The conundrum of memory

By Capt. Fogg

Sometimes I get to wondering, sometimes I get confused about what our conservative brethren are trying to tell us. I was reminded recently that my former Republican congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL), amongst others, vociferously  threatened to impeach the president for having provided air traffic control for the UN incursions into Libya; for having exceeded his constitutional authority by arming Syrian rebels. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) back in June of 2013, threatened to impeach President Obama if any U.S. troops are killed in Syria. Is there a relationship between rhetorical amplitude and political passion and the shortness of its half-life?

I ask because currently the same party is chastising him for not having gone into Syria thus allowing ISIS a breeding ground. We need those airstrikes -- why didn't he make those airstrikes? We need airstrikes, says John McCain, in his time-worn tradition of  damning Obama if he does or if he doesn't. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants to commit ground troops. This is all "due to our total inaction. And it's going to be one of the more shameful chapters in American history," says John McCain.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said on Face the Nation that the president's limited foreign policy is no longer acceptable on. I have no idea whether that refers to the nearly a hundred airstrikes the Obama administration has unilaterally launched into Northern Iraq to help the hopelessly rickety and incompetent government Republicans bragged about setting up not long ago, but we can be assured of at least one thing: Republicans will damn him for doing it and damn him for not stepping in earlier back when they were trying to impeach him for it.

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

White Jesus, White Santa: Megyn Kelly nominates herself for title of stupidest person in the world

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, she went there, exposing herself as an ignoramus and, it would seem, a bigot:

On Wednesday night Megyn Kelly declared on her Fox News show that both Santa Claus and Jesus were white. Discussing a piece in Slate by Aisha Harris about a black versus white Santa, Kelly that "just because it makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean it has to change." 

"You know, I've given her her due. Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change," Kelly said. "Jesus was a white man, too. It's like we have, he's a historical figure that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that. How do you revise it in the middle of the legacy in the story and change Santa from white to black?"

Um... no:

Santa Claus can be traced to a real life monk named St. Nicholas who lived in what is today Turkey, according to the History Channel. Jesus Christ was born to a Jewish family around what is now Israel, and his race has long been debated with several scholars saying he likely looked like what many modern day people of Middle Eastern descent look like.

Exactly.

I get that there may be some confusion about Santa Claus, given that he's basically a Dutch cartoon character, but Jesus? Come on. Insofar as he was a real person, the guy was from Judea, basically the present-day West Bank. You know, because that's where Bethlehem is, and he was supposedly born in a manger there. I think the whole "Christ" story is bullshit, but who the hell doesn't know the story of Jesus's birth? Surely "God"-fearing Megyn does.

And, you know, people from that part of the world aren't "white," unless you stupidly think "white" is anything, oh, non-black. But maybe "fact"-based Megyn thinks just that. Or maybe thinks Jesus is the cartoon character of the right-wing Christian imagination.

Whatever the case, she's a fucking moron.

Ali Ezzatyar talking Iran on Al Jazeera

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As some of you may know, one of our contributors at The Reaction is Ali Ezzatyar, a lawyer who is currently the executive director of the Berkeley Program on Entrepreneurship and Democracy in the Middle East. (Yes, he mostly writes about the Middle East for us. His understanding of the region is, needless to say, extensive. For example, back in June he wrote about Turkey's protests and Erdogan's authoritarianism.)

Here is Ali on Al Jazeera America recently discussing the apparent thawing of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the worsening state of the Iranian economy. Suffice it to say, the guy knows what he's talking about.

Two-state solution unlikely anytime soon

By Frank Moraes

I'm very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is such a mess that I rarely hazard an opinion about it. So I was very interested to see an article this morning in Al Jazeera America, Analysis: Israelis Not Ready for Two-State Solution. It is by an Israeli journalist, Dimi Reider, and it is calm—and sad.

His analysis is that the Israeli people are not ready for a two state solution to the conflict. They claim to be for one, but this is mostly just theoretical well wishing. When asked about things like land swaps, which would be necessary for any deal, they disagree. What's more, public opinion goes down the more an actual plan comes into focus. So it really comes down to the fact that the Israeli people would like peace, but they really aren't willing sacrifice anything to get it.

Even worse, Palestinian attacks on Israelis end up hurting the poor almost exclusively, "those who would use public transport and shop in outdoor markets." Thus, the power elite have no reason to want a settlement to the crisis and the poor are angry about the bombings and so become more nationalistic.

The situation on the Palestinian side is far worse. They have largely learned that violence only makes their lives harder. So Palestinian nonviolent protest—never a minor form of political involvement (not that you would know it fromwestern press coverage)—has greatly expanded in recent years. But this puts them in a Catch-22 situation. If they engage in violence, it will make things worse and will not lead to a negotiated settlement. But if they do not engage in violence, there will be no pressure on the Israeli government to do anything and so it will not lead to a negotiated settlement.

Read more »

Pentagon warns against military action in Syria

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it can do any number of things, but there are, as expected, few if any good options if the goal is actually to make a difference in the ongoing civil war:

The Pentagon has provided Congress with its first detailed list of military options to stem the bloody civil war in Syria, suggesting that a campaign to tilt the balance from President Bashar al-Assad to the opposition would be a vast undertaking, costing billions of dollars, and could backfire on the United States. 

Of course, this isn't Rumsfeld's, or Cheney's, Pentagon anymore, and so one must expect it to be a tad more conservative, and realistic, in its outlook and approach to possible military action.

The counter-argument, from neocons as well as from liberal hawks, is that any such risk is worth it, because humanitarianism, or history, or geopolitics, or American hegemony, or whatever. And often I'm sympathetic to the liberal interventionist cause.

But the fact that the Pentagon's assessment of military action is so troubling should give us all pause. As much as we may not like it, there's just no easy way to topple Assad's horrendous regime, and of course no guarantee that its successor would be at all desirable in its own right.

Turkey's protests and Erdogan's authoritarianism: The view from the southeast

By Ali Ezzatyar

Ali Ezzatyar is a lawyer and executive director of the Berkeley Program on Entrepreneurship and Democracy in the Middle East. He is a frequent contributor to The Reaction.

The dust does not seem to be settling at all on protests in Turkey this week. All the while, talk of an "increasingly authoritarian government" and the erosion of democracy has had a particularly ironic resonance for one portion of Turkey’s population: the Kurds. Making up 25 percent of the country and historically estranged from Turkish society, the view from the southeast is one that could benefit outside observers as they try to make sense of transpirings in Istanbul and beyond.

The notion that Turkey is becoming increasingly authoritarian under Erdogan only makes sense if your chronology is a few years long. It is true that, using his democratic mandate, Erdogan has been aggressive in the implementation of his agenda over the last few years with very little effort in the way of consensus building. But in the context of 50 years of Turkish history, the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) represents a step forward both economically and democratically as the rest of the world defines those terms.

The line between a brand of "Kemalist" secularism and democracy is blurred by a large part of last week's bona fide protesters, who likened their Turkish government to that of other deposed dictatorships in the Middle East. The importance of that form of secularism is espoused especially by supporters of Ataturk's Republican People’s Party (CHP), which held a monopoly on power and information in Turkey for most of its history. It is an ultra-secularism that is better described as the separation of church and society, not the separation of church and state, in addition to extreme Turkish nationalism. While the protests do target legitimate shortcomings in the Erdogan government, such as curbs on personal freedom, they are not defined by them. Rather, they are defined by the shift away from a traditional Turkish way of existence, which is uncomfortable for many. The allegations being lobbed against the AKP and Erdogan existed the day they took power.

The Kurdish example helps contextualize the protesters' allegations a bit. Since the founding of the Turkish Republic 90 years ago, Turkey has ceremonially excluded the participation of its openly Kurdish citizens from any aspect of civil society. Dozens of Kurdish parties have been banned from the "democratic" process and elected members of parliament have been jailed for treason for merely speaking Kurdish in parliament. Thousands of Kurdish journalists have been jailed and tortured by successive Turkish governments for writing in Kurdish or on Kurdish issues, with more Kurdish journalists in jail today in Turkey than journalists imprisoned in all of China or Iran. The list of injustices like this against Kurds is long.

Read more »

World leaders should tape this to their walls

By Carl

A Haaretz op-ed opines that Israel should follow Nelson Mandela's lead in trying to come to grips with the Palestinian question:

The first and clearest lesson one can learn from Mandela is that peace is only achievable if the putative peacemakers believe in it. "One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen," Mandela once said. Does Israel's current leadership truly believe in peace? Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett are on record as saying that they don't. Netanyahu maintains that he does, though I can't help looking for the fingers crossed behind his back whenever he says it.

Peace is both an abstract concept – "a winner is a dreamer who never gives up," according to Mandela – and a very finite calculation of profit and loss. Peace means making compromises – and Mandela came perilously close to losing his base of support among South Africa's blacks in compromising to the extent that he did. He was prepared to take significant risks in the interest of peace. Are Israel's leaders prepared to do likewise?

Mandela was able to take risks and make compromises because he believed in what he was doing and he had a clear vision of the South Africa that could emerge. Addressing the court at the conclusion of his trial for treason in 1964, he said: "I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

And there it is: one has to wonder what the Israeli leadership really wants. Hegemony? Over a billion Muslims, most of whom could care less whether Israel lives or dies, and a minority of whom want to destroy that nation?

Mandela did take risks, but then he was willing to lose it all, even after his release from prison, even after his ascendancy to president. He had courage, which Mandela defines as not the absence of fear but the strength to overcome it. It seems odd to me that a nation whose people have courage in boatloads can't bring themselves to use that courage to create a niche for themselves that doesn't involve the constant vigilance of armed forces.

Read more »

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?

Read more »

(Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermines U.S. policy)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obviously, the situation in Syria is awful. According to French newspaper Le Monde, a "merciless war" is being waged on the outskirts of Damascus, with the Assad regime using chemical weapons against the rebels.

And, in general, I'm with the rebels. I'd love to see the Assad regime fall and for the Syrian people to be freed from the shackles of that brutal tyranny.

But the question isn't really which side you're on, because obviously most good and decent people want Assad to go, it's how you most appopriately respond to the current situation with the intent of supporting the rebels' goals.

The first question is easy. The second, not so much.

For warmongering conservatives like John McCain, however, it's always all so simple: Where there's a problem, as in Syria, war is the solution, and when some war isn't enough, more, ever more, is always the answer.

When they're in power, war is what we get. And when they're not, like now, they just won't shut up about it.

Yes, McCain has been leading the charge, directed with vengeful venom against the man who beat him for the presidency in 2008, for the U.S. to step up its support for the Syrian rebels as well as to get more directly involved in the conflict. He even made his way to Syria yesterday, meeting with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, as well as with other rebel leaders.

On the ground yesterday, he was the United States. Or least he and others wanted it to appear that way. "The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time," said Idris. "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

Yes, of course you are, but here's the thing. John McCain is not the president of the United States. And while you may be upset with what you see as lack of support from President Obama, McCain's self-aggrandizing globe-strutting isn't going to help.

Read more »

Should we be taking this Syriasly?

By Carl

It may, in fact, not be the Assad government using chemical weapons. It may actually be the rebels:

Carla del Ponte told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

However, she said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.

This all sounds suspiciously, or eerily, depending on your point of view, like the Hans Blik/Scott Ritter warnings that Saddam Hussein possessed no chemical or biological weapons and that there was no evidence he was even trying to obtain them. In the building drumbeat towards committing war with Syria, including Israeli airstrikes over the weekend, a lone dissenter of not unsubstantial authority and credibility steps forward to try to thwart the onset of war.

Which of course puts Democrats and liberals in a quandary: for the past decade or so, we've been chiding neocons and their fellow travelers about committing what amounts to a war crime, ginning up false charges then invading a sovereign nation that, while her leader may have wished us harm, was in no position to do anything to harm us.

This warning even amps that by one: Blik and Ritter stated Hussein had none. Del Ponte is suggesting the other side is the tyrannical aggressor here.

Long-time readers of my writing know that I stand foursquare against nearly all wars: unless our very existence is threatened or we are under a clear diplomatic mandate (e.g., a pact like NATO – but even then, we ought to be holding back), we should not be committing combat troops anyplace, anytime, anyhow. So it will come as no surprise that I would oppose Barack Obama's potential deployment of troops to Syria.

And yet, I don't envy President Obama's position here between Iraq and a hard case. It's hard to stand idly by, even as a pacifist liberal such as myself, and let citizens of a nation die from attacks by their own government using weapons banned by treaty.

And yet, I'm concerned about where this heads if we do commit troops. After all, there's an uptick in confrontation in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa – some of it involving rival Islamist factions, it seems – that speak to treading very, very carefully.

Which makes del Ponte's report all the more vital for consideration. We clearly should not be treading in a place where both sides "do it." And yet, what happens in Syria might not stay in Syria. It certainly will spill over into Lebanon and Israel, and might spread into Jordan and Iraq. And from there? Who knows.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Here we go

By Carl 

Maybe the Mayans were right after all...

Syrian forces have mixed chemical weapons and added them to bombs in preparation for possible use on President Bashar Assad's own people, Fox News confirms.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News that bombs were loaded with components of sarin gas, a deadly nerve gas. Syrian forces have 60 days to use these bombs until the chemical mixture expires and has to be destroyed.

The nerve agent has been loaded into canisters in aerosol form that can be dropped from planes, Fox said. A Fox reporter spoke with Pentagon officials, who expressed grave concern. Sarin is capable of killing many people in a short time. There is no antidote.

Earlier, Fox reported that U.S. troops were deploying to the Syrian border for defensive purposes.

Any solution to the Syrian conflict that comes before sarin is deployed will be tricky, and the pressure to deploy sarin has been anted up as rebels continue to advance on Damascus.

Already, Russia has warned Turkey about meddling in the internal politics of Syria, a major arms purchaser from Russia. Those differences have been papered over in recent days, but the use of sarin gas would cast a whole new light on the tenuous agreement.

Read more »

Occam's Razor

By Carl 

The simplest solution that covers all foreseeable contingencies is usually correct. 

Right? 

The two-state solution is supported by all the major international players, including the US, the UN, the EU, and the 22 countries of the Arab League. It's also, officially at least, the stated policy of the current Israeli government and the internationally recognised Palestinian leadership. 

What's more, it's repeatedly been backed in principle by majorities of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.

When the sides last sat down to try and reach a deal – at Annapolis in 2007 – their respective proposals turned out to be surprisingly close (take a look here and here). In fact on the issue of borders they were able to agree on how to divide all but around 250 square kilometres of land – or 1 per cent of the total area of Israel-Palestine.

These facts need pointing out because Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the conflict is "insoluble", and that aiming for two states is unrealistic. 

250 square kilometres. Say, you know what might work there? How about calling it, ohhhhh, I don't know... a de-militarized zone? An international city-state? You know, a solution nobody likes and therefore is perfect in keeping everyone honest. We can freeze populations in those regions at some agreed-upon point in time and be done with it. Throw some UN peacekeeping forces in there just to keep a presence.

So why is this so difficult, apart from Netanyahu's intransigence? Granted, the division of Palestine into two non-contiguous states is a bit of a hang up, but it's not like we don't have nations made up of physical islands, so how hard is it to have one made up of political ones?

Read more »

Obama achieves ceasefire in Gaza; Republicans still complain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian [Foreign] Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr today announced a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, ending eight days of violence that resulted in nearly 150 dead and more wounded. President Obama dispatched Clinton to the region yesterday and the nation's top diplomat traveled to Jerusalem and Cairo today to help facilitate the deal. 

But in a statement on the Gaza ceasefire today, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) — one day after intelligence officials debunked their attacks on the Obama administration over Benghazi — didn't have any kind words for the president and his team. In fact, the new "Three Amigos" attacked Obama, saying there needs to be "smarter American leadership" in the Middle East. 

Yes, why the hell won't he launch an attack on Iran?! Who the hell does he think he is?!

These clowns are so partisan and so desperate that they can't even give credit where credit is due if it involves the president.

Their interests are their own, not the country's, and with the world looking to the U.S. for leadership (and getting it) in the middle of a bloody powder keg, and with peace a tenuous hope but now, thanks to that leadership, a serious possibility, their comments aren't just stupid, they're foolish, counter-productive, and downright dangerous.

This is a time when unity behind the president, along with the presentation of such unity to the world and especially to the various elements in the Middle East, would go a long way towards resolving this crisis. But that's obviously too much to ask of Republicans these days.

Niall Ferguson says Obama wants war

By Frank Moraes

I have long thought that Niall Ferguson was an idiot, but I think that may be the wrong way to think about him. Ferguson is just evil.

I understand being partisan. I certainly am. But to be only partisan is to be only interested in power. Yesterday, Ferguson has wrote an article over at The Daily Beast called "Niall Ferguson on Obama's Possible Mideast Surprise." His argument is that Obama is down in the polls and that he will try some kind of "October Surprise," or a "Wag the Dog" move.

Let's just step back from this for a moment. In what universe is Obama losing in the polls? In the conservative media bubble, of course! In the real world, the national polls show Romney very slightly ahead of Obama. But more important, the national polls mean absolutely, positively nothing. We elect presidents based upon the electoral college, and in that contest, President Obama is and has been the likely winner for months.

In an attempt to mollify conservatives, their own personal alternative media are providing lots of articles to sooth them so they won't fall into a funk and end up missing the election. Typical of this is Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard who claims that Romney is doing really well with the "independent" voters and this will prove decisive. You know what I think of this kind of wishful thinking: it is more wishful than thinking. But this kind of thinking is all over. Brendan Nyhan at the Columbia Journalism Review writes about this in "The momentum behind a misleading narrative." Basically, Romney gained in the week before and the week after the first debate. And that's it. There is no miracle on the horizon.

But Niall Ferguson thinks there is and he thinks that the Obama campaign thinks the same thing. What will they do? Don't worry: Ferguson has a thought. Obama will tell Israel to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. This makes sense from a Republican standpoint: it is just the way they roll; since they will do anything for power, everyone else must act the same way. But with a clear-eyed view of the real world this is nonsense. Would the president really start a war just to win re-election? A democratic president, that is? And if he did, would the people really believe that it wasn't an act of political desperation? After all, why not wait another week and do it after the election? And who, other than wackjob conservatives like Ferguson, wants a war with Iran? It is a ridiculous idea: Obama weighing his choices, "Should I work on getting out the vote or just start a war with Iran? It's such a tough choice!"

Ferguson isn't calling for war explicitly, of course. He is calling for Israeli strikes on Iran's alleged nuclear laboratories. But this is the same as calling for war. This is, in fact, an act of war. And having Israel start it would not make it any less our war.

Hopefully with Newsweek breaking away from The Daily Beast I won't have to read Ferguson again. But I fear I am being far more wishful than even the conservative poll watchers.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Romney will take us to war

By tmcbpatriot

Terrorism

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): "In the 2000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. And that means a strong military. I will not cut our military budget."

Al Gore, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we're gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction."

George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 (Debate #2): "We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."

——

Keepin' the Peace. (Heh. Heh. Heh.)

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): Let me -- let me step back and talk about what I think our mission has to be in the Middle East, and even more broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more -- is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends... I want to have the military keeping the peace... This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace."

——

Strengthening Our Military

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): "We don't want to get drawn into a military conflict... I do not want to see a military involvement on the part of -- of our -- of our troops. We need to have as well a strong military. Our military is second to none in the world."

"We're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. But the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that."

"And our military -- we've got to strengthen our military long-term."

"Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people. And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is -- is -- is making our future less certain and less secure. I won't do it. And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been -- had been tried to their full extent."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place."

"I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace."

——

Don't vote for this guy, America. You've been warned. Don't be stupid. Okay?

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)

The big gaffe: Mitt Romney doesn't know geography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This wasn't widely discussed last night, but it was a major gaffe, and it's one Romney keeps making:

During the debate [last night], Mitt Romney mentioned that Syria is important because it's Iran's "route to the sea." The thing is, Iran doesn't even border Syria, as you can see our childishly-annotated map above. And Iran already has access to the sea on its southern border.

As confusing as the remark was, though, the Washington Post notes that tonight was hardly the first time Romney has made it, and the Romney campaign explains, "It's generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria." This doesn't change the fact, however, that Iran has a "route to the sea" regardless of Syria. Americans are bad enough at geography already; they don't need a presidential candidate confusing them even more. 

It's actually worse than that. Iran has extensive coastline in the south. What's more, if it wanted to go through Syria, there are a couple of countries in between that don't much care for Iran: Iraq and Turkey.

I'm not saying this was any sort of decisive gaffe, but it reinforced the (truth-based) narrative of Romney as a foreign policy lightweight who's unprepared, unqualified, and unfit for the presidency.

Yes, you should expect better of a presidential candidate, but I'm really not sure you should expect anything else from such an ignorant fool.

Debate-a-pa-loser

By Carl 

If Mitt Romney believed he could credibly pull off being both a statesman and a Teatard, well, I've got some used horses to sell the Army:

Republican Mitt Romney entered Monday night's debate on foreign policy with the goal of presenting himself as a competent, plausible alternative to President Obama as commander in chief.

But Romney appeared to cede many positions to Obama, moving closer to the president on a range of issues and presenting them in a softer way...

"I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking," Obama said at one point. "There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that would make a difference." 

One of any number of zingers that President Obama got off during the night and this time, he inflicted wounds on his opponent, rather than stand back and let Mitt swallow his own foot.

The foreign policy debates are the most difficult for both the candidates and the audiences.

Yes. Audiences. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Foreign policy requires a deep understanding of issues that concern other nations as well as the interdependent interplay between nations that most of us don't even pay attention to.

Which is why Romney's comments on Iran are deeply troubling:

Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. 

The Strait of Hormuz might have a word with the governor. It's not even like you have to go that far back to know that Iran has a navy, if you just paid a little more attention to the world and a little less attention to outsourcing jobs, Governor. 

Like I said, you the audience might have missed it, but for a presidential candidate to fumble this ball speaks volumes about their competency. And therein lies the nub of Romney's failure to look presidential. 

Now, if someone could botch an easily Googled fact -- and since you know Iran is going to come up, you might want to do that ahead of time -- then how likely is it their "deep intelligence" is accurate?

10,000 centrifuges? Really? And while even 2,000 is perhaps too many, it speaks even more about your paranoia and determination to take this nation to a war footing again.

I understand there's an economic benefit to war: it's saved us in the past from disastrous economic times and while it did nothing during the Bush administration (despite fighting two wars), war has always been coupled with sacrfice at home, particularly on the part of those who have.

For my part, I'd rather skip the war bit and head straight to the sacrifice.

Most people remember the "horses and bayonets" line, which was a classic. To me, what was more important was the way Obama schooled, slapped and then spanked Romney like the petulant unruly student he is.

By the way, the butthurt on the right will point out that the Marines still use bayonets. The army still has horses too, but what Obama said was they have fewer of them because they need fewer of them. Chuck Todd is particularly egregious in pointing this out, but it speaks to the idiocy of having someone stay up past his bedtime.

This was the key exchange in the entire debate. I'm not an expert debater. I've never mass debated. But there are people who have, and there's a school of thought that says Romney might have lost any chance to win the debate and by extension the election in this exchange:

The question was posed to Romney on how he would pay for his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending, and he flat out didn't answer it. He was busy finishing his previous answer. So by the time it was the president's turn, Obama actually said, "You should have answered the question."

Obama then asserted that the United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. That's a great attention grabber. By the time Romney finally answered, he simply said we needed a stronger military, and the Navy needs more ships because it has fewer ships than it did in 1916. 

But Obama countered with the most memorable line of the night. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets." Obama's debating point was that the nature of our military has changed. He continued by saying that the U.S. has things like submarines and aircraft carriers that should suffice, and reminded viewers that the nation needed to study what its threats are and put money into things like cybersecurity and space. Obama said that the military neither wants nor has asked for this extra $2 trillion.

This was terrible for Romney for three reasons. First, it was the original area of real disagreement, and Romney couldn't afford to be bested. Second, no matter what he may actually know, Romney looked like a neophyte when it comes to military spending, as though he were repeating old Republican talking points. Viewers could be left unsure whether he knew what century this is.

And finally, it's two freaking trillion dollars! They both talked about the budget deficit and the need to balance the budget, and over three debates, this -- $2 trillion on military spending -- was the biggest difference on offer. Axing Big Bird would net a President Romney next to nothing in savings, but adding $2 trillion to defense sounded excessive, especially if it's true that the U.S. already spends more than the next 10 countries combined. Point Obama.

Sorry for the extended quote, but Graham's point was excellent, which brings me to the nub of this post.

Foreign policy debates always speak to two audiences: the voters and the world. Most nations can safely ignore the town hall and economic debates (China and our trading partners have some vested interest, but...)

Foreign policy lays out a candidate's vision of the world, and its future. If a challenger can be seen as a credible president, it will help nations like China and Russia -- and Iran -- figure out how best to deal with him or her.

You have to speak both diplomacy outwardly but inwardly speak to the American people about strength and security. Obama has an huge advantage. He's a known quantity on the world stage. He can speak more to the American people if he so chooses, knowing that his actions already speak for him. He can even bully Iran a little, given that he's lined up Russia and China, both reluctantly, behind him. 

Romney's strategy for presenting himself to the world was pretty clear: agree with the president where he could. After all, Obama has been a success on the foreign policy front, and to disagree with him is to raise the spectre of a return to the cowboy diplomacy under the Bush administration.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine he'd toady up to Obama, which is what I think triggered Obama's snark and condescension. Kudos, Mr. President. You did a nice job as a professor, even using the student's own arguments back against him when he agreed with you.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Mindless bluster: Mitt Romney's failure of a foreign policy speech

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday and, predicably, it revealed him once more to be not just devoid of actual ideas and policies but dangerously ignorant with respect to international affairs and America's role and responsibilities on the global stage. As the Times wrote:

In a speech he gave at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney declared that "hope is not a strategy" for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney's argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years."

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described "realists" who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will. 

Consider that line from his advisor: "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years." What strategy? The U.S. benefitted from the combination of massive economic expansion and the decline of Europe's imperial powers -- and then found itself embroiled in the Cold War. So what? Containment? Military build-up to the point of mutual assured destruction? And even if you think that there was a strategy that worked well for so long, how is what worked then supposed to be the right strategy now? Has nothing changed? Is the world now the same as it was then?

Stupid. Ignorant. Dangerous.

And just what you'd expect from the Romney campaign -- and from Romney himself:

[W]hile the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by "weakness" and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran's nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama's approach.

And the speech appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it "mission creep and mission muddle," though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was "just no way" a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Which is to say, Romney was, once more, being dishonest, both about the president's policies and about his own views.

There hasn't been "weakness" at all, rather a mature and nuanced approach to foreign policy, along with a genuine understanding of the issues that shape global politics, that includes both diplomacy and military power, and indeed, far from abandoning America's allies (code for Israel) President Obama has restored America's credibility and standing in the world, a Herculean task given what was handed to him when he took office.

Romney apparently prefers the mindless swagger and bluster personified by George W. Bush, but, then again, it's not clear what he really thinks about anything. He apparently wants the U.S. to act like a global bully, pushing its weight around and subjecting everyone else to its authority, but of course that's both ridiculous and impossible. Otherwise, he changes his positions on anything and everything in accordance with the political winds. His VMI speech was just more of the same, baseless assaults on President Obama while saying what he thinks will win votes and avoiding specifics when it comes to what he would do as president.

And the consensus, outside of partisan Republican and ideologically conservative circles, was that the speech was largely a failure:

New York Times: "Mr. Romney's stated policies in today's speech, just as they have been in the past, are either pretty much like Mr. Obama's or, when there are hints of differences, would pull the United States in wrong and even dangerous directions... Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy. They did not get it on Monday."

 

Time: "Mitt Romney delivered a 'major' speech on foreign policy on Monday, although that designation of import comes from Romney's own campaign, and hardly seems warranted."

 

National Journal: "For the most part, however, Romney spoke of 'reaffirming' and 'recommitting' to policies that are already in place."

 

Politico: "'There's absolutely nothing in this speech. This is a repackaging of language that has been a staple of Romney's campaign since he threw his hat in the ring,' said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'If Romney has a foreign policy strategy, he still has not told us what it is. The governor is very fond of saying hope is not a strategy, but that cuts both ways. He didn't answer two key questions: what he would do differently and why we should expect what he would to work.'"

Reuters: ANALYSIS-Romney spares details as he hits Obama on foreign policy

New York Times editorial: In Search of Answers From Mitt Romney

Time: Romney's Not-So-'Major' Foreign Policy Address Casts Obama as Weak
Associated Press: FACT CHECK: A one-sided story on trade, defense

Politico: Experts pan Romney foreign policy speech

National Journal: Romney's Foreign Policies Sound a Lot Like Obama's

CBS: What does Mitt Romney believe on foreign policy?

Los Angeles Times: Madeleine Albright finds Romney's foreign policy speech 'confusing'

Washington Post: Obama campaign dismisses Romney speech as 'chest-pounding rhetoric'
Wall Street Journal: Albright Says Romney Speech Full of 'Platitudes'

Politico: Obama camp blasts Romney foreign policy speech as 'Etch a Sketch' moment

Daily Beast: What Mitt Got Wrong in His Foreign-Policy Speech

Paul Ryan should probably just shut up about foreign policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In addition to saying that the Middle East currently "reminds you of 1979 Tehran," which is ridiculous and indicative of a lack of perspective and historical understanding, Paul Ryan took a page out of Mitt's "No Apology" smear campaign and launched into President Obama's handling of foreign policy, saying that America is failing on the world stage:

We've lost four of our diplomats. And what is the signal that our government is sending the rest of the world? We're being equivocal on our values, we're being slow to speak up for individual rights, for human rights, for democracy. We're seeing countries stifle freedom in Iran, in Russia, and all these other areas. And we're saying we're going to gut our military -- that projects weakness.

Ryan's all over the place here, but let's trudge through the sludge:

First, yes, four diplomats were killed in Libya. That's terrible. But just like Romney, Ryan is trying to use that tragedy, the result of a complex, volatile situation, to score political points. It was shameful then, and it's shameful now.

Second, the message that President Obama sent in response was clear and decisive but also without the sort of ignorant, knee-jerk jingoism that characterizes Republican foreign policy these days. And, contrary to Romney's blatant dishonesty, no one, least of all the president, was apologizing for America.

Third, no one is "being equivocal on our values," and certainly not President Obama. But of course it depends what you mean by "our values." If you think it means pushing everyone around, threatening bloodshed, and demanding, like petulant children, that we get our way, America uber alles, then, fine, Romney and Ryan might well be to your liking. But if you think it means operating with responsibility and maturity in a leadership role in the global community, understanding the nuances and challenges of international crises and that reform takes time, that "our values" can't simply be imposed on everyone else at the end of gun, then you might fine Romney and Ryan to be a dangerously ignorant pair who would threaten peace and stability at every warmongering turn, in stark contrast to Obama and Biden, who both offer the sort of leadership that builds America's standing and credibility in the world, much to the benefit of "our values."

Fourth, the line about individual rights, human rights, and democracy might well have come from Bush's Second Inaugural. It meant nothing then and it means nothing now. Ryan's party has a terrible record on all three, violating individual rights at home (e.g., voter suppression), violating human rights everywhere (e.g., torture), and promoting democracy only when it suits them, which is doesn't now in the Middle East, and so Republicans are freaking out over the (relatively moderate) Muslim Brotherhood and longing for the return of fascist dictators like Mubarak, just like they support such dictators wherever they can serve as American puppets, no matter the brutality they unleash on their own people. Democracy promotion is far more complicated than just calling for it, and, again, Obama and Biden get it, Romney and Ryan obviously don't.

Fifth, yes, it's very troubling what's happening in places like Iran and Russia, but what are you going to do about it? Threatening to bomb Iran only strengthens the Iranian theocratic regime by ramping up anti-Americanism (and anti-Israeliism), and calling Russia America's #1 enemy, a throwback to the dark days of the Cold War, doesn't do anything to warm relations with Putin and encourage reform. The sort of global bullying Romney and Ryan stand for is not just counter-productive but dangerous.

Sixth, cutting some of the fat out of the military isn't the same as gutting it. And while Ryan may think that Obama is projecting weakness, pursuing diplomatic solutions instead of just saber-rattling isn't a sign of weakness but an expression of leadership. And I'm not sure how killing Osama bin Laden and waging a massive drone campaign to take out al Qaeda, Taliban, and other anti-American leadership is weakness. One can criticize that campaign on any number of grounds (international law, human rights, etc.), but the projection of weakness is not one of them.

I've written a number of times recently that the new narrative for Romney is "unqualified, unprepared, and unfit for the presidency." The same applies to Ryan. He's obviously not vice presidential material. Conservatives think he's their wunderkind, but he's just too stupid for the job.

No apology necessary

By Carl 

It looks like Obama is going to hit 'em and hit 'em hard:

Foreign policy is taking on new urgency in the presidential campaign as President Barack Obama prepares to address the United Nations amid a resurgence of unrest in the Muslim world and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, intensifies his criticism of the White House's approach to the region.

The president will condemn in his speech Tuesday to the annual gathering of the U.N. General Assembly the anti-Muslim video that sparked protests, according to excerpts of his speech. Violence in Libya led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, after a storming of a U.S. consulate in Libya.

Mr. Obama will refer to Mr. Stevens multiple times in his speech, citing the ambassador's approach to the region to challenge the U.N. to denounce the violence that has taken hold there and to underscore the values the U.S. is seeking to promote abroad with its policy toward the Arab Spring.

Mr. Obama also will stress the importance of those in the region condemning slander against Christians and Jews, people familiar with his speech said.

Mitt Romney, of course, stuck his head out his Learjet window and shouted down prematurely:

Mr. Romney accused the president Monday of playing down tumult in the Middle East, saying the U.S. needs to exert stronger leadership and that the president needs to do more to shape events abroad.

This is what they believe, believe it or not. It doesn't matter that the U.S. has been instrumental in freeing Arab nations left and right. It doesn't matter that we do this at great risk and peril to not only our own populace, but those of Israel and Turkey, and by extension NATO and Russia and China.

No. We have to walk around the globe like it's our own private Muscle Beach, flexing and preening (key word, that) like a muscle-bound oaf.

Diplomacy, peace and real security only come about when you respect the sovereignty and rights of the peoples of other nations. It only takes one side to say "Today, I will not commit war," and war will end eventually. If the goal is peace, then the less the army is used, the better the chances of achieving it.

True strength comes not from deploying troops at the drop of a hat, or against people who hold no harm towards us. I don't know that anyone disagrees with the original intent of a war in Afghanistan: to root out and destroy Al Qaeda and its allies.

And had that been the first war since World War II, I don't think anyone could find fault in deploying troops there. We would have been viewed as just and right, and would be dealing now from a position of world strength, our word being the only weapon needing deployment.

Unfortunately, this nation has a large segment of "fapscists," people who believe that regimenting the world in all senses of the world is the best way to achieve peace and security, when it only generates resentment and hatred. And then they'll say "they hate us for our freedom."

They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we don't want them to have that freedom.

The only apologies that America needs to make is that these asshats are dense and douchey but are allowed a megaphone instead of a kazoo.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)