A Unified Theory of Obama

[babylonsister]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/29/a-unified-theory-of-obama.aspx

A Unified Theory of Obama



Reading President Obama's interview with Newsweek, this passage struck me as crucial:

{W}e want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn't produced results in the region.

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

This is, first of all, a persuasive defense of Obama's diplomatic approach. By negotiating, we demonstrate our goodwill, and if it fails the onus of intransigence is shifted onto our adversary. Indeed, diplomatic failure can become a kind of success, allowing us to rally neutral countries to our side.

Second, this also perfectly describes Obama's approach to the Republican Party. He repeatedly demonstrates his goodwill and willingness to negotiate, and if and when Republicans refuse, they pay a heavy penalty in the court of public opinion. Obama's approach to international relations turns out to be identical to his approach to domestic politics. I think we've got a unified theory of Obama.

--Jonathan Chait

[keep_it_real]

1. The international norms and international rules is that:

Sovereign nations build neculier reactors for electricity. Iran is a sovereign nation entitled to build neculier reactors for electricity like any other nation. Who said the U.S. is the god of planet earth that can tell other nation what they can have and not have? This is a none issue. The U.S. should leave Iran alone.

[babylonsister]

2. And you don't live anywhere near Iran. I agree with you that

they should be able to do what they want. But if they do, and are bombed to smithereens, that won't accomplish anything. And there are lots of people willing to do that.

Maybe if they had a sane admin, the topic would be moot. But they don't, and there are warhawks all over the place.

[Cha]

4. Nah, let's keep it real..

Diplomacy is the way to go in such a volatile environment.

Ignore at own peril.

[Cha]

3. This is brilliant and what

should have been done with Iraq. I actually read that sadam had aquiesced to the conditions but they bombed anyway.

[HopeOverFear]

6. re: This is brilliant and what

I actually read that sadam had aquiesced to the conditions but they bombed anyway.

That is fucked up. No wonder the rest of the world hates us. :grr:

[babylonsister]

8. Report: Saddam was willing to leave

http://politicom.moldova.org/news/report-saddam-was-willing-to-leave-73353-eng.html

Report: Saddam was willing to leave
September 28, 2007



The Spanish prime minister reportedly told President George W. Bush before the 2003 Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein would be willing to go into exile.

Hussein wanted to leave Iraq with at least $1 billion and information on weapons of mass destruction, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar described the conditions during a visit to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in February 2003.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe would not comment on the newspaper report, or on the transcript posted on the El Pais Web site, The Washington Post reported.

“We’re more focused on the task at hand than 2003,” Johndroe said.

The transcript has Bush telling Aznar that allowing Hussein to leave voluntarily would save the United States at least $50 billion, an estimate of the cost of the invasion and occupation that has proved to be wildly optimistic.

The meeting was part of the preparation for a final U.N. resolution on Iraq, a process Bush compared to “Chinese water torture.” // Copyright 2007 by United Press International

[Cha]

14. Yeah, so many people died

and were maimed forever because that didn't fit into bushco plans.

[AllentownJake]

5. The one thing I fully agree with him is on how he's handling International Relationships

He is a master at diplomacy.

[WhiteTara]

7. publicans have NO shame

they will do anything, say anything.

[autorank]

9. This is a good piece

Negotiating is far more intelligent and far stronger than having a violence tantrum, which has been our
policy for too long.

I read this and thought back to the NYT editorial recently - about how we've lost Iran. First of all, it's
not ours to lose but imperial rhetoric dies hard. Second, it's to early to know how effective talking with
them is.

I'm sure one message the supreme leaders over there are getting is "Get rid of the holocaust denier." That
would have much less to do with Israel than it would the ability of any sovereign nation to negotiate with
a lunatic. The current president is a fixture of the larger regime and he has to go. Obama shouldn't ever
have to be at a table with this guy.

[tridim]

10. He's giving peace a chance.

This is exactly what we need to advance humankind.

[depakid]

11. This is an excellent approach to foreign policy

and yet a very naive and ineffective one on most domestic matters.

Obama's about to face the biggest test of his life since the bar exam with the publi health care option.

And if he follows this strategy- going along to get along rather than standing toe toe and fighting, he will fail, as will the resultant policy.

[babylonsister]

12. I knew you wouldn't disappoint, depakid.

This thread is about his trip overseas next week, k? Thanks.

[depakid]

13. Why, because I give an honest take that cheerleaders don't like?

I think the guy's got the potential to be the greatest president in terms of foreign policy that the country's ever has. Conversly, I also think he has the potential per this sort inclination for mediocracy or failure on many domestic issues.

Much like Clinton was.

[babylonsister]

15. No, because you're really great at insinuating the negative into the

positive where Obama is concerned. :boring:

[depakid]

16. I was simply commenting on the OP's "theory of everything"

and finding the pattern to be dysgfnctional- which it is.

Sorry that you find critical thought to be somehow "negative."

I guess we'll see if the pattern bears out or nor over the next 4 months or so.