Advice to Obama: it’s the context, stupid
Karl Rove has some advice for Obama: not all “talks” are created equal.
No doubt Obama’s supporters see his wild whiplashing on whether or not to talk with Iran, and under what conditions such talks might be held, as evidence of his highly nuanced and complex approach to things. Or perhaps they just don’t care to analyze it, because by definition He Who Cannot Be Criticized is always right.
But the rest of us see Obama’s words on the subject as further indication of his fogginess of both mind and will.
Actually, I take the latter word back: Obama’s will seems clear enough. For his entire public life, his thrust has been to become President rather than to actually accomplish anything along the way.
This leaves little time for small details such as, for example, the learning of history. Obama is a word man, and he concentrates on surface similarities that he thinks will sound good to voters. Thus, he cites Nixon’s talking with China as a precedent for his own suggestion for talks (and yes, he originally said without preconditions) with Iran.
But Rove helpfully supplies a bit of context:
I recommend that [Obama] read Henry Kissinger’s book, “The White House Years.” Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.
The Chinese didn’t change because of a presidential visit. In another book, “Diplomacy,” Mr. Kissinger writes that “China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union.” Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.
I am convinced however, that Obama believes the sheer force of his own personality and his kinder, gentler, willingness to talk will be enough to start the process of Iranian change. Or perhaps, if I’m in a more cynical mood, I think he believes voters will buy this notion but has no intention of actually carrying it out. Either way, he signals either his dangerous naivete or his dangerous cynicism.
Why “dangerous?” Because it can only hearten the mullahs to hear him speak this way. And that’s not because they’re so interested in dialogue for dialogue’s sake, either. They would like nothing better than to have a weakling—and yes, an appeaser—in the White House, and that’s what Obama sounds like. If Obama has not read history, be assured the mullahs have.
Not to mention Machiavelli.
As Rove points out, what would ever induce the Iranian leaders to change, as China did? Obama? No; he’s giving them what they want anyway, which is an American withdrawal from Iraq with no preconditions whatsoever.
[NOTE: I have already explored many of the issues inherent in negotiating with the heads of a country such as Iran in my post entitled “Zeno diplomacy.“]
[ADDENDUM: And here’s some further historical context for Obama, this time on JFK’s ill-fated talks with the Soviets.]
Can’t the same be said of Hillary? I can’t recall anything significant that she has done while in the Senate. It was obvious to me from the start that her aim in becoming a Senator was to build a path to the White House. She didn’t seem to care one whit about anything while she was in the Senate.
Certainly it can. But she’s not headed for the nomination.
That American Senator post-Chamberlain who lamented that things could’ve been different if only HE had been able to go talk to Hitler comes to mind. The naivete behind the thinking that a Presidential visit is the precipitator rather than the culmination of diplomacy is stunning. It goes right to Obama’s inexperience, doesn’t it? Yet somehow a giant portion of the Democratic electorate, at any rate, is willing to overlook his dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance just so they can say they elected an African-American.
And incidentally to tar everyone who thinks it’d be a bad idea to elect a person with such unconvincing bona fides with the “racist” brush. I’m dern tired of that. In what way is it “racist” to question the qualifications of a freshman Senator whose pre-Senate experience likewise includes no executive experience, precious little legislative experience, no military experience or experience with the military – who actually presented his experience canvassing as part of his Presidential resume? I question Clinton’s qualifications for the same reasons: no executive experience, short legislative experience, no in-military experience and sum total of with-military experience at the expense of the military, and presenting her experience as First Lady to a President who respected her so little that he – well, we all know what he did – as directly relevant to her ability to lead the only remaining superpower.
Democrats, what the…?! These are the best you can do?
Of course, they could not even try to nominate Joe Lieberman.
It’s worrisome, though not completely horrible, that Barack doesn’t understand history.
It is horrible that Barack is impetuous enough and arrogant enough to cite history without first investigating what he is citing.
It is completely horrible that Barack doesn’t have counselors who would stop him from making recklessly ignorant historical comparisons. If Barack simply had good people around him: much else could be forgiven. Instead, the necessary impression is of historically ignorant ideologues surrounding historically ignorant Barack. And some of that ignorance is about newly minted history.
Extremely newly minted history. History which still has that baby smell.
Richard, I think there is a big difference between Obama and Hillary. Among other things, she saw her charmer of a husband and some pretty experienced Middle East diplomats fail at Camp David. I don’t support Hillary for many reasons, but she knows a lot more about the game of international hardball than Obama. She may not have been at the negotiating tables, but she definitely would have picked up on the atmospherics. During this time, Obama was voting present and being mentored by third-rate Chicago operators.
“They would like nothing better than to have a weakling–and yes, an appeaser–in the White House, and that’s what Obama sounds like.”
History shows Reagan sold the mullahs weapons in exchange for their influence in releasing hostages. If that isn’t appeasement, what is?
Then there was the Beirut bombing, after which Reagan unilaterally surrendered, withdrawing American troops from the region.
Together, these are the two clearest cases of appeasement in our lifetime and they both relate to Iran, as it happens.
If the mullahs are liking Obama, they must of have loved Reagan.
“Amanda”:
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same tired lies over and over again? At least try to come up with some new lies once in a while.
If the mullahs are liking Obama, they must of have loved Reagan.
They didn’t really like him at all. How do you explain that?
If Reagan was so weak, how come he pwn3d your beloved USSR?
I’m sorry the Soviet Union and its founding philosophy ended up on the dungheap of history, but please get over it. We have new challenges now.
“Or perhaps, if I’m in a more cynical mood, I think he believes voters will buy this notion but has no intention of actually carrying it out.”
Ding ding. I don’t know that he even buys this BS. But it plays with the base… who, outside of the SF bay area, probably don’t buy it either.. it’s just an offshoot of a Bush bash (war doesn’t work, talk!).. ahem, unless a democrat is in office and/or used war…
“I am convinced however, that Obama believes the sheer force of his own personality and his kinder, gentler, willingness to talk will be enough to start the process of Iranian change. Or perhaps, if I’m in a more cynical mood, I think he believes voters will buy this notion but has no intention of actually carrying it out.”
Sadly I think he actually believes it. If it were the latter then I wouldn’t be *that* worried about him – that generally means he is willing to learn and change. A poll driven president is pretty much a do nothing president and that is OK with me (I think Hillary and McCain are both of that type – though each have some core believes that are not poll driven).
As is I think he truly expects, just because it is him, that things will go his way. I think he has *always* run on that (see Michelle Obama’s speech about moving goalposts and how he overcame them by being himself) and knows nothing else. It is so clear to him – he will ask the Iranian leaders to talk, he will meet with them, and the shining light of Obama will fall onto them and they will return home and create a paradise. I don’t think he has any real plans past that – talking to them and letting Obamagic work it’s charm.
I’ve like the statement I read some time ago – Obama is a train wreck coming, the question is when will it happen? If elected I think he will fall to pieces when things just don’t suddenly happen because Obama willed them to work that way. However I expect that to happen before the election if for nothing more than once the 527’s get going. He has no plan outside of his Obamagic working it’s charm and were it not for the media loving him it would have failed already.
My question is this: what, exactly, is Obama going to offer the mullahs for their “cooperation” on Middle East issues, and what is he prepared to do to ensure that they hold up their end of the bargain? That’s my main worry. In any negotiations, but especially between nations, nobody who enters into them from a position of weakness is going to win anything that’s even worth the paper it’s written on. Chamberlain certainly didn’t, JFK didn’t, and had to threaten nuclear retaliation to get Khrushchev’s attention, and I doubt Obama would either.