Dan Balz is understandably cautious about the political events of the last week. He has a job to keep.
He understates the effect of these events.
1- Senator Obama has, so far, demonstrated a sure footedness in dealing with overseas situations that has surely disappointed his opponents. It is true that the US military are taking the pictures and they are doing what they normally do which is to release only those photographs that make their guests look good. That is normal, but he is photogenic and benefits thereby.
2- He looks good with the troops and they look comfortable with him. He is a young man. He looks like them, and the basketball thing is helpful. It is true that there are a disproportionate number of African-American soldiers in these pictures. These meetings may be voluntary and limited in possible numbers of invitees. In that context a greater number of Black soldiers at such meetings would be predictable. It is also true that a lot of these meetings are being held in what passes for a rear base environment. American forces are volunteer forces and Blacks opt for enlisted support jobs in disproportionaltely large numbers since they tend (more than others) to see military service as a path for upward social migration. In short, he does not seem to have a problem with soldiers, as some had predicted he might.
3- His stated positions with regard to timetables for; withdrawal from Iraq, reinforcment in Afghanistan and a generally tightened focus on suppresson of takfiri jihadi groups are such that they are likely to bring him more suppport from the general American public than they are likely to lose him on the left of his party.
4- Most importantly, Prime Minister Maliki has disemboweled McCain’s desire to be seen as the strong, wise, soldierly man who knows far better than the upstart Obama what path should be followed in Iraq. In spite of White House efforts to explain what Maliki would have said if he had not been mistranslated, Maliki has insisted that he really does agree with Obama’s goal of getting US combat units out of Iraq by the end of 2010. This leaves McCain in the untenable position of insisting that he knows better than Maliki what is good for Iraq and implicitly that the US will withdraw when it chooses to. Also implicit in McCain’s position is the assumption that Iraq is (and will remain) a base area for a World War waged against militant Islam. Perrino, at the White House, reinforces this notional framework by saying that in siding with Obama, Maliki is merely building a negotiating position. A negotiating position for negotiating with the US for withdrawal of forces from their country? There is a name for that way of thinking. The name is not "alliance building."
It seems to me that all of this has inflicted what should be fatal wounds on McCain’s chance of becoming president. Am I sure that he will not be elected? No. Why? Look at the polls. Given the disastrous situation of the Republican Party, Obama should be polling ahead of McCain everywhere. He is not. Why is that?
Frankly, there are still a lot of people in the US who are very leery of voting for a Black man whom they do not know. That is a sad thing, but true. Blacks know that it is true. Some readers will assume that I write of the South. No. I think Obama will do a lot better here than the pundits believe.
Barack Obama should be very careful in his choice of running mate. He needs someone who will assure all those who are afraid of a leap into an unknown future. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/21/AR2008072102851.html
Col. Lang,
I gather the McCain strategist who’s idea it was to push an Obama trip to Iraq and the Middle East has been fired.
The only question remains is will said strategist be given courtesy compensation by the Obama campaign for creating such a buzz and such a public relations coup.
McCain’s anemic, scattershot and hamhanded campaign is ongoing proof that he’s not ready for prime-time.
-GSD
Col. Lang:
Thank you for the succinct analysis.
As to polling issues if you haven’t seen it you may want to check out http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
The data and data analysis are comprehensive and exhausting to the point that I sometimes feels like it’s telling me more than I want to know. It also includes the Senate races as well as the presidential.
Thanks again for doing Dan Balz’s job for him.
Re national polls: yes, Obama has been maintaining only a small lead over McCain. But it’s important to remember, we don’t have a national election. We have 50 state elections. When you look at the electoral college map, unless something dramatic happens to change it, it looks like a slam dunk (sorry) for the O man.
It’s amusing that McCain dared Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. So he went, he’s getting all this good press, and all McCain can do is whine about it (when he’s not riding around in a golf cart with Papa Bush).
Aggie
A knowledge of politics is good.
“Political Science” is crap and a pseudo science that seeks to explain real world data in terms of phony models that seek universal behavior in specific circumstance.
This opinion is nothing new for me. I have never had any use for Political Science as a discipline. It is of ZERO value, no, it is of negative value in forecasting developments in non-European cultures.
Burn those diplomas and learn something useful, and not destructive. pl
Col Lang,
Reasons for close polling- I think the FISA vote and his AIPAC suck up has tarnished him with a large number of voters. “Change we can believe in”, horse balls. People want specifics, they aren’t going to go for the guy you want to have a beer with again.
No mater what Obama does, the amount of small money donations he has raised shows that the country will vote progressive and the screwed are going to elect and agitate for progressive policies and and a return to rule of law. Unless, that is, there isn’t another staged “terrorist” attack between now and election day.I don’t believe the Bushscum are going to go quietly.
Buzz Meeks
We could do worse than to disregard polls. Polls unfavorable to Obama should drive his supporters towards greater effort. This election is very important. Its importance shows up daily in McCain’s campaign blunders. I do not believe democracy can withstand four more years of W. with its permanent campaign mode, it theory of the Unitary Executive, and control over Supreme Court appointments. Vote and vote often.
Barack Obama should be very careful in his choice of running mate. He needs someone who will assure all those who are afraid of a leap into an unknown future. Chuck Hagel?
Col. Lang wrote:
“”Political Science” is crap and a pseudo science that seeks to explain real world data in terms of phony models that seek universal behavior in specific circumstance … It is of ZERO value….”
Colonel:
Seems to me you’re right in the sense that it should be named Political Art or Political Theory. But would you then also agree there’s no such thing as “Military Science”? Seems to me that too fits your definition as “models that seek universal behavior in specific circumstance[s],” doesn’t it?
Cheers,
Might not Sam Nunn be rather a good choice as a running mate?
“Burn those diplomas and learn something useful, and not destructive.”
Amen!
Col. Lang,
Given your views on political science, I take it you do not have a very good opinion of Marc Lynch?
Too soon to predict but it will be interesting to see if enlisted ranks deployed outside CONUS get the chance to exercise their right to vote. After all Lincoln v. McClellan in 1864 did manage to allow th troops to exercise their rights. Hope so whatever the outcome! I don’t have current figures but believe military minority percentages are actually in decline over previous totals. Joining the military not viewed as PC in many minority circles. Oddly service academy minority enrollments way up particularly if you include Asian-Americans. Would be an interesting breakdown to see percentages of all ranks that are minority in all branches of armed forces.
Col: The election will be close. The Bradley Effect is still true. Unlike Colin Powell, among others, Obama is not riding to power on the coattails of a powerful white patron. He is charting his own course. That makes this race more exciting…but also more unpredictable. White Americans (like myself) like to flatter ourselves into thinking that race doesn’t matter that much anymore. We’ll see.
Just for fun, I feel I should defend political science as an academic field. I am not a political scientist. Political science is like Economics. Both are good at analysing the past, but weak on predicting the future. It is like generals wanting to refight the last war. Or forecasting the weather. Politics is what mathematicians call a chaos situation. That is, the number of factors is so great, and their interrelation so complex, that 100% correct prediction is unlikely. Add to that the prejudices of the analyst.
It is true that the last meeting on Iraq that I attended in the company of political scientists, they were unimpressive – and to that extent you are right. My feeling was that it was not difficult to do better. The most distinguished analyst there, who works for a well-known think-tank, was unimpressed by my view that Iraqi nationalism is the most important factor in Iraq today, though it has subsequently been demonstrated in the question of the SOFA, and the oil law. He has subsequently published a widely-diffused article that the Christians are on a come-back in Lebanon. Make of that what you wish.
It’s more a problem with the people, their prejudices and career needs, than the nature of the field itself.
The first two paragraphs of a piece by Bertell Ollman entitled
What Is Political Science? What Should It Be?
Full text available at:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_poly_sci.php
“Political science is governed by five myths: l) that it studies politics; 2) that it is scientific; 3) that it is possible to study politics separated off from economics, sociology, psychology and history; 4) that the state in our democratic capitalist society is politically neutral, that is available as a set of institutions and mechanisms to whatever group wins the election; and 5) that political science, as a discipline, advances the cause of democracy.
“Paradoxically, most political scientists, whose own work embodies at least some of these myths, would probably agree with a lot of the criticism that is implied in characterizing their beliefs as myths. These colleagues simply act as if they are true, because they don’t know what else to do and, in some cases, may be afraid not to. How else understand a poll of 500 political scientists in l964 that showed that two out of three “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that much scholarship in the discipline is “superficial and trivial”, and that concept formation and development is “little more than hair splitting and jargon”? There is no reason to believe that the results today would be any different. There is a deep-going and on-going malaise among political scientists that the self-congratulatory tone of most surveys of our discipline cannot succeed in wishing away. After all, most of us chose this particular subject as graduate students because of a strong interest in politics and with certain big questions to which we hoped to find answers. What happened?
W.H. Auden, in a lecture to Harvard undergraduates:
“Thou shalt not sit with statisticians, nor commit a social science.”
Angry Aggie:
Assuming you are a Texas A & M Aggie…
If I had to deal with Francione as head coach of my college football team, I’d be angry too. But that’s no reason to go the nationalistic, presumably Fred Kagan, route.
Look at this way. Under your nationalistic approach, the Aggies would have to give up all that is unique about the culture of Aggie football and submit to the Texas Longhorn culture. Why? At least right now, the Longhorns have superior football fire power. The Longhorns have for awhile, although I know you guys won last year but, overall, let’s face it. Bleak.
I am sure that studies on Texas football employing the methodology of the political sciences would suggest that the Longhorns are more advanced than that of the Aggies. So under this (Lincoln) approach, everyone should submit to their centralized authority.
And under your approach, the Aggies would have to become Longhorn light. No more 12th man. No more Aggie non scholarship player who participates on kick offs etc. You guys would have to wear Longhorn helmets and similar uniforms.
But I do not subscribe to that point of view. I have much more confidence in the culture of Aggie football. So I prefer the anthropological approach. The Aggie football culture is very unique and has much to contribute. Aggie culture is not the same as Longhorn culture and should develop accordingly.
But I understand you anger towards Francione. And why would you guys give up a solid running attack? Geez…But have confidence in Mark Sherman. Celebrate your Aggie uniqueness and he may lead you guys back. Check out the book, Field of Glory about the tradition and history of Aggie football. That may help you go anthropological. Aggie football is unique. Let’s let it stay that way.
David Habakkuk:
Sam Nunn is tops in my view. His vote on Gulf War I hurt him among Georgia imperialists and there are more than a few, unfortunately. From what I heard, he became disillusioned with Clinton Democrats, so he called it quits. Later became a partner at an Atlanta law firm, King and Spalding (which was somewhat of pipeline to the Bush administration, neocons billing like crazy). He should have chosen Alston and Bird if he wanted to go down that path but that’s just my opinion. He’s a very intelligent man and I sure trust him more than William Ayers.
The pundits say Georgia is a critical swing state. Don’t yet know how much he’d help. Part of the problem is not what people think. It isn’t rural Georgians that are as much of a critical factor as suburban Georgians — the Newt Gingrich crowd — and many of them are corporate transplants with an evangelical strain. Like Newt, I see them as Georgia ersatz but I may be in a “minority”.
Plus, hip Californians — the blush wine crowd — don’t like Sam Nunn, at least based on my empirical evidence. So I don’t know what kind of appeal he’d have nationally. But I have always considered myself a Nunn democrat.
Pat and all,
I found this comment rather telling.
“John McCain has said he will only support a withdrawal based on conditions on the ground… The disposition of a sovereign, democratically elected government is one of the conditions that will be taken into account.”
— Deputy director of communications for the McCain 2008 campaign, Michael Goldfarb.
How magnaminous! The Iraqi’s views will be “taken into acount.”
Italics off.
Re: Obama and the military.
He has proposed 90,000 more GIs, who knows for what ‘project’ … but anyway, the military will grow and people of rank are guaranteed to get promoted in an expanding force.
He wants them to fight another war in Afghanistan even when experts on Afghanistan say more soldiers there is not a solution but will lead to disaster. Some medals for the ranks – what is not like with that.
His general foreign policy seem to be neo-con lite and imperialistic just as Bush’s.
Only come 2009, there will be no money for this. When Obama will have to cut off new F-22, JSF numbers, FCS, new DDG’s the military will not like him anymore …
Italics off.
Just trying to clean it up around here….
Again accusations of racism against those who oppose Obama? Obama has no experience on a national level. His relationship with Tony Rezko alone should send us running in the opposite direction. Haven’t we suffered enough during eight years of Bush without putting another vacuous, corrupt opportunist in the White House?
Pat
Another spot on analysis! This foreign tour with Reed and Hagel in tow will be a home run for him. I think Obama will use the whole package of his prospective team to win over the reluctance to hand power to an unkown black man – VP, State, Defense, Treasury. He will gain rock star status when a million people show up in Berlin as some believe. The media are beginning to lap it up – notice Chris Mathews on Leno. Of course Fox is going to be that lonely outpost.
Obama will never get the Bubba vote even if Jesus Christ is his running mate. In fact I am rather surprised that Charlie Black and the Goon Squad have not been more vigorous in defining Obama. The New Yorker “cartoon” caricature is what I expected them to push ad infinitum.
IMO, Obama does not need the Bubba vote. What he needs are the white soccer moms and dads in big city suburbs in the mid-west and south-east to turnout strong for him. NoVa, Richmond, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, etc. He also needs a strong over performance among Hispanics in the south west and west. The blacks, urban Democrats and college town Democrats and Independents are going to turn out in unprecedented numbers for him. That’s why in the previous thread I predicted he will win in a landslide with over 50.1% of the popular vote and electoral vote wins in many Red states. He’s going to get the popular vote majority through blowout wins in states like my home state of California where people in the most populous districts are determined to repudiate the Bush regime. In states like Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania the race will be very close and turnout in Philly, NoVa, Cleveland will make the difference between win or loss.
The real question in my mind is what kind of administration will we get under a President Obama. Here I predict a very cautious establishment oriented Presidency. He will make the DC conventional wisdom and the Wall Street corporate consensus very proud. He had his Sista Souljah moment with the rabble rousers at the left of his party. Unfortunately it had to do with FISA and the evisceration of the 4th Amendment. So we know he doesn’t much care about that document or the oath he will take. He says he’ll take on the jihadis in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I’m curious what he really plans to do there – boots on the ground or aerial; COIN or something else. In any case OBL may finally have to get back on the run. That’s a good thing, IMO. Less chance for mischief. At the end of the day I am convinced Obama will be in reactive mode throughout his first term. Too many threads are unraveling that have to be sewn together.
There will be no revolution. This is not the second coming of Thomas Jefferson.
I would hope that Americans have had a belly full of entitled sons with the abject failure and destruction planned and overseen by the Bush43 presidency. John McCain is just more of the same. The son of a 4 star admiral, who was son a of a four star admiral, McCain ranked 894th in a graduating class of 899 at Annapolis. It’s reasonable to wonder if a midshipman without his pedigree would have been flunked out.
Barack Obama’s BA from Columbia was in International Affairs. Hmmmm…. Seems he may have been preparing for his intended career.
Of note, Larry Johnson worked from 1978 – 1983 on a PhD in Political Science. I found no indication that he ever completed it. I suppose his career in political disinformation interfered.
Sen Hagel I saw on Sept 12, 2001 on an MSM TV with I believe Sen R. Kerrey, also a military man of great dignity. Sen. Hagel was even tempered, clear, succinct,fearless, compassionate. Do the American people not want someone like that? Or is that too idealistic and ignores the academics’ analyses?
“Frankly, there are still a lot of people in the US who are very leery of voting for a Black man whom they do not know.”
I do not believe that the pecentage of people who think this way is as large as some think. These individuals tend to vote in the opposite party of Obama. Though not all.
Obama is multi-cultural and had a very rich cultural upbringing. Obviously once reaching manhood he gravitated towards the black community,most likely a culture where he felt comfortable. That does not mean he has lost what he learned as a young man. He needs to harp on this more as multi cultural is the future direction of this country.
Obviously he has a lot to prove to win this high office. But to wade through Iraq tossing his own grenades is not going to sit well with the American people eventually. Yes, he has his positions but leave those to be said on American soil. Countering the guy who has performed a few miracles in Iraq just isn’t good taste for me.
Now the way our country is going, come election time I think the crotchity old guy we know may be a better choice than the one we do not know.
It has occurred to me that J.F.K. might have died of old age if his back-up had been someone unpalatable to his mortal enemies. Perhaps, given the obvious danger, Obama should give some thought to the choice of a running-mate as a form of life insurance.
Polling and ‘conventional wisdom’ are no match for the real reason to be concerned about the upcoming election; the real boogeyman is the Republican vote-rigging apparatus, used to maximum effect in 2000-2004 in Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Georgia and Alabama, among others.
I don’t have enough time to post more in-depth on this subject, but will just lay down some key Google search words for others to follow, if they care to learn more:
Diebold, ESS, Urosevich, New Media Communications, Triad, Blackwell, , Rapp, Connell, Rove, Von Spakovsky, Bev Harris, Cliff Arnebeck, Stephen Spoonamore
I think systematic voter fraud is one of the more Jacobin features of the Bush cabal; out there in the open, for all to see. Of course, I may well be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, or not ‘getting over it’, but then again, that’s what the MSM has been saying to people like me since the 2000 election. And 2004.
In response to ritamary and her feelings that those opposed to Obama are not opposed to his skin color but to his lack of experience. I say, give me a break. These same people voted for Bush, who had no experience, and they voted for him for 8 years. The only difference was, dare I say it, his skin color. This is the time for Americans to be color blind. We need a president who is intelligent, articulate and can speak for us not for the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, foreign lobbyists etc.
“Haven’t we suffered enough during eight years of Bush without putting another vacuous, corrupt opportunist in the White House?”
That would be McCain, right?
Mr. Lang:
1) Senator Obama also benefits from the respect shown not just by the troops, in the sense of enlisted and junior officers, but also the respect shown by senior officers as well. It makes him look more presidential – “if they trust him, so should I.”
2) With respect to polls:
http://danieldrezner.com/blog/?p=3860
Thanks
AnonAF
i hope that works, check your close tags!
Bobo….
If the way that McCain has managed his campaign and campaign staff is an indicator of his management abilities, perhaps we’d all be better off if he just sold Bud for his wife …. after all, he does a competent job of barbeque.
So why is CorpsMedia, which for eight years uncritically supported the Bush/Cheney regime, its agenda, its clusterfucks, and its power grabs, now promoting Obama?
I know! They must be trying to make amends, eh?
This is the closest recent thread I can see on this subject – I imagine some of this will reappear as talking points on Fox etc.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16833/israels_view_on_the_us_elections.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Fpodcast
“So why is CorpsMedia, which for eight years uncritically supported the Bush/Cheney regime, its agenda, its clusterfucks, and its power grabs, now promoting Obama?”
Because if the US turns into Thunderdome, its a lot harder to push a society of consumers.
agreed ritamary.
the opposition to the Precious One in the democratic party is not about race at all, but about the Chicago corruption sleaze.
I kind of agree with the PUMAs.
I might not even vote in november.
this from a 32-year voting democrat.
tyler, what is Thunderdome?
Colonel,
now obama is starting to get really really scary with his comments, he’s now calling a nuclear iran a ‘grave threat’. a grave threat to whom is obama referring? is he referring to israel, the same israel that has a nuclear weapons arsenal of 400 plus nuclear weapons, is obama referring to israel that iran is such a grave threat to? or is obama referring to our u.s., where just ‘one’ of our subs could completely kill every living thing in iran, is obama referring to our u.s. that iran is sugh a grave threat?
when was the last time that somebody did a drug test on mr. obama? since when did 3% civilian power production enrichment pose a threat to anybody?
Sure a lot of comments on this subject. Hope this site doesn’t go the way of NoQuarter, because I can’t stand the ritamary crap.
Speaking of smears, there are bound to be more lies than anyone has time to read about Obama. He is a secret muslim, has a forged birth certificate, is more corrupt than any Republican(!), and is also a commie mole!
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/07/who_sent_you_th_1.htm
On the other hand, there are those who think America is doomed with stolen elections (2000 Florida, 2004 Ohio), political persecutions (AL Gov Seigelman), and more war in the near future for private profits (and possibly martial law).
Too bad we live in such interesting times.
Sidney Smith:
The finer points of the complexities of the electoral politics side of this are, as a Brit — and one who has never lived in the States — largely beyond me.
One of the things that really worries me about Obama is his lack of experience in foreign and security policy.
Of course, if experience simply means being locked into a set of triumphalist post-Cold War attitudes, then it is a mixed blessing.
But my strong impression of Nunn is that he has a sharp mind, and applies it.
If I recall right, the Colonel wrote a little white back that Obama needed a Marshall.
I do not know whether there are any George Marshalls to be found in today’s U.S. military.
But I would be much more optimistic about the chances of a President Obama getting the best available military and civilian advice on foreign and security policy issues, if Nunn were at the heart of things.
J,
Seriously, you have a US politician, running for President, in Israel, trying to court Jewish voters in the US. What else did you expect him to say? “Look guys you are over reacting and just trying to keep you military dominance of the Middle East”?
Politics is whatever sits on the other end of idealism and reality. You say what you need to say to get into power. Lets see how grave he thinks the danger is if he wins in Novemebr.
Greg, for those little tizzies of political asthenia ..
These are butched up for use by weight lifters. Too bad. In grandma’s day
they came all scented in a lovely little bottle.
A nice lie-down in a darkened room with a cold compress is reported to also be helpful.
Obama’s trip to Iraq was telling in that he did not genuflect and hold his breathe in the presence of Petraeus. Too bad his Senate colleagues were so deferential to Petraeus last year.
Obama held his ground as to his past statements on the war and the surge. One has to listen closely to Obama’s statements. He rightly pointed that the success of a “non-surge” that he preferred would never be known. The generals who served before Petraeus recommended against the surge because the Iraqis were not up to helping themselves. Apparently they are still not up to the task. Obama is correct in asserting that “we cannot be in Iraq forever”. He also made note that the generals on the ground in Iraq would carry out the mission as set by the CIC should he be elected.
He may understand – better than “John” – that the threat in Iraq is not terrorism but rather sectarian violence. Though I did not see or hear all of his pronouncements, he did not use the word “victory” or utter that other crap about bringing the troops home when ..” we win in Iraq”.
I am of the belief that over time (3 to 5 years) Iraq will be the scene of extreme religious violence. The neocons (Jacobins, the preferred appellation on this site) opened that can of worms and set the table for it. Hopefully by then we will have learned a lesson about invading a sovereign state just for the hell of it.
John McCain has shown himself to be an angry and cranky old man, and he is being poorly served by his handlers. McCain should be advised to be a bit more polite when speaking about the Russians. They are not a hollow force as perceived by a lot people.
Obama’s trip to Iraq was telling in that he did not genuflect and hold his breathe in the presence of Petraeus. Too bad his Senate colleagues were so deferential to Petraeus last year.
Obama held his ground as to his past statements on the war and the surge. One has to listen closely to Obama’s statements. He rightly pointed that the success of a “non-surge” that he preferred would never be known. The generals who served before Petraeus recommended against the surge because the Iraqis were not up to helping themselves. Apparently they are still not up to the task. Obama is correct in asserting that “we cannot be in Iraq forever”. He also made note that the generals on the ground in Iraq would carry out the mission as set by the CIC should he be elected.
He may understand – better than “John” – that the threat in Iraq is not terrorism but rather sectarian violence. Though I did not see or hear all of his pronouncements, he did not use the word “victory” or utter that other crap about bringing the troops home when ..” we win in Iraq”.
I am of the belief that over time (3 to 5 years) Iraq will be the scene of extreme religious violence. The neocons (Jacobins, the preferred appellation on this site) opened that can of worms and set the table for it. Hopefully by then we will have learned a lesson about invading a sovereign state just for the hell of it.
John McCain has shown himself to be an angry and cranky old man, and he is being poorly served by his handlers. Who wants him holding the nuclear football?
grego,
i find no quarter ‘refreshing’ as they are not afraid to wade through all the bullpucky and call a card a card. i see no quarter as a ‘pc free’ environment, unlike so many political blogs on the net (i.e dailykos,etc.).
Ah, David Habakkuk:
You might have missed it but a few threads ago I wondered if we could prevail upon you to give us a tour d’horizon of what’s going on with Brown and Iran and Israel, and Sarkozy too if you’re up on that. Can seem that Brown’s been tacking differently than Blair did, and maybe being a little more independent of Bush.
Also seems interesting that just as Brown and Sarkozy get in office and get comfortable to start asserting themselves Bush all of a sudden appears (*appears*) to be getting more diplomatic on the Iran front.
Hard to get the subtleties of your situation from over here though. So if you’ve got the time, I know I’d sure appreciate the close-up low-down.
Cheers,
J
This is an example of refreshing (particularly the comments):
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-obama-secretly-amish.html
Tom B,
I did notice your earlier query — and the question you raise about whether British and French approaches have changed with the leadership changes, and what impact if any this has on the U.S. approaches to Iran, is a very good one.
The reason I did not pick it up is that I am myself at sea among the complexities involved, and would need to do more digging to give a considered response than I have had time to do.
As to what Brown had to say in Israel, obviously he was failing to confront any of the real problems. In particular, it is no good threatening Iran with ‘growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations’, if those nations do not include China, Russia, and India.
It may simply be that Brown has not faced up to the fundamental problems of an approach to Iran which combines a total absence of carrots with a lack of actually usable sticks — both because of the difficulty of constructing sanctions that bite, and because of the manifold problems with attacking Iran.
The man after all has been continually in high office for more than a decade — he looks dog tired. The political position of his government is collapsing – the Scottish Nationalists have just taken Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats. The economic crisis is palpably worsening. He is unlikely to have had the time or the energy to think through the implications of the failure of the neoconservative project in Iraq.
While he is not, as Blair was, a genuine neoconservative, all his instincts are very strongly Atlanticist. I also think it likely that his professions of affection for Israel should be taken largely at face value — philo-semitism and indeed support for Zionism have been common features of the Calvinist culture in which he was brought up.
But he has immense problems. On the one hand, he has been under immense pressure from the U.S. not to break ranks over Iran. But on the other, the Iraq war was wildly unpopular among large sections of the Labour Party, and any involvement in a U.S. attack on Iran which would cause immense political problems for him.
In addition, whatever nonsense the Telegraph and Spectator crowd may say, I would doubt whether British military planners are any more sanguine about a military attack on Iran than their American counterparts. The position Obama has taken has I think been common enough among them for a long time — that one should get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan.
I think it likely — although I do not know — that many of them share the anxieties expressed in a recent article by Anatol Lieven in the Financial Times, about the danger that an attack on Iran would collapse the Westen position in Afghanistan.
(See http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/britain_must_act_prevent_attack_iran_7492.)
But this also points to dangers from a U.S. point of view. It may be perfectly possible to pressure British governments into toeing the line against domestic opposition. But the long-term price may be a progressive disintegration of Atlanticism in the U.K.
On French security policy, this is I think even more of a labyrinth.
I found an article by Ben Judah in ISN Security Watch helpful.
(See http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19170.)
It contains some interesting comments from Lieven on Sarkozy’s strategy of seeking influence for France through reverse the Gaullist distancing from NATO structures:
‘”The new NATO structures do come with one enormous condition, which is that Russia does not once again become an enemy. If NATO has to plan for the possibility of a war in Ukraine or Georgia, then France’s new forces make no sense at all,” Lieven told ISN Security Watch.
‘”From that point of view, the French approach of selective cooperation with the US, supporting the mission in Afghanistan but opposing US calls for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, does seem logical.”‘
The question of whether the U.S. — and also Britain — are likely to head into a new Cold War with Russia is very hard to call. But it is obviously critical to the choices facing France, as also Germany.
David Habakkuk wrote:
“…I am myself at sea among the complexities involved, and would need to do more digging to give a considered response than I have had time to do.”
Well, sounds to me it’s more a matter of the situation there simply being an inchoate one rather than any deficiency in your consideration. Especially given your noting of how the situation with Russia must be taking up lots of the official Brit and French attention, which is something which barely registers on the radar here and I hadn’t thought of. Very keen.
You oughta just periodically give us a precis like this. Good for perspective.
Thanks, and cheers,