reality Jay, in theory if his plan works, everyone is happy, the reality is it wont. same as his goal for the US. you cant legislate people into doing the right thing.

The reality is, we don't know yet. If nothing else, this administration has at least one thing going for it the previous admin did not, they listen, change, plan, maybe change some more. That's not an endorsement of them, just and observation that administrations that can move with the flow of changes, recognize what's not working, have a better chance of winning. It Does Not mean they will win.

Learning and improving involve a willingness to admit when something is not working, or even an admission you were wrong. The one serious flaw in Bush's administration, was that they chose one route of ideology, and went with it until the end. Many Dems share this affliction, and is the reason I hope they don't get in either.

We the people would be far better off if we realized that the best solutions are often preceded by one, or even several, failures. We'd be far better off if we continued to look for solutions to new and existing problems, rather than dwell on who caused the last failure.

One thing I've found about solutions, is that they rarely come from one side. Those with fixed ideologies in place to deal with everything, rarely succeed at many things. The way things are run in this country now, we generally have a 50% or less chance of succeeding at having bills or policies that are the best solutions.
 
And then there is always Israel, you know, the one with really good nukes all ready to go? And the one that thinks O doesn't give a crap about them any more. Do you think they will react well because we USED to have a good relationship? When they say "Never Forget" it is backed up with body counts in the MILLIONS. Russia really has no pressing need to stop a small war in the ME, their oil will just rocket in value- WIN for them.
 
Well, if it does occur, even on a limited scale and gas raises to even $4.00 a gallon it will probably kick off a depression, so there is likely to be NO good stock play unless you can sell short. Might be some good money to be made selling small glowing fragments of Iran as Christmas ornaments though :D
 
Back
Top