Craziest Conservative of the Day: Robert Kagan (for smearing Obama over Iran)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Kagan's column yeterday in the WaPo, in which he argued (to the extent that he really argued anything -- he was just spouting stupidity) that Obama sides with the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime and actually wants the "Green" opposition to lose (all for the sake of his strategic realism), was appallingly bad even by Kagan's own appallingly low standards (even if reads as par-for-the-course from Obama's neocon critics).

If you missed it, make sure to check out Mustang Bobby's response to Kagan here. Like me, Bobby thinks that Obama is pursuing the right course of response/action to the Iranian election and its aftermath, and that he is right not to rise to the neocon bait.

And see also Jonathan Chait's fine takedown of Kagan over at The Plank. To put it mildly, Kagan's column was "fairly embarrassing." Kagan claims that Obama is "objectively" on the side of the Iranian government, as well as on the side of "normalcy" (i.e., the existing regime), but "[i]t's a highly subjective proposition, one that Kagan" -- surprise, surprise -- "does absolutely nothing to defend."

Robert Kagan, neocon... full of shit? Huh.

Sucker punching

By Mustang Bobby

The Republicans are all over President Obama for not speaking out strongly against the alleged vote fraud and repression going on in Iran. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the Today show that "[h]e should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights," and neocon Robert Kagan has an op-ed in The Washington Post that says that Mr. Obama's pragmatic approach to the Iranian election -- let's get it over with and deal with whoever wins -- by default makes him a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

The point of this sideline chiding is, of course, to provoke the president into doing something; either speaking out forcefully or endorsing strong sanctions against Iran. The neocons think that would be just dandy, and the Republicans, hiding behind their faux patriotism, want it because they think that if President Obama provokes Iran, it will blow up in his face, thereby proving that he's incapable of dealing with foreign policy and handing them a campaign issue with candy and a stripper. So for them it's a win-win: they get their war with another bunch of evil-doers and they take the president down a few pegs. They get to go on Morning Joe and Fox News and call him weak and unwilling to support "freedom fighters" in Iran. It's the equivalent of "Hey, your shoe's untied!" What's not to like?

The president is wisely not rising to the bait. He and anyone with a passing knowledge of how foreign relations really work know that anything the United States does other than what we're doing right now will only prove to the hard-liners in Tehran, not to mention other countries that still don't trust us, that we're taking it upon ourselves to butt into their internal problems for our own benefit. We've got a long history of showing that doesn't work; the list of countries where our overt and covert meddling blew up on us includes Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam, the Philippines, and any number of other nations where we thought we knew best is long and blood-stained.

That President Obama is not taking the traditional approach of injecting America into every crisis around the world must be very disconcerting to those who think that is the way of the world, and frustrating to his political opponents who thought they could sucker him into it. Discretion is not only the better part of valor; it drives your enemies crazy.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Michael J.W. Stickings, neocon?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TNR's Michael Crowley is reporting that leading neocons Krazy Bill Kristol and Krazy Bob Kagan, two of the key figures behind PNAC, have created The Foreign Policy Initiative, a PNAC-like think tank dedicated to the proliferation of neocon principles like American hegemonism. Here's what they intend to promote:

• continued U.S. engagement -- diplomatic, economic, and military -- in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
• robust support for America’s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
• the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
• a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
• international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.

Actually, as a somewhat hawkish liberal, I agree with much of that.

Engagement instead of isolationsism? Check.

Support for democratic allies and opposition to "rogue regimes"? Check.

Human rights and freedom? Check.

A strong military? Well...

See, here's the problem. While much of this sounds good, the reality is something else entirely. By support for "America's democratic allies," what Kristol and Kagan mean is unquestioning support for Israel -- and a right-wing Israel at that. By "a strong military," what they mean is the capacity to wage multiple pre-emptive wars at will, unilaterally. Remember, these are the people who would like to see the U.S. go to war against Iran.

And while I appreciate neocon opposition to anti-democratic regimes like those that tyrannize China and Saudi Arabia, what these neocons want is the spread of right-wing American neo-liberalism, not so much "economic freedom" as a world made safe for rapacious capitalism.

In short, this is PNAC 2. The goal is still American hegemony, an Americanized world in which neocon policies rule. And, to that end, the weapon is not so much "engagement" as all-out warmongering.

And the message is this: If you cross America, or if you just don't fit in with America's interests, or if the neocons just don't like you, America will kick your ass.

I'm all for promoting freedom and democracy and human rights. But not this way, not through the construction of empire, through the arrogant imposition of power.

I, too -- and liberals like me -- want change around the world, from Darfur to North Korea, from Zimbabwe to Burma. But you can't force that change with might, that is, by beating every problem, every rogue regime, into submission. What is required is genuine American leadership in the international community, serious diplomatic efforts combined with a willingness to work multilaterally in pursuit of peace, in pursuit of shared goals.

Kristol and Kagan, as usual, just don't get it.