|
Wednesday Feb 27, 2008
Center Field: Walk in the footsteps of JFK Posted by Gil Troy
Comments: 12
Clarifying Barack Obama's stance on Israel is secondary to figuring out how he understands the world. As the Obama Phenomenama grows, many who are not completely starry-eyed fear his foreign policy may be too starry-eyed. The 46-year-old senator's foreign policy can best be summarized in two words: "Leave Iraq." Echoing the 1960s' get-out-of-Vietnam movement, this approach risks perpetuating the delusions of the Clinton 1990s he usually rejects, ignoring the ugly realities facing post-9/11 America. As a former community organizer, Obama cares most about domestic issues. His experience overseas is limited - beyond his oft-distorted Indonesian sojourn when young. Like most Ivy League-educated idealistic Americans, he assumes compromises can be found for every foreign conflict, while viewing "evil" as a right-wing Republican spectre not a force in today's world. And considering how high he has soared with his charisma and eloquence, he naturally assumes he can handle any world leader, one on one. : - Rattling the Cage: Islamophobia, Obamophobia The transcripts of his recent speeches and his Obama '08 Web site indicate he and most Democrats prefer ignoring the world beyond America's borders. He even turns most references to Iraq into a domestic critique, lamenting that the money wasted could rebuild America. Such neo-isolationism offers cheap populist applause lines not serious policy analysis. George W. Bush's staggering budget deficits will swallow up any Iraqi war savings. EVEN MORE sobering, Obama most frequently mentions 9/11 by complaining about using it "to scare up votes." This posture blasts President George W. Bush without engaging the Islamist terrorist challenge. In fact, Obama's world rarely links the words "Islam" or "Islamist" with terrorism. In his few major foreign policy addresses during 2007 he preferred affirming the 1.3 billion Muslims' peaceful intentions rather than tackling the challenge the rabid minority of Islamist jihadists pose. In fairness, Hillary Clinton's campaign also downplays the terrorist threat as an ideological challenge, mentioning "terrorists" or "extremists" without acknowledging Islam's centrality in their identities. By contrast, Senator John McCain emphasizes the fight against what he calls "global terrorism and Islamist extremism." On his Web site, in the section "Election 2008: What's at Stake?" the first answer warns, in boldface: "America faces a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists." McCain has other flaws but he recognizes that terrorism cannot be stopped without confronting its underlying ideology. This divide is less about personalities and more about the Republican-Democrat split following Bush's polarizing approach to fighting terrorism. Rather than building on the national consensus forged in the fires of September 11, Bush allowed the war on terror to become a partisan flashpoint. In fairness, Democrats are also guilty, frequently allowing their hatred of Bush to blind them to the Islamist threat. "The villains are no longer the terrorists," New York's Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler claimed at a news conference in 2007. "The villains live in the White House." IF ELECTED president, Barack Obama will have to govern as a muscular moderate not a spineless centrist. He will have to show that behind his fine words and high ideals lies a savvy leader who can fight Islamist terror, Iran's nuclear-driven genocidal aims, North Korea's saber-rattling, Venezuela's anti-Americanism. He will have to repudiate the Clinton administration's delusional holiday from history. He will have to learn from his hero John Kennedy, a Cold Warrior with no illusions about Soviet aggression. At his best, Kennedy understood how to export American values through programs like the Peace Corps while confronting the Soviets when they snuck missiles into Cuba. President Bush recognizes the seriousness of the Islamist threat. His failures to export American ideals or eliminate these serious existential threats, cannot be repaired with a naïve worldview. PRESIDENCIES are full of surprises. Campaigns churn out superficial applause lines not detailed plans candidates follow if elected. But the dangers facing America and all Western democracies, combined with his thin foreign policy resume, make it incumbent on Obama to work harder articulating a sophisticated, realistic foreign policy vision. Michelle Obama's admission that only her husband's success has made her proud of America, makes it even more important for Barack Obama to show he is a tough, proud, patriot who will govern in the assertive but inspirational foreign policy tradition of liberal Democrats such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. Obama should deliver some speeches advocating "tough-minded diplomacy" while addressing America's external challenges more regularly when campaigning. He should remind fellow Bush critics: "Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them." He should reassure his fellow Americans that he knows "The terrorists are at war with us" and "the threat is real." He must reaffirm Americans' historic understanding that "we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground" and that we need not make "a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand." And yes, he should boldly proclaim that "Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us," that America has "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel," that "when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself," and that America needs "to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down." Wouldn't it be great, if he sprinkled some Obama rhetorical magic around, saying "We will author our own story," rather than being defined by our enemies. Actually, all these quotations came from speeches Obama delivered in 2007. Obama has written the right lyrics to a strong, effective foreign policy song. Will he showcase them when campaigning? And if he becomes president will he turn them from beautiful words to guiding principles, from political postures to effective policies? The writer is professor of history at McGill University. He is the author of Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today. His book Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents will be published in the spring.
1 |
Gene Germany,
Thursday Feb 28, 2008
It would be great if Barack Obama would perform the items in the column, but, I would not advise anyone to count on this happening. From his voting record to his speechs to get the votes I have found nothing that solid. He seems to vote as Present on the majority of the issues, speaks about change without giving a clear road to make change happen, says he wants to negoitiate with foreign leaders who wish to see America destroyed, has foreign affair advisors who are soft. Clearly he is intelligent, but, intelligence alone does not make a leader.
2 |
Michael from NYC,
Friday Feb 29, 2008
Only Barack Obama can restore the international credibility that the United States needs so badly which would help Israel.
3 |
Richard from Massachusetts,
Saturday Mar 01, 2008
Barak Obama is a work in progress as a potential president. That is why he is so unsatisfying sometimes. The hardheaded debate of the real world will only occur when he opposes John McCain, who will surely take the foreign policy debate to Obama. Then we will hear what Obama has to say and see how realistic and brave his worldvision is. Thank you for your comments, more helpful than most of what I hear and read here.
4 |
Clive Bowman/ Australia,
Saturday Mar 01, 2008
Obama has a 100% voting record on israel. this is a much better record than shimon peres and ehud barak have. Now what do you have to say?
5 |
G. Miner,
Saturday Mar 01, 2008
I think it should be noted that the right wing idealogues are using support for Israel as a method to distort and undermine Obama's candidacy. This makes Israel a "pawn in their game." Is the goal to perpetuate conflict or to find solutions that we can live with? Obama has and will stand for human rights. He is not some kind of dreamer, but a tough competitor with a soul.
6 |
Angela.....USA,
Sunday Mar 02, 2008
Hoping and praying G-d will turn the tide. Obama is not what the US needs. This election is sad. I almost wish Bush could hang around.
7 |
Gary Gregor,Oregon, USA,
Monday Mar 03, 2008
Democrats are neither guilty nor blind, we are waiting for a president who has eyes open.
8 |
spanky,
Monday Mar 03, 2008
You seem very adament in your use of buzz-words. I think this deters from your argument-- for instance, what exactly is a "muscular moderate" as opposed to a "spineless centrist"-- these just seem like illiterative mumbo-jumbo.
9 |
Adrian, Seattle, USA,
Tuesday Mar 04, 2008
Ha! Angela wishes the Bush 'n Cheney show would play a little longer! Yes, let's prolong the nightmare! We need more "realists" and "pragmatists" in the U.S. and Israel like these two deluded disasters. Look how successful they've been! The real "holiday from history" has occurred under their blood-stained tenure. It's time to use both carrot *and* stick with the angry, unruly Islamic world, a relationship tactic most of us learn in our personal lives sometime around our teenage years. Unfortunately for Israel, recent leaders in both the U.S. and Israel are stubbornly immature and have proven incapable of leadership. Change is overdue, and will come. The only question is whether it will be Hillary or Barack. I'm praying for Barack, because his judgment, intellect, and personal integrity are all first-rate. Israel will be best served by a grounded yet visionary inspirer of others with a personal history of straddling class and cultural differences. Go Obama.
10 |
SWADE BOSTON, MA USA,
Tuesday Mar 04, 2008
Check out the article in TIME magazine about experience and US presidents. You would be surprised how some amazing presidents had little experience. A perfect example is FDR, who led the US through the Depression and the majority of WWII. As an American, I feel need to trust our government again. The Bush administration has eroded that. I believe Obama can heal that mistrust. As far as foreign policy and terrorism, he can not do any worse than President Bush. That man rivals Nixon as far as poor presidents go. I have every confidence in Obama.
11 |
Al Tannis,
Wednesday Mar 05, 2008
The next US President must address Israel's anti-Americanism. Israel's brutal treatment of innocent Palestinians is indeed anti-American. America continues to pay for Israel's arrogance, prejudice and abuses. You undermined Arafat by failing to support his fledgling government. Yet your call for free elections brought Hamas to power. I blame America's spineless political leaders and the Pro-Israel Lobby in Washington. In the US, any public statement critical of Israel is considered anti-Semitic. It is time for everything to change. That goes for Israels shameful ways as well.
12 |
A. Goldstein,
Thursday Mar 06, 2008
To #10 re. FDR: yes he led us through WWII and the Depression and for that he's recognized as one of our great Presidents. But it took Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII, two years after Hitlers blitz of Poland. By this time FDR had been in office 9 years!!! Surely enough time for a bright man to have overcome his earlier inexperience and naivite. Perhaps with a clearer understanding of Hitlers true intentions and an earlier strong response to the rearming of Germany, millions of lives could have been saved. Your reference to FDR really only proves the point you are trying to refute. |
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |