Something for which I am very grateful. Look, for the purposes of analysis I’m taking what these people claim are their beliefs to be their beliefs. Yes, Hitchens could have spent the last eight years lying and we might have no idea how he “really” thinks. He might secretly think Bill Clinton is the greatest man who has ever lived and has been having us on for the better part of two decades. Might his judgement about Obama be mistaken? That is, might Obama be what he would call a “capitulationist”? Anything’s possible, but there’s also no evidence from *anything Obama has ever said* that would lead you to believe that, either. When you put it all together, you get a fairly clear picture.

This is exactly the opposite of random speculation that Obama might be less “pro-Israel” than other pols because poorly-informed supporters want him to be. You can find evidence that Obama holds views not very dissimilar from Hitchens in what Obama has said he believes, while you cannot find evidence that Obama wants to change anything in Israel policy. Unless we assume that everyone is lying at all times (which I suppose would save us all a lot of time), that means that we weigh Hitchens’ support for Obama more than we do the support of someone whose policy ideas Obama has never shown the least sympathy. Looked at another way, it is more significant that Marty Peretz, for example, finds nothing objectionable about Obama than it is that Jeremiah Wright is sympathetic to the Palestinians. We can say that because of Obama’s clear views on this subject. In theory, both Scowcroft and Kagan support McCain, but we know whose views he will tend towards because of McCain’s stated views. In a vacuum, the views of supporters and associates would all be equally meaningless. It is through comparison with the candidate’s views that we get at least some sense of which supporters are more representative of the candidate.

“Obviously, if Hitchens was really interested in the liberation of Iraq back in 2002, he never would have associated with such odious and idiotic crooks as Ahmed Chalabi.”

That doesn’t follow at all, unless you are not using the word liberation ironically. If you mean that no one who desired actual freedom for Iraqis would associate with Ahmed Chalabi, I suppose you have a point, but to be a backer of the officially sanctioned Liberation almost required being chummy with Chalabi. You could hardly turn around back in ’02-’03 without being confronted with a pro-war writer who thought Chalabi was a hero (and later a “hero in error”). There is so much irony in your comment that I can’t get a fix on what you mean.

No worries, it happens to all of us. I appreciate your willingness to engage.

I take your point about foreign policy advisors. I don’t care what Hitchens and Kagan except that they recognize something in Obama’s views that they can live with, and that concerns me because I have perceived the same undesirable elements in his views.

What exactly do you think Hitchens’ options are right now? I see him as having two options: (1) support McCain and curry influence with the loser of the next election, thus cementing your own widely recognized irrelevance or (2) support Obama and hope that gives you some influence getting access to future Obama administration officials. Hitchens has nothing to lose by supporting Obama; therefore, I don’t think his support tells us anything useful.

If you’re correct and Obama has a vast overreaching vision of US FP, then that assessment should be able to stand on its own merits without relying on Hitchens. If you’re not confident that Obama has this vast overreaching vision, then you can’t just presuppose it in order to justify seeing Hitchens’ endorsement as proof. That’s circular logic.

Of course it’s possible that he can have admirers with whom he has no common views

I thought this was a fundamental property of his persona: he says nice, respectful-sounding things about people he disagrees with and they start gushing about how likable and reasonable he is even though he clearly disagrees with them. I mean, haven’t you criticized Obama supporters precisely because they have projected their own beliefs and desires onto him? If you think they’ve done that, why should his nominal detractors be immune from that same effect? I mean, Hitchens has not exactly distinguished himself with critical analysis of other people’s motives, now has he?

Speaking of Israel policy, his admirers run the gamut from Peretz to post-Zionists, but I take the more hawkish ones more seriously because he echoes their views in his own statements.

This sort of thing worries me greatly as well. On the other hand, I really can’t imagine anyone, even a revivified George Washington, getting elected in this country without promising to remain biased towards Israel and without closely clinging to a bunch of pro-Israel advisers. I wish it were otherwise.

I have read his speeches and essays on foreign policy. And by great in this case, I mean vast and overreaching.

But what specifically does vast and overreaching mean? Do you mean Obama is committed to ensuring that the US eliminates all armed conflict on Earth? That the US should comply with the Convention on Genocide? I’m genuinely curious because from what I’ve read, I don’t see this vastness and overreach. But I often miss things. But not usually things that are vast.

How do you know what motivates Hitchens? You’re not inside his head. You seem to have a very great deal of confidence in things that you cannot possibly know.

Obviously Hitchens is jumping on a bandwagon and reasserting his identity as a leftist, but he would not do this if Obama were anything like what his most optimistic admirers believe he will be.

Obviously, if Hitchens was really interested in the liberation of Iraq back in 2002, he never would have associated with such odious and idiotic crooks as Ahmed Chalabi. He wouldn’t have went on and on about how Chalabi was a genuis who would be the savior of his country. Clearly then, we must conclude that Hitchens was not a neoconservative and had no interest in liberating Iraq. Is that right?

Sorry. I wasn’t reading closely enough and I jumped the gun on that one.

I take your point about foreign policy advisors. I don’t care what Hitchens and Kagan think except that they recognize something in Obama’s views that they can live with, and that concerns me because I have perceived the same undesirable elements in his views. If I didn’t see Obama as dangerously interventionist, I suppose I would think nothing of whether other interventionists found his views attractive. Of course it’s possible that he can have admirers with whom he has no common views, but my main criticisms of him have been based on what he has said rather than on what others have said in support of him. Speaking of Israel policy, his admirers run the gamut from Peretz to post-Zionists, but I take the more hawkish ones more seriously because he echoes their views in his own statements. Likewise, I take it more seriously when Hitchens or Kagan or someone like that praises Obama because Obama has already shown sympathies with their policy views.

“What makes you say that his foreign policy vision is so expansive or that the role for America he sees is so great?”

I have read his speeches and essays on foreign policy. And by great in this case, I mean vast and overreaching.

What makes you say that his foreign policy vision is so expansive or that the role for America he sees is so great?

Um, Daniel? When I wrote that it wasn’t easy, I wasn’t talking about Obama at all: I was talking about his foreign policy advisers. The sentence was part of the answer I gave to a question about Obama’s FP advisers and it immediately followed a quote about — you won’t believe this — Obama’s FP advisers. Given all that context I thought my meaning was very clear, but perhaps I was mistaken. You’ve made a very strong counterargument to an argument I never made.

Look, I get that you’re really peeved by the sense that lots of people seem irrationally attached to Obama and seem to be projecting their own wishes onto a guy who just doesn’t share many of their beliefs. I understand that that’s frustrating. But it seems like the frustration has primed you to see that projection in places where it just doesn’t exist.

Most foreign policy staffers and subject matter experts are not politicians. They are not trying to suck up to a local constituency. They work in government service or think tanks and depend on acceptance by a network of people for their continued employment. I agree with your earlier post about how the cocktail circuit metaphor might not make sense for pundits and pols in DC, but I think it does apply (at least a little) to FP staffers. There are a lot more smart people with International Relations degrees floating around DC than there are good government/NGO/think-tank jobs and these people depend on networks of older more senior members of the FP establishment to keep their career going.

The point about Hitchens’ endorsement is that, just as when Robert Kagan cheered on Obama’s early foreign policy speeches, it tells us something about how acceptable they find Obama. They have their own agenda and their own reasons, but it cannot be a good sign that Hitchens and Kagan are comfortable with an Obama administration.

Look, I think we both agree that American policy towards Israel has been…a little biased over the last few decades. Now, there are some real anti-semitic nutjobs who also happen to believe this. Sometimes I see good preceptive columns or editorials written by perfectly decent people explaining problems with our Israel policy. These pieces are often cited by gushing anti-semites. Doesn’t that tell us something? Is it a good sign when crazy nutbags gush about your writings?

Let me put it another way: there are multiple possible explanations for why Hitchens (or Kagan) might endorse Obama. You’ve suggested one explanation: that they recognize that Obama agrees with them. I’ve suggested a bunch more. Can you tell me why your explanation is more likely to be correct than any of the ones I’ve suggested? I don’t see any reason to prefer one explanation over the other, so I’m inclined to say we just don’t know, but please, correct me if I’m wrong.

Finally, why exactly do you care what Hitchens and Kagan think? Do you believe that these are intelligent people who are capable of finely discerning Obama’s FP beliefs better than you are? Do you believe these are men of sound judgment and discernment, men who are serious intellectuals? Do you really think that Kagan, one of McCain’s FP supporters and the man who claimed that there was nothing wrong with Palin’s knowledge of foreign affairs is a trustworthy guide on any complex issue?

If he were what many of his supporters want him to be, they would be declaring endless resistance against him; Hitchens certainly wouldn’t endorse him if he believed him to be what he calls a “capitulationist” (a.k.a., a sane person who does not want endless war). Obviously Hitchens is jumping on a bandwagon and reasserting his identity as a leftist, but he would not do this if Obama were anything like what his most optimistic admirers believe he will be.

In Hyde Park it was, and that’s where Obama was. It was not only easy, it was politically necessary. Normally, I wouldn’t care, but I am so tired of hearing about Obama’s courageous dissent. He doesn’t do courageous dissent. There are a lot of other things you can say about Obama that are favorable, but courageous dissident is not among them. I get it–he’s a pol, and he wanted to move up in the political world, so as Kass says he “don’t make no waves and don’t back no losers.” That’s why he’s going to be President, and actual dissidents spend their lives out of power. Fine, okay. He is ambitious, and he is achieving his goals–on one level, you can’t deny the accomplishment. Just don’t tell me that he gets some kind of credit for being a courageous dissident.

He came to the right conclusion and gave some of the right reasons, but he did so because he represented an area where antiwar sentiment was overwhelming. What is striking about his antiwar speech, the one he rode all the way to the nomination, was how open he remained to entering into conflicts of all kinds when he deems it smart and prudent. Again, that wouldn’t necessarily be so bad, except that his foreign policy vision is so expansive and the role for America he sees is so great that it worries me.

The point about Hitchens’ endorsement is that, just as when Robert Kagan cheered on Obama’s early foreign policy speeches, it tells us something about how acceptable they find Obama. They have their own agenda and their own reasons, but it cannot be a good sign that Hitchens and Kagan are comfortable with an Obama administration. If he were what many of his supporters want him to be, they would be declaring endless resistance against him; Hitchens certainly wouldn’t endorse him if he believed him to be what he calls a “capitulationist” (a.k.a., a sane person who does not want endless war). Obviously Hitchens is jumping on a bandwagon and reasserting his identity as a leftist, but he would not do this if Obama were anything like what his most optimistic admirers believe he will be.

In the article you cited, I find this paragraph:

Most of them, like the candidate they are working for, distinguished themselves from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy camp by early opposition to the Iraq war. They also tend to be more liberal and to emphasize using the “soft power” of diplomacy and economic aid to try to advance the interests of the United States.

In 2002 and 2003, it wasn’t easy being against the war. People who knew the war was a bad idea and said so at the time seem indisputably better than those too stupid or too craven to go against the grain.

The point I was making by linking the Hitchens endorsement is that neo-conservatives are at least comfortable enough with an Obama presidency to give non-interventionists concern.

Let’s say that Osama endorsed Obama tomorrow. Would you claim that the endorsement proves that radical Islamic terrorists are “comfortable” enought with an Obama Presidency to give Americans concern? I should hope not. Hitchens, like Osama, is an independent actor who endorses for his own reasons that we are not privy to. Maybe Hitchens has seen where the polls are going and has determined that McCain won’t win, so he might as well try to salvage his reputation by slamming the powerless old man on his way down. Or maybe he knows that liberals hate his guts and hopes that by endorsing Obama, he’ll piss off enough of them to help electorally. Only an idiot who was convinced he has god-like power and influence would think that, but that describes Hitchens perfectly. Or maybe he’s decided that neo-con interventionism cannot survive another idiot President: he seems to buy into the Incompetence Dodge, so it would make sense for him to protect his ideology from another idiot President.

There are lots of possible explanations and the one you proffered doesn’t seem any more likely than any of the others. You might have a stronger case if Hitchens had endorsed Obama before the polls indicated that the race was basically over, but he didn’t and you don’t. Even if I thought that Hitchens was convinced that Obama thought just like Hitchens, I wouldn’t be worried: Hitchens is an idiot. He’s consistently wrong on many issues, so why should I trust his assessment of Obama? He did some interesting work before 9/11 reduced him to a frightened child and before alcoholism and ego made him unbearable, but it has been a long time.

“The nature of his advisers suggests he’ll be more amenable to non-violent interactions with the world than either Bush or McCain though.”

So, discount the rhetoric and take exceptional note of the people surrounding them? Would you care to pick out the ones to which I should pay attention?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/politics/18advisers.html

The point I was making by linking the Hitchens endorsement is that neo-conservatives are at least comfortable enough with an Obama presidency to give non-interventionists concern.

The difference between a patriot and a nationalist;

a nationalist says my country right or wrong,

a patriot says my country right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, if wrong, to be put right.

America is a heavily militarized country. I don’t think it is possible for anyone to become President without talking about bombing countries under some circumstances. The reality is that there is no real constituency for electing a President that believes America should not intervene militarily in conflicts around the globe. So Obama, and every other serious candidate, has to talk tough about Iran for example. The question then becomes: does that boilerplate tough talk represent what Obama will actually do in office? I don’t know. All I can do is guess. The nature of his advisers suggests he’ll be more amenable to non-violent interactions with the world than either Bush or McCain though.

If I were Obama, my biggest fear would be Osama releasing one his videotapes to give McCain a boost just before the election. Osama gave Bush that favor after all. Without mouthing the standard tough talk in advance, there’s no way that Obama’s campaign can survive a well timed Osama tape, or, God forbid, a real terrorist attack.

If there is no overlap at all between Obama & the neocons, please explain this…

What is there to explain? Obama did not write that article. No one affiliated with his campaign wrote that article. If some lunatic anti-semite talks about how great Obama is, does that make Obama a lunatic anti-semite?

My Star Wars quote was just me being snarky. And if Iraq was supposed to be a successful demonstration to strike fear and terror (shock & awe?) into the hearts of Islamists everywhere, what has it actually demonstrated? From my perspective, it shows that a bunch of illiterate fellahin with improvised bombs can tie down and bleed the world’s “indispensable nation” with impunity for half a decade and counting.

“but surely Saddam’s brazen flouting of his own instrument of surrender had some relevance.”

Saddam flouted provisions of the cease-fire quite often, but it is the duty of statesmen to put threats in their proper perspective: one could make the argument that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we simply had much bigger fish to fry, and that the Ba’athist regime was something of a back-burner problem best left until we had brought Afghanistan under some semblence of control?

Mithras,

” I am puzzled by the assertion that his objectives are the same as the necons’. Obama has discussed the limits of U.S. military power, and indicated he believes that diplomacy and soft power can be much more effective in many cases.”

I’m not sure anyone is claiming that his objectives are the “same” as the neocons, but he is very firmly within the liberal internationalist tradition (the same tradition that gave us Kosovo) that does share a lot of assumptions with neoconservatism, not least of which is “bomb first, ask questions later”

Obama is (rhetorically at least) more belligerent towards Pakistan than is McCain, has declined to set a date for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq (in one of the primary debates, he wouldn’t guarantee that he would have them all out by 2013). I don’t think that anyone really believes that an Obama administration would be quite as trigger happy as a McCain administration (Obama doesn’t seem to share McCain’s martial zest for war-as-national-redemption), but he has committed himself on many occasions to bombing when, where, and how he sees fit.

If there is no overlap at all between Obama & the neocons, please explain this…

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

In addition to their stated goals, I believe the necons wish to promote conflicts between Islam and the United States that the U.S. can now win, so as to nip in the bud the growth of Muslim political and economic power. They also believe, I think, that such a conflict will have the secondary benefit of creating an atmosphere of permanent crisis in western culture will help slow down the inevitable (they believe) breakdown of a social order that has few shared values. To the extent this view is correct, then the means are the ends. None of these things are goals shared by Obama or almost any other Democrat.