Faint Praise
Philip Klein criticises Prof. Bacevich’s article more or less along the same lines that I did earlier this week, but one of his final statements strikes me as wrong:
But more than anything, I think the self-delusion exhibited by Bacevich in his article underscores how formidable Obama can be.
This gives Obama far too much credit. Prof. Bacevich isn’t engaging in any self-delusion. He may be unduly optimistic about Obama’s chances to end the war, but it seems clear that he has come to this position in spite of everything that he knows about Obama. Before he can make the pro-Obama suggestion, he has to remove the traditional resistance to the idea of supporting a Democrat for President, and the main way to do that is to show how the GOP is not only not going to advance the conservative views he has outlined but in many cases will embrace their opposites. As I read Bacevich, Obama becomes just barely tolerable because the GOP has failed so badly and lost all credibility. Bacevich has taken this position with his eyes wide open, so to speak, and does not indulge the comforting falsehoods that Obama channels Burke and the like. That means that Obama’s appeal on the right will probably end up being confined to a very few who are so strongly antiwar that they are simply dead-set against McCain winning and will do what is necessary to prevent that from happening. As the nominating contest itself has shown, there aren’t a lot of these people, and it seems to me that Obama might get about half of them at the most. This is not a measure of how formidable Obama is, but instead it is a measure of how utterly unacceptable McCain is to everyone on the antiwar right and how far some are willing to go to thwart McCain’s ambitions. For some of the reasons Klein outlines, as well as others that I have given before, I cannot bring myself to that point, but I understand that the main reason why some of my colleagues can and have has almost nothing to do with Obama and a great deal to do with McCain.
Yes, I think this sums up my thinking very well.
“But more than anything, I think the self-delusion exhibited by Bacevich in his article underscores how formidable Obama can be.”
I will have to disagree and say that Klein’s statement is spot on. Obama is clearly not a non-interventionist, cheered as loudly for the Israeli assult on Lebanon as anyone on the neo-con right, and has been backing away from a rapid withdrawal from Iraq for a while now. He waives his original opposition to the war in 2002 like a bloody shirt, but that original (correct) judgement seems to have spawned no children, so to speak, as there doesn’t seem to be an armed intervention before (Kosovo) or since (Lebanon or Iran) for which he isn’t enthusiastic. That he has been able to convince a great number of thoughtful people (Prof. Bacevich among them) that the Iraq war will be ending on his watch is a testimony to Obama’s staggering political skill, if not his honesty. I’m not sure why we’re supposed to get so enthusiastic for Obama’s “counter-terrorist” strike force in Iraq as opposed to McCain’s “counter-insurgency” strike force in Iraq. We can quibble about the numbers of troops left, the size and location of the bases etc., but our “footprint” in Iraq is there to stay for a great long while, as the ‘surge’ did its job perfectly (move Iraq off the front pages and convice a large enough plurality of voters that things there are ‘improving’) I think the arguement can be made that a President Obama’s interventionist instincts would be very unlikely to be constrained by a (likely) Democratic congress in 2009 and onward. “Swallow your medicine, at least Obama is not as bad as McCain!” strikes me as a) empirically untrue and b) unlikely to motivate any large number of voters even if it was.
This is not, mind you, an arguement for a McCain vote; just a consideration of how inter-party dynamics are likely to affect foregin policy in the years ahead.
Ah, so do not defend the stay in Iraq policy, just claim Obama holds the same policy.
Sorry, not buyin’ it. You are throwing nothing but squid ink here.
The war party’s hysteria contra Obama is evidence enough for me that he is “less war” than they are. When Obama says we should stay for 100 years, then I will listen. So far, he has not. He will get us out of Iraq and any claim for a remaining force is just a fig leaf to cover his political flank while he does so.
And since when has he backed off leaving Iraq? If anything, he is standing even more firmly on his commitment to get out, pushing up the deadline.
And McCain is not only nuts he is an idiot as evidenced by his latest statement on Iran and Al Quaeda. And this was not a isolated mistake (See Greenwald).
And I can think of no better metaphor than Lieberman whispering in McCain’s ear as what he should be saying, which is actually what took place during his visit to the middle east.
davegnyc,
“And since when has he backed off leaving Iraq? If anything, he is standing even more firmly on his commitment to get out, pushing up the deadline.”
Quite a while ago actually, for those who were paying attention:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
The candidates have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters.
“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.
By that rationale, the candidate himself is throwing “squid ink” with a subtle wink and a nod toward a long term commitment. A lot of people with the ears to listen got that: I’m unsure why you haven’t.
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-s-full-remarks-iraq-and-national-security
“In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.”
Again, as we heard from the Samantha Power, the “16 month drawdown” is simply a best case scenario.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,” she said at one point in the interview.
Power downplayed Obama’s commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings.”
You will remember, of course, that Ms. Power was cashiered for her playground taunting of Sen. Clinton, not for her Kinsley gaffe of admitting that her candidate’s commitment to withdrawal is basically “squid ink”
As I said earlier, I’m not sure why we’re supposed to get so enthusiastic for Obama’s “counter-terrorist†strike force in Iraq as opposed to McCain’s “counter-insurgency†strike force in Iraq. A counter-terror strike force is boots on the ground, logistics, support staff, command-and-control, air support, civil reconstruction teams, etc, all of the actual “stuff” that makes a counter-terrorist operation possible, so you’ll have to forgive me if I choose not to waive the “Obama as Peace Candidate” flag, or participate in the non-distinction that is the counter-terror/counter-insurgency debate. It’s an utter fraud, and you should put down the kool-aid long enough to see it as such.
Repeat after me: “There is NO non-interventionist candidate running, none that will be the next president, none that will disengage us from this mess.”
davegnyc,
The blog ate my (much longer) comment, so I’ll try to breifly recap why I think Bacevich’s article is so much wishful thinking:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html
For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power’s calling Clinton a “monster,” another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,” she said at one point in the interview.
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-s-full-remarks-iraq-and-national-security
” I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.”
My view that Obama’s stated belief that he will end this war is a grotesque fiction is stated by the candidate himself:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/
A ‘Counter-terro” strike force is boots on the ground, logistics, support staff, air support, training, all of the actual, tangible “stuff” that would make such a force possible. If you are willing to hang your hopes on a withdrawal from Iraq by a President Obama, I have some nice ocean-front property here in Ohio to sell you.
Here’s an interesting conundrum …
Obviously all of this kind of analysis represents a very difficult kind of tea leaf reading. But my take, for what it’s worth, is this: both Clinton and Obama (and I am very grudging in giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but her recent policy statement on Iraq, while of a piece with her establishment interventionist thinking, is in stark contrast with McCain’s recent embarrassing statements vis a vis Iraq. I’m increasingly of the opinion that she is on the saner side of the interventionist consensus) would, compared to McCain, conduct a smarter, more informed foreign policy – but in support of essentially the same goals as McCain. That smarter foreign policy, though, would, I am convinced, be less likely to involve more wars.
But there is another side to this. From a non-interventionist perspective, part of me would prefer an incompetent interventionist as president, to a competent one. After all, enough incompetent interventionism and who kknows, the public may finally start to ask some of the relevant questions. Or the army may finally get broken to an extent that intervention options are limited.
But then again, if the incompetence results, in, say, war with Iran … well, you see where I’m going with this. All this may just be a way of saying that McCain, always frightening at some level, is beginning to scare me to the same extent that Guilliani did. I mean, when Joe Lieberman, for goodness sake, seems the voice of reason next to McCain, we are truly living in dangerous times.
On top of all of this, there is, I think, a small hope that Obama’s more interventionist talk is just political pandering to get him elected. I don’t think that that’s likely, but his history is such that that is at least a possibility. With McCain and Clinton, what you see is definitely what you get.
I take all the points above. Obviously, no one needs to persuade me that Obama’s foreign policy is disturbing when it comes to almost everything except Iraq. But if you’re approaching the candidate on a single-issue basis and he has given some reason to think that he will be even marginally better on that one issue, it isn’t “self-delusion” to back the candidate or evidence of the candidate’s skills that you have decided to back him in spite of all his other flaws. When half the “conservative case for Obama” is dedicated to reminding everyone how terrible the GOP is, I think that confirms my point that the case for Obama is based largely on revulsion towards the GOP nominee.
If we judged all of Obama’s statements by the standard that he might be saying them only for political benefit, should that make us more or less confident that he would end the war? When you see how he has voted once in office, his actions don’t suggest someone who is intent on ending the war. He didn’t align himself with Feingold in the Senate. Perhaps he judged that no nationally viable candidate could do that, but that should at least cause people to think twice about how antiwar he really is. His antiwar credentials rest heavily on the speeches that he has given, but when the political pressure was on and he was casting recorded votes on Lebanon we know where he ended up. Clearly, it’s always a gamble–pols make a habit of not living up to what they say they will do, so it’s a calculation everyone has to make: is the chance to end, or at least begin the process of ending, the war worth all the other risks that come with Obama?
“part of me would prefer an incompetent interventionist as president, to a competent one. After all, enough incompetent interventionism and who kknows, the public may finally start to ask some of the relevant questions.”
May the most incompetent SOB win! It is interesting in a “heighten the contradictions” sort of way, but I cannot for the life of me determine which of the 3 major contenders fits the bill…
“Clearly, it’s always a gamble–pols make a habit of not living up to what they say they will do, so it’s a calculation everyone has to make: is the chance to end, or at least begin the process of ending, the war worth all the other risks that come with Obama?”
A few things could/should influence how we view this gamble:
1. Is the likely Democratic Congress more or less likely to heed or fight a Democratic President with regard to Iraq? If, come spring of 2009, the facts on the ground lead a President Obama to declare that the withdrawal of troops cannot proceed according to the schedule he proposed? His (former) advisor Samantha Power seemed to want to clear a little wiggle room for just this possibility. This can be viewed as cautious pragmatism or crass cynicism, depending on your temperment and your view of Obama, but I don’t see a Democratic Congress holding a Democratic president’s feet to the fire on this one.
2. Is the likely Democratic Congress more or less likely to heed a President McCain with regard to Iraq? If (and I think this is likely) the election comes down to who do you trust with Iraq? a large number of low-information voters will go with war-hero McCain, whose son is serving in the Marines in Iraq on the whole warrior caste/who would you rather drink a beer with function, and vote for the man even if they disagree with him on policy. (Shudder)
3. The Chinese stop loaning us the money to pay for Iraq in the first place.
Basically, Obama’s “compasion” led foreign policy will be much more mild and reasonable than McCain empire/Israel led foreign policy. Yeah, you can twist obama’s words to make them sound similar to McCain’s once in a while, but the results will be very different.
Those who care know this and that is why they are fighting so hard against Obama.
The small peace keeping missions of an Obama presidency, while disagreeable, are a whole different animal than the constant drum beat of war, sanctions and isolation (e.g. missile defense in poland) that are the war party’s bread and butter.
I am talking about policy in the Middle East, Russia and South America, where confrontation is the only call in the war party’s playbook.
McCain is currently campaigning in Israel with Joe Lieberman at his side. There are many who think that Lieberman may be his VP or his secretary of defense.
An administration with Lieberman in one of those positions will be vastly different than an Obama administration. There will be MANY more opportunities for dialog under an Obama administration and the priorities will be vastly different.
All you will get from a McCain/Lieberman administration is “we won’t talk to them until the concede XYZ and when sanctions don’t work we need to step up the pressure”.
We will no longer have the WW IV clash of civilizations point of view with an Obama administration.
And everyone understands this. And because they understand this, a McCain victory will be viewed as an endorsement of the “no surrender” foreign policy of McCain/Lieberman. (Although this will be tempered by the massacre in the house and senate that is sure to come).
An Obama victory will be viewed as a complete repudiation of that foreign policy.
Even if there was less difference between the two than you say (which is not true), just the opportunity to rebut McCain based on perception alone is enough to reject a McCain administration wholeheartedly.
And your examples of Obama claiming he will stay in Iraq are weak at best. (And I was well aware of both of those examples so I am listening just fine, thanks).
You are comparing small equivocations about whether obama will get us out against McCain guarantees that we are going to stay and that there will be more wars.
They are not even comparable in my book. And if those are your best examples I am even more convinced than before that the difference between the two candidates is enormous, and that McCain should be opposed at all costs.
And anyone who cares about the well being of the Republican party should also oppose McCain as well. A McCain victory will continue its downward trend in both membership and seats in the various halls of governance in this country.
“Basically, Obama’s “compasion†led foreign policy will be much more mild and reasonable than McCain empire/Israel led foreign policy. Yeah, you can twist obama’s words to make them sound similar to McCain’s once in a while, but the results will be very different.”
Oh Lord, so we can trade “compassionate conservatism” for “compassionate liberalism” with the added bonus that Obama’s interventions are “mild and reasonable” warmongering? Where do I sign up? I thought Obama’s schtick was not just about ending the war, but about ending the mindset that led to it? Or will that nice bit of rhetoric be as non-operative come January 20th 2009 as Ms. Powers states?
“An Obama victory will be viewed as a complete repudiation of that foreign policy.”
Not if he continues that policy, no it won’t. His own words and actions indicate that he will not.
“Even if there was less difference between the two than you say (which is not true), just the opportunity to rebut McCain based on perception alone is enough to reject a McCain administration wholeheartedly.”
That’s it? The opportunity to rebut a perception? How about, I don’t know, the opportunity to stop blundering about the planet trying to fix every unsolvable problem?
davegnyc, I think you are overpersonalizing what is fundamentally a policy dispute. You dislike Lieberman and McCain, (I share this dislike) and so run to their opposition, hoping to find something new, different or better, without ever challenging the interventionist mindset behind Obama’s foreign policy pronouncements and the nucleus of his foreign policy team. If I have, as you claim, twisted his words, perhaps you would be so kind as to educate me on the practical, real world difference between Obama’s counter-terrorism foot-print in Iraq and McCain’s counter-insurgency footprint in Iraq.
“And your examples of Obama claiming he will stay in Iraq are weak at best.”
I agree that it is a weak arguement, but it is Obama’s, not mine, It is his words, from his speech, given yesterday, and the words of his senior foreign policy advisor from a few weeks ago. If you are going to make the arguement that I should discount these words because there is, somewhere, an obvious and blinding truth that Obama will get us out of this mess (for a candidate that has a very meager record to use as a basis for such a judgement) by all means, put the cards on the table with some links so that we can all judge the veracity of these claims.
“And anyone who cares about the well being of the Republican party should also oppose McCain as well. A McCain victory will continue its downward trend in both membership and seats in the various halls of governance in this country.”
On my list of things that I care about, this is somewhere very close to the bottom.
This says it very well:
“The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda†will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV†will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war†offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.â€
This alone, is enough of a reason to vote for Obama.
While there are real concrete difference between Obama and McCain, just the stamp of disapproval on the WW IV crowd that comes from a complete Republican defeat is enough.
The Commentary crowd are worried about Obama. Like many others, they don’t know what to make of him. Msc Boot says:
Here’s the link to Boot, which wouldn’t embed for some reason: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/3018
On the same blog, Jennifer Rubin, who’s often a pretty astute observer of the political horse race, shows that for all Sen. Obama’s ring-kissing, the organized Israel Lobby just doesn’t trust him.
I’ll abandon the air of certainty customary in comboxes, and say don’t yet know what to make of the man. He’s the most complex and interesting political figure we’ve seen in many a year, and I actually like listening to him. The tea leaves , however, are still swirling, and there’s too much cream in the cup to read them.
Cards? Table?
How about this:
Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008
Link
Yeah, there are outs, but half a loaf is much better than none. And once 1/2 come out it will put us within reach of getting out the rest.
And we have this:
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Link
And he has stated elsewhere that he will push this schedule up to 12 months.
Yes, he puts something in about hunting down Al Queada, but this will clearly be a smaller force and Iraq can probably handle Al Queada on their own as they were never welcome there in the past.
You are confusing caveats and much smaller missions with outright promises to do the opposite.
Wonderful. HIstory renders a negative judgement on the Iraq war, meanwhile:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
“Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called “a threat to all of us.”
He is flat out ***telling you*** that the doctrine of preventive war is very much on the table. Again, if there is anyone throwing squid ink, it is your favored candidate.
“While there are real concrete difference between Obama and McCain, just the stamp of disapproval on the WW IV crowd that comes from a complete Republican defeat is enough”
I think the choice for who the next president should be should be governed by a little more that a (understandable and wholly justified) desire to give the middle finger to Bush, his lackeys and all of their malevolent works. What an Obama presidency will do, based on his words, votes, positions, and the words of his closest advisors, is give a bipartisan seal of approval to the same instincts that got us there in the first place.
davegnyc,
This is a dispute between two different camps of the interventionist consensus. Now, many people honestly believe that liberal internationalism is the best foreign policy course for this nation. If that’s what you believe, then by all means support Obama (or Clinton, for that matter). But for a true non-interventionist, it’s hard to get too worked up about what is ultimately a dispute about means rather than ends.
Let’s say that you were an opponent of organized grime in New York a few years ago. If crime families campaigned like politicians, I’m sure that the Gambinos would have some harsh, and very sincere, comments about why they should be favored over, say, the Bonanno family. But an opponent of all organized crime certainly wouldn’t say “you know, the Gambinos are really threatened by th Bonanno family. I guess that’s a good reason tot support the Bonanno family.”
And honestly, given the crime that is U.S. foreign policy, that’s a spot on analogy. I’m going to vote for Obama anyway, because I do think ultimately he will be marginally better, with perhaps a 1% chance of being a LOT better, but I have no illusions that he is anything more than the lesser of two evils on foreign policy.
Recapping what I said earlier:
2. Is the likely Democratic Congress more or less likely to heed a President McCain with regard to Iraq? If (and I think this is likely) the election comes down to who do you trust with Iraq? a large number of low-information voters will go with war-hero McCain, whose son is serving in the Marines in Iraq on the whole warrior caste/who would you rather drink a beer with function, and vote for the man even if they disagree with him on policy. (Shudder)
There seems to be some evidence for this:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror/iraq_five_years_later
Politically, by a wide margin, John McCain is trusted more than either Democrat on National Security. On the narrower topic of Iraq, McCain is also trusted more than either Democrat. However, his advantage is much smaller on that issue.
[...] Faint Praise 19 adam, LMaggitti, adam [...] [...]
a large number of low-information voters will go with war-hero McCain, whose son is serving in the Marines in Iraq on the whole warrior caste/who would you rather drink a beer with function, and vote for the man even if they disagree with him on policy. (Shudder)
That is an arguement as to why McCain will win, not whether you should vote for him.
And to the other poster, yes, Obama has interventionist thoughts, but I think they are an order of magnitude smaller than the Bush/Neocon/McCain ideas.
davegnyc,
I think the crux of our disagreement comes down to this. We have one party fully dedicated to expansionism, hegemony, and imperialism. We need another party dedicated to opposing these things. A liberal hawk approach has been tried before in the 1990′s and has given us the unholy mess that is the new “nation” of Kosovo. I would agree with you that this is a stupidity of a smaller magnitude then the sinkhole that is Iraq, (or rather, than the Russians chose in this instance *not* to make a much bigger deal about it, I recall with horror the memory of Gen. Clark storming into Pristina and damn near starting a fight with the Russian Army) but the instincts behind it remain the same. That is the fatal flaw, I think, in the “half a loaf” approach. Far from a more moderate imperial policy that slowly edges away from these type of interventions, an Obama presidency is simply going to enshrine the principle of intervening when and how our elites wish with both parties. If, as Obama has indicated, he has Is a Democratic majority in congress really going to oppose president Obama from any foreign adventures? No more so than the “left” in general and the Democrats in particular opposed Clinton’s blundering into Kosovo in the 1990′s. The first intervention that comes along (humanitarian or otherwise) Democrats will, overwhelmingly, line up behind their president in the same lock-step rigidity that Republicans now cheer on Bush. As much as I respect Prof. Bacevich, he is offering a forlorn hope, not a plan. I have to decline to agree.