All Posts Tagged With: "foreign policy"

The Obama administration has begun a 60-day review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, and the outlines of a debate over how to win there are beginning to emerge. At its heart is a familiar question: how do we define success?

Read more…

There are a lot of political incentives for Israel to drop bombs on Palestinians and kill hundreds of them: there’s an Israeli election coming up in February, and Hamas has been firing rockets aimlessly into Israeli territory (killing nobody). There are also a lot of political incentives for Hamas to welcome this bombing: the more brutal Israel becomes, the more radicalized the Palestinian population becomes, and therefore the more supportive of Hamas.

An escalating conflict that kills hundreds (i.e., what’s been going on the past few days) would therefore be unsurprising. That’s obviously not in the best interests of the United States, nor is it in the best interests of the Israeli or Palestinian people. But because the political interests of the Israeli government and Hamas are, in this instance, at odds with the interests of their respective people, it’s unlikely that they will arrive at a peaceful solution. Unless, of course, some influential third party could put pressure on Israel and/or Hamas.

The United States has a great deal of influence over Israel. Israel is bombing Gaza and killing hundreds in a disproportionate response to rocket attacks that have killed nobody. The US could therefore probably prevent a lot of Gazans getting blown up if it told Israel to knock it off. Such a resolution would be in everybody’s best interests.

And yet we’re not doing that.

It’s obviously antisemitic to say this, but it’s almost as though an irrationally pro-Israel group of people – let’s call them a “lobby” – is exerting an undue amount of influence over American political leaders, preventing them from practicing responsible foreign policy.

The New York Times reported today that the Bush administration has since 2004 secretly given broad authority to the military to carry out attacks on al-Qaeda in 15 to 20 countries including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and others. Some thoughts on the implications on American foreign policy follow.

Read more…

So this clip appears to be getting some decent play this morning:

It’s important to be fair-minded about this. As somebody who has bashed this type of questioning in the past, I will continue to bash it now. This is, to an extent, a “gotcha” question designed to create a moment that other networks will play over and over again, and to make Charlie Gibson look smart and tough. It’s a little bit unfair, given that the “Bush Doctrine” isn’t as clearly defined a concept as, say, the Monroe Doctrine. At one point in time, the Bush Doctrine referred to Bush’s statement soon after 9/11 declaring that states which harbor terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves. This is a widely held view across the political spectrum, but when Bush articulated it, many came to refer to it as the “Bush Doctrine.” The other way that term could be interpreted is what Gibson is actually referring to, which is what Bush calls “preemption” but which Gibson more accurately terms “anticipatory self-defense,” stating that if the United States sees a threat coming somewhere down the road, we have the right to attack now.

So okay. It’s kind of an unfair question. But there’s still plenty of reason to be concerned about Palin’s reaction. Palin didn’t respond to the question with a scoff at Gibson’s transparent attempt to trick her, and when she was asked what her interpretation of the term “Bush Doctrine” was, she didn’t say, “Well, it could mean X or it could mean Y and I’m not sure which you’re referring to.” She said, uncertainly, “His world view?” While the question was unfair, the answer still reflected a clear lack of engagement and knowledge. And this isn’t an unimportant issue – it’s not the way Bush failed in 2000 to name the president of a foreign nation, something that genuinely isn’t that big a deal. Not understanding the basic theoretical approaches to foreign policy after 9/11 is a very big deal.

The point was underlined when she finally did articulate an approach, saying that America can act when a strike “is imminent against American people.” There’s nothing wrong with that approach – it’s actually quite sensible. It’s also, however, not the approach George Bush or John McCain takes to the question. Even after it was clearly explained what Gibson meant when he said “Bush doctrine,” she was either incapable of confronting the question or she fundamentally disagrees with the top of the ticket on a critical issue.

This has to be called what it is: an absurd and insane farce. Prescott was right a couple weeks ago to argue that many liberals, myself included, were leaping to judgment about Sarah Palin. This interview may not seal the deal, but it’s a very strong indicator that she is just as unqualified as liberals were always saying. It is alarming to think of her becoming the most powerful person in the world, and conservatives should be honest about that.

“He will not allow the world’s problems to obscure its opportunities.”

This is probably not the most politically effective line in Bill Clinton’s speech (which is pretty great so far), but it is among the most substantively important. We can expand on that in discussion in the comments later, but just throwing it out there for now.

UPDATE: Okay, not just “pretty great.” Fucking amazing. You know, after both Michelle Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s speeches, Keith Olbermann came on the air afterwards and basically foamed at the mouth with how much he loved their speeches. I thought those were both pretty good speeches, but on both occasions I felt like Keith was going overboard. Now I know what he felt like. I have no intelligent commentary at all, and fully welcome mockery from commenters, but ZOMFG THAT WAS SO GREAT!!!!!!

LATER UPDATE: Yglesias comments:

May I just observe that while Barack Obama relies on having well-written speeches to make his oratorical performances impressive, Bill Clinton is just relying on pure skills of awesomeness to make texts that are pretty disjointed on the page seem incredibly compelling.

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: Attackerman says it best:

Shorter WJC: Dear GOP, fuck you. With an HIV carrier. Love, Bill.