Obama and Foreign Relations
Victor Davis Hanson, a philosopher of international relations from a neoconservative viewpoints, queries if the optimism about Obama and international relations is more hooplah and than reality. Here is an excerpt of his piece:
There is great hope that President-elect
Obama will change the course of U.S. foreign policy, create far greater
goodwill toward America, and thereby ease world tensions. Such optimism
is not based on former Sen. Obama's foreign-policy experience. In
essence, he has none.
Nor does improvement hinge on Obama's
past career in Chicago politics or his U.S. Senate tenure -- the former
was problematic at best, the latter cursory.
Instead, our great expectations derive from four rosy, but heretofore unquestioned assumptions:
1) Most of the current Bush policies are not merely wrong, but inflammatory: ipsis factis
2) Obama's singular eloquence, youth, charisma, and "presence" will win
over the world in the manner it swept the American electorate,
providing a welcome change from the "smoke 'em out" Texas global
turn-off of the past;
3) Obama's exotic name, his
multiracial background, the Muslim faith of his father, and his
dalliance with hard-left politics as a student and community-organizer
will all coalesce to sort of "flip" the image (if not the reality) of
the U.S., as the world's superpower transmogrifies from an oppressive
to a sympathetic international player;
4) The reemergence of
Clintonites such as Hillary, Emanuel, Panetta, Podesta, Susan Rice, and
others will bring back successful advocates of "soft power,"
"multilateralism," and "engagement," who reflect Obama's worldview, but
bring a gritty realism to the implementation of an often heretofore
utopian rhetoric.
What does Hanson think will happen?
All Americans in bipartisan fashion should hope that Obama will get
though successfully the perilous first six months at a time when the
U.S. economy is shaky, the Commander-in-chief unproven, and our enemies
eager to test our president's mettle. Yet I suspect that conservatives
will more likely than liberals forgive the fact that Obama's governance
at times will come to resemble just what he used to caricature in
George W. Bush.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Chris E: I'll concede that Bush's foreign policy appointees were experienced (I was thinking of other Cabinet appointees when I threw that word in: Brown at FEMA, for example). But allowing dogma to rule the first six years of his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) clearly hindered the administration's ability to adjust course when needed, regardless of how one felt about the war in Iraq.
mic: If a Democrat is going to find experienced, qualified, high-level staff, the Clinton is administration is where he's going to have to go. As to the "no executive-level experience," I think that card doesn't play too well at this point. No presidential candidate (outside of someone like George Bush, Sr.) comes in with both (1) foreign policy experience and (2) executive experience. You're either a senator and (maybe) have the former or you're a governor and have the latter. Obama has done about as much as you could expect in terms of (1) showing he's a quick study and (2) making qualified appointments.
Again, there's no panacea here, and I think many on the left will be disappointed with how many decisions Obama makes that are roughly the same as what Bush would do. But the overall approach he's taking is much more likely to lead to competent, and adaptable, decision making--which matters a lot more in the realm of foreign policy than ideology does.
The burning of a flag in Iran with Obama's face on it, is a clear indicator of what the radical Islamic folks think of him. Bottom line from their standpoint is he is Christian and part of the christian empire/world, therefore he is evil and Jihad will continue even to his demise.
Having first hand stories of encounters with some of these folks via interrogation and questioning - they are a stiff-necked people when it comes to Jihad. Look the word up and its true meaning. It is not necessarily just war - it is also a subversive infiltration and implementation of their beliefs and system of law. Look to the UK to get a glimpse of what the rest of the world may look like in the future.
Either way.., God is in control and I will live in any context that He chooses to allow me to live in; but Pres elect Obama would make no more a difference in the world than having Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State will. The image of America is tarnished by our consumerism; our ego; and our stickin our nose in every little skirmish in the world. However, it is also tarnished by a very well oiled multi-billion dollar media machine that is manipulated world wide to make us look like the Evil Empire. When is the last time you heard of an American suicide bombing innocent women and children? When was the last time you heard of an American beheading a person on film to show the family and the world? When was the last time you heard of an American baking a family member for dinner to be served to the other family members as a form of torture to ensure they don't turn away from their beliefs? Let me see....., I can't remember a last time?
It is not just an America problem - it is a world problem; and until something very drastic happens I do not see the radical Islamic world changing it's pattern. I hate to be so pessimistic, because normally I am very optimistic; but this has been going on since 700 A.D. - no?
Thanks for letting me vent.
kylej (1) Out of curiousity (and I seriously am not trying to be vindictive), how is Obama's appointment for the head of the CIA either based on competence or experience?
Jon: Panneta's an outlier in terms of direct intelligence experience. But he certainly knows his way around the federal government. And White House Chiefs of Staff are privy to highest level of national security information.
The bigger issue is adaptability--as opposed to an adherence to dogma. Again, whatever one's political beliefs might be (I bounce back and forth depending on the issue), I think you have to concede that the original set of Bush appointees tended to see the world through a single lens and couldn't adapt to changing circumstances, to the detriment of the country in many policy areas.
Obama’s charisma certainly inspires confidence in his ability to “win over the world”. And frankly, why shouldn’t it? In today’s sound bite\video clip world, charisma can go a long way. It would be foolish however to act as though all Obama has going for him is a nice personality. Obama has clearly laid out his policies, and, although I don’t agree with some of them (regarding morality and ethics), has demonstrated that he is a strong and capable leader.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.