Obama’s Berlin Speech: Arrogant or Case Making?

There is legitimate reason to criticize Senator Obama’s decision to speak in front of some 200,000 people in Berlin yesterday. After all, he carries no official authority to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States. He comes to Berlin as a candidate, not as a president — and yet the spectacle that he and his hosts have jointly created for the purposes of his visit has been nothing short of presidential.

Of course, there are niggling complaints. Ed Morrissey writes that Obama’s choice of the Victory Column over the Brandenburg Gate as the location for his speech was apt to make many Germans uncomfortable because of its association with the Nazi regime. But he also makes the excellent larger point that:

The more basic question is why Obama feels the need to conduct a campaign event among Germans. Meeting with foreign leaders makes sense for a man with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, but that doesn’t require massive rallies among people who aren’t voting in this election. In his rush to look impressive for no one’s purposes but his own, Obama has made himself look ignorant and arrogant all over again.

That’s one way of looking at it. And I can’t deny that Morrissey has a point: Obama has some serious cajones to walk into a foreign city during campaign season and give a speech of such sweeping scope to an audience whose support or lack thereof matters little in terms of votes or even contributions. And if we were living in ordinary times, I’d say that Obama’s behavior in Berlin today was nothing short of inappropriate in the extreme.

But these are not ordinary times.

We’ve spent the past seven and a half years with a president who has arguably squandered more international goodwill than at any other point in our nation’s history. Obama’s candidacy is a near-direct result of George W. Bush’s bungling at a time when the world demanded an adroit diplomat.

This tour abroad is meant to assuage the legitimate concerns of many Americans that a man so young, without any foreign policy experience, can lead the United States and the world through the challenges we now face. McCain argues that his wartime experience and years in the Senate trump Obama’s pretty speechmaking when it comes to our security. This speech was meant to explode that claim.

Today, Obama gave us a taste of how he’d conduct foreign policy. He’d rebuild damaged partnerships and reach out to people all over the world and wage the war of ideas as only an articulate, visionary leader can.

And don’t underestimate the importance of the war of ideas. Because while the role of Commander in Chief of our military is no laughing matter, the United States has always done best in times of peace and in times of war when we’ve lead by holding up the ideals of liberty, democracy and equality for all the world to see.

Obama “Gets an Eyeful” of Acceptance in Iraq

McCain said last week that he expects Obama to get an eyeful in Iraq, including the effectiveness of the surge.

But it looks like Obama’s getting an eyeful of acceptance for his troop withdrawal schedule from the Iraqi government.

I usually have something more insightful to say about stuff like this, but this time, the contradiction says it all: Bush and McCain support staying in Iraq for the sake of staying. Obama proposes leaving and the Iraqi people agree.

Looks like this time around — just like in the runup to the invasion of Iraq — McCain’s experience leaves him on the wrong side of history.

It’s time to give up the ghost, stop wasting time, money and blood in Iraq and bring our people home.

McCain: The Biggest Long-Term Economic Threat to the US is … Terrorism?

The latest issue of Fortune has caused quite a stir in political circles due to some extremely bad judgment on the part of McCain chief strategist Charlie Black. In an article about McCain’s evolution, Black went on the record with reporter David Whitford saying that a terrorist attack on the United States in the coming months would be, “a big advantage to [McCain].”

The stir came not over the content of the revelation — which is painfully obvious — but its source. Chief campaign strategists are not supposed to be quite so forthcoming, especially when it comes to fearmongering tactics that have earned widespread repudiation in recent years.

Still, fearmongering appears to be the only tactic the McCain campaign can come up with at this juncture. In the same issue of Fortune, McCain answered the question, “what do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?” by saying:

I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we’re in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

I suppose that Islamic extremism is also the biggest threat to the environment, to the education of our children, and to our health care system. I’m sure that McCain could find a way to spin them as such, anyway.

I don’t mean to downplay the potential economic impact of another terrorist attack. Such things have tremendous impact on the national psyche, but only because we let them. The only exception would be a nuclear attack, something that Obama has worked tirelessly to prevent via nonproliferation legislation.

But I digress from the economic argument, which is as one blogger put it, “science fiction territory.” The Israelis have to put up with the daily threat of suicide bombers, and yet their economy hums along. Even their war with Hezbollah in 2006 didn’t significantly derail their prosperity.

If politicians stopped talking about another 9/11-style terrorist attack as though it were a catastrophe on the scale of Hiroshima, perhaps our economy wouldn’t go into massive spasms when such things occur. Of course, that would undermine the whole point of McCain’s campaign of fear.

Quick Hit: “Endless War on the Installment Plan”

Great video from MoveOn.org

What Does Al-Sadr’s Bid for Ayatollah Status Mean?

Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has announced that he is returning to his studies in the hopes of becoming an Ayatollah like his father before him. There are two schools of thought on this development:

1. This is a good thing. Al-Sadr wants to become a more contemplative religious scholar and retreat somewhat from political life and violent militia action.
2. This is a terrible thing. Ayatollah status will give Al-Sadr unprecedented political influence and make him too powerful.

Both things are likely true. It’s possible that further religious training will encourage al-Sadr to return to the political process with a greater eye to nuance and less violence. The bottom line is that anything that brings him closer to mainstream politics and away from sectarian violence is good for Iraqi and American interests.

The Immeasurable Threat of Iranian Rubber Boats

I don’t know who this Philip Slater fellow is, but perhaps I should. He observes keenly:

What’s more, those boats are light as a feather. You could put a whole bunch of them in a plane and fly them across the Atlantic, drop them into Chesapeake Bay and they could sneak up the Potomac at night and we could wake up the next morning and find we had an Ayatollah in the White House.

Remember, not to be fearful all the time is anti-American.

Making Sense of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination

Today’s appalling news of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was quite a blow. I’ve been following the news on and off all day through my RSS reader, my Twitter Feed and through conversations with friends abroad.

Let’s get one thing straight: Bhutto was no angel. By many accounts, she was one of the most corrupt leaders ever to rule a South Asian nation. In the National Review’s excellent symposium on the topic, Mansoor Ijaz wrote:

She was a terribly conflicted person who deep in her heart wanted to save Pakistan from its evils, but was unable to put her personal lifestyle choices aside in doing so. And she — God Bless her — married the wrong man.

But despite her personal foibles, her renewed role in Pakistan’s leadership would have been a boon to the interests of the United States and our allies. She was openly pro-Westernization. She promised to allow American troops to look for Bin Laden and his cohorts throughout Pakistan and vowed to combat nuclear proliferation.

When it comes down to it, I think Andrew Sullivan has the best analysis:

Al Qaeda is taking responsibility and they have every reason to hate her, but a little skepticism is always in order, when it comes to their pronouncements. The assassin was a suicide bomber, but he shot her first, and shot her in the neck. If you were part of the military or ISI, it would be in your interest to shoot Bhutto to ensure she was killed and then blow yourself up both to associate the murder with Jihadists outside the military and to destroy the evidence.

Until we know more, it seems to me that al Qaeda’s responsibility is actually the more optimistic scenario. If Islamists within the military or ISI did this, then we have the possibility that this is the beginning of something more ominous than the surface event. The collapse of Pakistan into a Jihadist nuclear power is the great nightmare. Here’s hoping that however grim this news, the worst isn’t yet to come.

Here are some other excellent resources and background on the subject:

• Pakinstani bloggers react
• A great pre-assassination rundown of the situation in Pakistan

No Nukes for Ahmadinejad? Perhaps a Second Look at Iran is Warranted.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that a new National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Iran may have stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. The Iranians continue with uranium enrichment, but this report lends additional nuance to a situation that the Bush White House had hoped to paint as black and white.

Although this NIE may discourage Russia and China from supporting coercive action against Iran, and ultimately set back our short term goals of coercing Iran into ceasing uranium enrichment altogether I think it’s a good thing for the United States. The Iran situation needs to be approached from the standpoint of allowing the Iranians to save face among their people while falling into line with the will of the international community.

This report will force the Bush administration, which likes to act like a bull in a china shop when it comes to dealing with Iran, to take a more nuanced approach to the situation.

What do you guys think?

Glad to See Venezuelans Checking Chavez’s Power. Can We Do That Too, Please?

Hugo Chavez’s power grabs in Venezuela have worried me for some time now. So I’m glad to see the Venezuelan people checking Chavez’s power to run for re-election indefinitely. Term limits help keep presidents from becoming kings.

Hugo Chavez is a lot more like President Bush than he’d care to admit. Like Bush, he wants to get as much power and authority for himself as possible. And like Bush, he will continue to work the system as much as he can. But at least he knows there are limits. At least the Venezuelan people have shown him that they will not tolerate endless abuses of office.

If only the American people would do the same.

Beginning Re-Baathification in Iraq

We all know that the early mismanagement of the American occupation in Iraq hinged on three key mistakes:

1. Purging the government of all Baath party loyalists.
2. Disbanding the Iraqi military.
3. Allowing large-scale looting in the streets.

Now it appears that the Bush administration has made re-integrating Baath loyalists into the Iraqi government. Is it too little too late?

I think so.

Money Quote: Andrew Sullivan on Democracy in Burma

God I love Andrew Sullivan and his readers:

What I find amazing, is the stark contrast between real democracy in action (Burma) and the staged theater in Iraq. For those of us who witnessed Tiananmen and the fall of the Wall…not to mention Ukraine, etc., the lesson is that true democracy is an organic event that arises from the people. It can not be bestowed, bequeathed or imposed.

Money Quote: Einstein on Why Bush’s Iraq Policy Will Never Work

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

LEAVE IRAQ ALONE!

My response to Chris Crocker’s now infamous “LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!” video:

I should note that when I first saw Crocker’s video, I thought he was a complete tool. Then I read Eli Sanders’ piece about him and now I see that his commentary really is important. His compassion for Britney Spears is relevant because he’s persecuted in his small town, and she’s persecuted out there in the world. He knows how she feels. I’ll bet he understands whatever Britney Spears is going through better than she understands it herself.

Chris Crocker should move out of that horrible shit town before it kills him. He should go to the big city and find a man — or a bunch of them — to love and be happy. Use condoms, Chris.

But please let’s not waste any more tears on Britney Spears. I know she’s really imploding right now. I hope she figures her shit out. But there are more important problems in the world. Like what the hell we’re going to do about Iraq.

Iraqi Authorities Rebuke “Trigger Happy” Blackwater Mercenary Force/Praetorian Guard (Updated)

On Sunday, fighting erupted on the streets of Baghdad when a U.S. State Department convoy was attacked when a car bomb went off near a U.S. State department convoy.

The private contractors protecting the convoy opened fire, killing 11 Iraqi civilians and injuring dozens more killing eight and wounding thirteen. The contractors were part of Blackwater USA, a powerful private professional military force. [Update: Blackwater spokespeople say that the convoy was directly attacked while critics claim that the security people involved fired indiscriminately into the crowd. Iraqi security officials say that most of the dead and wounded were bystanders.]

According to the BBC:

Thousands of private security staff are employed by businessmen, journalists and dignitaries in lawless Iraq.

They are often heavily armed, but critics say some are not properly trained - even trigger-happy - and are not accountable except to their employers.

Blackwater is the subject of a recent book by Jeremy Scahil entitled Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Of the book, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote, “Jeremy Scahill’s exposé of the Blackwater mercenary firm forcefully demonstrates the grave dangers of outsourcing the government’s monopoly on the use of force.”

Today, the Iraqi government announced that they have revoked Blackwater’s license to operate within Iraq. And it’s about damn time. When you look at Blackwater’s origins and connections to other groups, you start to see a frightening picture emerging.
Read more

What is the Conservative Perspective on Iraq?

The Southern Avenger thinks that the Iraq war and occupation could not be further from traditional conservative values.

As a “small-c” conservative, who is cautious about using government power to attempt to fix problems and build utopias both here and abroad, I tend to agree. But I approach the situation with a bit more nuance.

In the video, the Southern Avenger lists Republican Ohio Senator Robert Taft’s opposition of the Marshall Plan among key instances of conservative opposition to the “foreign entanglements” that President George Washington once warned against. By lumping opposition to the Marshall Plan in with other conservative arguments against American imperialism, the Avenger overlooks a crucial distinction between WWII and our current crisis in Iraq.
Read more

Is Iraq Making Us Any Safer?

Andrew Sullivan posts an exchange between Gen. Petraeus that cuts through a lot of the spin surrounding the general’s report to Congress.

Whether or not things are going well over there, the question we must be asking ourselves is: are we any safer because of our continued occupation?

If the answer is “no,” it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge.

Amid the Spin and Counter-Spin, Does Anyone Really Know What’s Going on in Iraq?

Both sides of the aisle are chattering so furiously — along almost entirely partisan lines — about what the so-called “Petraus report” means that I have no idea what to think.

The doves accuse the hawks of using weird metrics to measure sectarian violence in the region. The hawks accuse the doves of being unwilling to accept any report of improvement in the region. Both sides seem to have had their talking points written before any of the actual report was delivered.

What’s more, it seems like Gen. Petraus — who is well-regarded and respected in the military community — seems to be being sacrificed on the same altar that claimed the credibility of Colin Powell when he presented the trumped up case for invading Iraq to the United Nations.

In the midst of all this politicking, does anyone really know what’s happening over there? Are we any stronger or weaker than we were six months ago? A year ago? Should we pull out or stay?

Next Page »