The New Republic

There are two parts to your criticism of Obama's foreign policy, Mr. Peretz, one of which I think is wrong, and the other which is as of yet uncertain. The first part is that Obama is doing any worse than his predecessors, which is clearly wrong. Compare him to Bush jr., for example, whose "Axis of Evil" approach to Iran was totally ineffective in containing Iran. During Bush's watch Iran was building the foundations of its nuclear plan. Plus, to add insult to injury, by the U.S. attacking paper tiger Iraq, we both knocked out Iran's major rival and burdened our military too much to have a credible threat left against Iran itself. Whoops. Now, if speaking with Iran and Syria is Obama's 'mistake', at least it cost virtually nothing to make this 'mistake' (as opposed to what, a trillion in Iraq?), and also it lays the diplomatic groundwork for future military action, as Obama can credibly say "look, I tried to use diplomacy with these guys and it didn't work, so I had no choice but to use the military option". The second part of your analysis is that Obama will necessarily end up failing. He may, but we don't actually know that, yet, as the game aint over yet. In a game of chess, you can lose a rook and a queen, but if you get check mate against your oponent at the end, then you win. I would note that to make a parallel to the 2008 election cycle, I and many others thought that Obama was consistently dropping the ball with his election race, but then he proved us wrong by whooping Mcain in the general election. You don't know till the end. I sometimes wonder, Mr. Peretz, if your issues are merely with Obama's policies, or if they are with the man himself, somehow. If Obama had followed Bush's foreign policy would you have considered his foreign policy more of a failure than if Bush had pursued it?

- sokol8

October 2, 2010 at 8:26pm

Obama is so insistent on being NOT-Bush43 that Obama looks weak to Ahmadinejad and Assad. Most of the world is not inclined to see Obama as a strong leader because he does not seem to believe anything is worth fighting for. It is like having Gumby in the Oval Office.

- K2K

October 2, 2010 at 8:57pm

So, K2K, what would you die for? I wouldn't fucking die for Iraq or Afghanistan. And I certainly don't think our soldiers should have, either. In fact, I should have gone before them. They didn't deserve death at such an early age for such a stupid cause. Also, how high are you wiling to see our taxes go so that we can support this disaster. Or is that just the loony liberals way of distracting from the real aim here, which is . . . what?

- MOLLYSIMON

October 2, 2010 at 10:06pm

What Obama "looks" like is not the issue. A shift in foreign and strategic policy takes longer than 18 months to make its presence felt. China was Nixon's deal in 1972 but it quite some time before the full impact of that could be seen and measured.

- ironyroad

October 2, 2010 at 10:25pm

mollysimon - I recall when you were willing to "lay down your life" on the truth of every word written by Nicholas Kristof about Israeli settlements. I have no idea how anyone leaps from my writing "Most of the world is not inclined to see Obama as a strong leader because he does not seem to believe anything is worth fighting for." to asking anyone to die for any reason. Assad and Ahmadinejad are playing Obama's good intentions. The rest of the world is taking actions in hedging their bets on declining American influence in the world. As America's economy weakens, evolution to a multi-polar world is a natural consequence. Does not mean the outcome will serve anyone well, or that anyone else in the Oval Office could do any better or different. Obama is what he is - and he is NOT a strong leader, not even of the Democratic Party.

- K2K

October 3, 2010 at 12:30pm

What the fuck are you talking about? Lay down my life for Nicholas Kristoff? But if you're asking whether I trust him over one of your sources. Damn straight. After eight years of Bush, how you can think Obama had anything to do with the US's decline in status is beyond me

- MOLLYSIMON

October 3, 2010 at 1:24pm

"After eight years of Bush, how you can think Obama had anything to do with the US's decline in status is beyond me" The Obama administration fig leaf meme: It's not him, it's them. 18 months president and still every failure is Bush'es fault.

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 3:36pm

I don't think that 18 months is a particularly long time. To be more precise, one can't generalize. There are situations (9-11 would be an obvious example) in which events are so dramatic and so fast moving that we were e.g. invading Afghanistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda in November 2001, something that would have seemed like science fiction on Sept 10th. I don't believe anyone would claim that the current reconfiguration of policy in relation to Iran and connected issues needs to moving at that speed. What is required is a consistent and focused policy to try to isolate Iran as much as possible while keeping a potential door open if the leadership does decide to negotiate. "Isolation" can also include, for example, covert action aimed at impeding their nuclear program. Obama's plan, in as much as I can interpret it, is to gradually maneuver Iran into becoming the "loose cannon" whose behavior is dangerous to others and whose unwillingness to talk seriously is seen as the prime source of threat. I think that the question of broader (and deeper) shifts in American strength and global influence is one that doesn't lend itself to sound bites. There is clearly a sense that the U.S. has been exhausted and discouraged by the Iraq experience in particular, and other nations correctly sense (how could they not?) a very thin veneer of patience at home with major military deployments. IMO it is the current feeling abroad that our dominant economic model is in more trouble than, say, China's, that enables perceptions of weakness to take root -- not Obama's search for a new international consensus on Iran. If that were true, no foreign policy could ever deviate from open confrontation, which would be lunatic.

- ironyroad

October 3, 2010 at 4:18pm

"Obama's plan, in as much as I can interpret it, is to gradually maneuver Iran into becoming the "loose cannon" whose behavior is dangerous to others" If you are correct I ask you is this a wise manouvre? Pressuring a state with an insanely religious leadership into a "loose canon" mode? Who do you figure will be the first target should Obama's programme succeed and the ayatollahs lose whatever control they have over themselves? No doubt Obama will have the satisfaction of saying to the world: See? We have done everything and this is how they repay our patience. See now who the really good guys are? As Israelis struggle with god knows how many dead and injured, the result of Obama's "loose canon' strategy. Really ironyroad, Even I have greater respect for Obama's intelligence and foresight. Are you sure you thought this through? In any negotiations with hostage takers the negotiator's first concern is to bring about as much calm as possible so as not to create circumstances ripe for "loose canon" eruptions.

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 4:59pm

I think sokol8's comments are far wiser than Peretz's. I do not think that Obama has ever thought that making diplomatic overtures to Iran or Syria would miraculously cause them to capitulate. Unlike Bush's policies, Obama's allow us the option of working from the position of not being despised even by our allies. It's a bit easier to convince the Europeans, for example, to do something we want them to do when they do not feel we are one of the greatest threats to world peace.

- JEFF FREY

October 3, 2010 at 5:02pm

I'd revise ironyroad's "loose cannon" statement a bit. The key is for the world, or at least a few key players, to AGREE THAT Iran as a dangerous loose cannon, so that they agree that action against Iran is more important than their short-term commercial interests. Key players mainly being Russia and China, but also western Europe. I think this is what Obama is aiming for.

- JEFF FREY

October 3, 2010 at 5:09pm

Noga, I'm not quite sure where your criticism is coming from. Wasn't the position that you took (if I'm misremembering, apologies in advance) last year on the tactical advantage -- if not indeed the moral responsibility -- to support the Green Movement after the Iranian elections also geared to exploiting the instability of the regime? If you (the Mullahs) hold the belief that nuclear weapons are the single best protection against American pressure (see PRNK) then active Obama support for a domestic political challenge would hardly have been likely to bring calm consideration to Teheran's corridors of power. Jeff's rewriting of my comment makes it clearer. The problem has been in part that the "loose cannon" label was applied across large parts of the globe to Bush/Cheney. What Obama has been doing is making it clear the Iranians are the one deserving that label, not the U.S. I don't think we have a long menu of options, but we have some, and it is of some advantage to have others on board for a policy that in reality no one country can carry out alone, not even the U.S. In fact, I'd argue that our lack of connections (economic, social, diplomatic) to Iran is, counter-intuitive as it may be, reducing our leverage exactly when we need more.

- ironyroad

October 3, 2010 at 6:45pm

"Noga, I'm not quite sure where your criticism is coming from. Wasn't the position that you took (if I'm misremembering, apologies in advance) last year on the tactical advantage -- if not indeed the moral responsibility -- to support the Green Movement after the Iranian elections also geared to exploiting the instability of the regime?" Yes I knew there was some contradiction in what I said but I wanted to express my surprise at your understanding and endorsement of Obama's policies of nudging Iran into a "loose canon" situation. It seems a risky business. If I had any confidence in your president I would have endorsed his policies of narcotizing the Iranian regime into feeling confident and insouciant that he is a weak president and then striking when they let their guard down, at the appropriate moment. You know, like the Scarlet Pimpernel...

- noga1

October 3, 2010 at 8:30pm

For anyone here with an open mind as to "sources", Michael Totten reports on the Druse of the Golan Heights, and some on the Alawites (Assad's minority sect that controls Syria), which may inspire some new thinking about how to think about Syria and their patron Iran in relation to the mosaic of minorities in the Levant. http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/03/the-tower-of-the-sun/ I would add that Persians are less than 60% of Iran's populations, which is also a mosaic of ethnicities and religious minorities. The Persian area of Iran is actually ringed by all sorts of minorities who despise Persian Shi'a totalitarianism. Perhaps a foreign policy that does not define the Muslim world into Sunni versus Shi'a would be helpful. It is very distressing to read that the United States under Obama is currently helping Turkey build a military base INSIDE Iraqi Kurdistan in order to enable the Turks to destroy Kurdish "terrorism" once and for all. Just as distressing for the Obami to continue to think all Israel has to do is return the Golan Heights to Syria, and kumbaya peace will peel Assad off from Iran. One would think a truly progresssive President would at minimum stand for the rights of minority populations under dictatorships. Instead, the Kurds, the Druse, Lebanon's Maronite Catholics, Egypt's Coptic Christians, the Christian refugees of Iraq, et al, are left to the wolves.

- K2K

October 4, 2010 at 3:31pm

"Kurdish "terrorism" " ?? Why "terrorism" ? http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/11-Years-Ago--How-Israel-s-Mossad-Captured-Kurdish-Fugitive-Abdullah-Ocalan-in-Kenya/202576 When Ocalan was captured and suspicion was thrown upon the Mossad that it was involved in facilitating his capture, Kurds in Europe went on a rampage and attacked Israeli embassies. Strange world, isn't it?

- noga1

October 4, 2010 at 3:51pm

sokol8 had ot right the first time. Bush stance (Axis of evil not a policy) a ghastly failure and strengthened Iran hardliners without making them compromise at home.

- NR027810

October 4, 2010 at 4:42pm

noga, the PKK is officially on both the U.S. and EU terror list, and is NOT yet on the short list of terror groups to be re-classified as freedom fighters - that would be Hezbollah, now that they walk the Lebanese government like Assad-dogs. Yes, very strange world. This NOT-Bush is not the point. There are other alternatives to NOT-Bush that Obama could try. Let's see if Obama stands by Japan as both Russia and China are now moving from "jaw-jaw" into outright bullying over disputed islands.

- K2K

October 4, 2010 at 5:38pm

"Most of the world is not inclined to see Obama as a strong leader because he does not seem to believe anything is worth fighting for." Come on, k2k. Anything? What about his much increased drone attacks on AQ/Taliban hideouts inside Pakistan? Isn't that a fight he believes in, or do you think he's just going through the motions in spite of the political cost from his base? Also, what about him sticking his neck out on the Israeli/Palestinian issue when the safe bet would have been to punt like W Bush did? The man has fought battles like health care and auto bailouts even though those things were very politically unpopular. All he has done in 18 months is fight battles, both domestic and foreign. You can disapprove of his policies or the way he fought for them, but don't say he doesn't fight for his beliefs.

- scrubby

October 4, 2010 at 9:20pm

scrubby: I am not personally "Most of the world". That would be Britain, Japan, Poland, Honduras, Iraqi Kurdistan, and other countries who have lost confidence in America as a staunch ally. Personally, I do believe Obama "sticking his neck out on the Israeli/Palestinian issue" was a major mistake - and if he is "fighting for his beliefs" that Israelis are imperialist bad guys and the Palestinians are the downtrodden indigenous peoples, then he should not have lied about that during the election. I assume he fought for the beige rug in the Oval Office...

- K2K

October 5, 2010 at 11:37am

Islam in action: "Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York's Times Square on a crowded Saturday night, was sentenced to life in federal prison today. Shahzad said "Allahu Akbar" after hearing the sentence, and said he would "sacrifice a thousand lives for Allah." "War with Muslims has just begun," said Shahzad, who then predicted that "the defeat of the US is imminent, god willing." Shahzad also said he was happy with "the deal" God had given him. "We have laws made by Allah. We don't need laws made by humans."" http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/times-square-bomber-faisal-shahzad-sentenced-life/story?id=11802740

- jdyer

October 5, 2010 at 11:51am

Here is more on this Muslim fanatic: http://www.examiner.com/manhattan-conservative-in-new-york/times-square-bomber-gets-life

- jdyer

October 5, 2010 at 11:58am

"I am not personally "Most of the world". That would be Britain, Japan, Poland, Honduras, Iraqi Kurdistan, and other countries who have lost confidence in America as a staunch ally." I think that comes with a large menu of assumptions, K2K, and without any evidence remains a rather broad and tendentious claim. For starters, I know of no conflict in which Britain is involved where we are refusing to help them. Although Japan is an ally, there are reasons for not getting involved in intra-asian nationalist spats. In the case of Poland, I am assuming you mean our attempt to get Russia fully on board with the Iran sanctions regime, something that might have some urgency, perhaps? Honduras? Sorry. Finally, I tend to agree that there are odd things going on in and around Iraqi Kurdistan.

- ironyroad

October 5, 2010 at 2:13pm

Again, come on now, k2k. Obama has never called the Israelis imperialist, has never implied it and nothing he has ever done or said would suggest he believes it in his heart. Israel has her faults, but she's neither an imperialist nor an apartheid state, and those that think so are insane or disingenuous. The president is neither. The man is simply fighting for his belief that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is in everybody's best interest, including the US. He's not an idiot, so he knows it's a near-impossible task, but one that can only succeed with collective effort. And so he's willing to expend political capital and pressure both sides to sit down and talk. If it fails, things would remain at status quo, a position loved only by those that think their side is advantaged by it. You don't think the status quo benefits Israel, do you? So, why would a peace effort, according to you, be a mistake? Last time I checked, nothing was being imposed on any side. "I am not personally "Most of the world". " I know that, but you were parroting the unproven claim that their lost confidence in America as a staunch ally is due to Obama's policies.

- scrubby

October 5, 2010 at 8:52pm

This post is about Syria and Iran. Israel-Palestine is being covered in three other Spine threads (Obama’s obsession over Israeli apartments in north Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo is based on the concept that Israeli settlements are imperialist. He does need to use the word.) as reported by UPI on Oct. 5: "...A replica of the Al-Aqsa mosque is being constructed by Iran in southern Lebanon as a prop for Ahmadinejad’s visit next week. The Iranian president will officially open the mosque for business and be photographed in front of it throwing stones toward Israel. And the mosque, according to Israeli reports, has the flag of Iran flying over it. ..." [Can Obama stop such provocation?] No sense wasting time or electrons trying to have a discussion with those who can only see Obama's foreign policies through rose-colored glasses. He is seen as a weak leader by most of the countries in the world. For the open-minded, here is a nice summary: "...Why, then, is the Obama reset policy a positive development? Obama’s efforts, and the global reactions to them, are reminding the world that global tensions still arise out of perceptions of self-interest, regardless of who is in the White House. Obama’s efforts, and the global reactions to them, are reminding the world that global tensions still arise out of perceptions of self-interest, regardless of who is in the White House. When nations act contrary to American interests, they can be finessed somewhat by empathetic American officials, but they remain largely unaffected by apologies, bowing, promulgations of pseudo-history, and therapeutic mythologizing. Leaders like Putin, Assad, and Ahmadinejad act in their own perceived self-interests, calibrating to what degree a constant desire to maximize influence, stature, and wealth at someone else’s expense is balanced by the risk of any confrontations that might ensue and the possibility that they might lose — all such calculations being more likely when the players are, like these three, autocratic in nature. In the end, Obama’s Carteresque sermonizing over the past two years has achieved the opposite of its intended result. The preaching, confessionals, and outreach, from the ridiculous bowing to Saudi princes to the supposedly sublime Cairo mythmaking, have reminded the world that anti-Americanism transcends alike the unfair caricatures of George Bush and the hokey apotheosis of Barack Obama. If we can avoid the wages of this naïveté — and not suffer another annus horribilis in the fashion of 1979 — then Obama’s inadvertent primer on unchanging human nature will have been worth it." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248883/gift-obama%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy-victor-davis-hanson

- K2K

October 6, 2010 at 5:04pm

K2K, you are indeed very fair and open-minded about everything Obama, and I'm not. I see his every move with rose-colored glasses, of course. From now on, I'll try try to see his actions through the worst possible light. That way, I'd be very open-minded like you. "He is seen as a weak leader by most of the countries in the world." No, he's not. Though you seem intent on believing the fallacy. That comes from reading too much anti- Obama screed. But then, what the hell do I know. I'm not as open-minded as you are.

- scrubby

October 6, 2010 at 8:25pm

And even if he is, I think some people are going to find out that underestimating Obama is a fool's game. The guy who doesn't react with immediate bluster to every small provocation is not necessarily the infinitely patient man.

- ironyroad

October 6, 2010 at 10:00pm

"The guy who doesn't react with immediate bluster to every small provocation is not necessarily the infinitely patient man." Not reacting with "with immediate bluster to every small provocation" does not necessarily mean that the man is patient, infinitely or finitely. It might have to do with a phlegmatic character that just doesn't care very much, one way or another.

- noga1

October 6, 2010 at 11:01pm

Not necessarily a negative quality in politics, I'd argue. Provided there's something else there too (Obama clearly cares about things). But we'll see -- despite the fact that everyone now thinks in 24-hour frameworks, some of this will take time to work itself out.

- ironyroad

October 7, 2010 at 1:12am

"despite the fact that everyone now thinks in 24-hour frameworks" I'm sorry but I can't take this sneer at my attention span. I don't think in 24 hour framework. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that it is those who share your politics who think in 24 hour frameworks. I really think so. I think Obama's election was the direct result of people incapable of thinking beyond 24 hour frameworks.

- noga1

October 7, 2010 at 6:55am

I am willing to wait and see what Obama does when Hezbollah stages a military coup in Lebanon. Not that they need to since a completely re-armed Hezbollah already has the entire Lebanese government and army under control, which qualifies as a series of "small provocations" that got nary one bluster. Wonderful success for the Obami. As were the collapses of governments in Britain, Japan, Australia, and, well, at least Putin is still standing.

- K2K

October 7, 2010 at 1:24pm

Noga: I didn't mean you -- I meant the regular media, especially TV, who are incapable of understanding or communicating a longer-term context for news. I thought that was fairly obvious from the general context, but apparently not. K2K: What collapse of government in Britain? What on earth are you rambling on about? They had a general election there recently, I believe, which appears to be a component of their democratic system of government.

- ironyroad

October 7, 2010 at 3:14pm

"I thought that was fairly obvious from the general context, but apparently not." That's because I'm stupid. Please don't try to make me feel better but saying I'm not that stupid.

- noga1

October 7, 2010 at 3:47pm

Perhaps it wasn't that obvious. In any case, I meant the MSM in general.

- ironyroad

October 7, 2010 at 4:57pm

"Wonderful success for the Obami. As were the collapses of governments in Britain, Japan, Australia ..." Perhaps it is because I have lived through an actual "collapse" of a government that I find this sentence at least a bit exaggerated. It is also possible that my years of studying Australian federalism and politics, and recent in-depth discussions with colleagues and friends about the political situation, have blinded me and narrowed my perspective, but I could have sworn that the palace coup against Rudd had to do with the fact that he was an arrogant jerk, rather than anything Obama might have done ... I mean, I know Obama is an evil anti-Semitic Muslim nigger out to destroy Western civilisation, democray, capitalism, liberty and God - and all of these are safe only because he is incompetent and naïve and advised by Hillary "the Siren" Clinton - but to ascribe to him and his policies unusual powers to bring down entire governmental structures in otherwise stable democracies appears to me to be somewhat delusional. Just saying.

- icarusr

October 8, 2010 at 12:10pm

So the UK, no collapse. Australia, no collapse. I don't know, maybe there's something evil over there in Japan that Obama caused?

- ironyroad

October 8, 2010 at 2:16pm

I suspect Obambi supported the building of settlements by the Ainu at the base of Mount Fuji.

- icarusr

October 8, 2010 at 3:57pm

"I mean, I know Obama is an evil anti-Semitic Muslim nigger out to destroy Western civilisation, democray, capitalism, liberty and God -" I read Marty's post and I have no idea how icarus has made that giant leap from what is argued to what he, icarus, is saying Marty actually meant. Frankly, bordering on slander if not already in that territory of derangement. And not a peeps from ironyroad, what a surprise.

- noga1

October 8, 2010 at 6:45pm

The problem with Obama's policy practices is that there is no dignity in the way he conducts them. Sucking up to the Arabs and Muslims brings forth more contempt from them. They now have contempt for him because he does not put the American heavy boot on Israel's face. That is how they interpreted the promise in his Cairo speeches and other supplicating gestures (like bowing to the Saudi king a gesture the meaning of which no journalist as yet mustered the courage to ask him). Icarus's series of insults he imagines Marty nurtures in his heart is more likely how Arab Muslims by now think about Obama. THEY have no doubt that he is a Muslim (can't be anything else according to Islamic law) and THEY are such racists when it comes to black people (just check out how they caricaturised Condoleeza Rice or just google about how black people are treated in Arab lands) that they most probably have much worse names for him in their conversations.

- noga1

October 8, 2010 at 6:56pm

Noga, I registered a peep two posts previous to yours. If you will obsess about my absence, please obsess with attention and focus! :)

- ironyroad

October 8, 2010 at 11:23pm

well, if people want to avoid a discussion about Obama's stunning diplomatic successes with Syria and Iran, it does not take much to stimulate irrelevancy, does it ? What remains of Lebanon's elected government must be relieved to know Obama is so effective with Lebanon's two overlords. There is absolutely zero correlation between the curious, unexpected (that means not on the expected schedule) need for parliamentary elections with inconclusive results in three of America's closest allies... Dot connecting is clearly not the sport of Obamacolytes.

- K2K

October 9, 2010 at 12:17am

K2K: "There is absolutely zero correlation between the curious, unexpected (that means not on the expected schedule) need for parliamentary elections with inconclusive results in three of America's closest allies..." Exactly. Although you left out the other part of the "between" equation, I'd say for the record that independent democratic nations of some importance in the world have their own rhythms and regulations of political life, and we have just about zero to do with them. That's not to say that a particular event, e.g. the Iraq war, can't influence the landscape/atmosphere of politics, but elections and results are basically national affairs and may have to do with things we have absolutely no clue about.

- ironyroad

October 9, 2010 at 4:20am

"Noga, I registered a peep two posts previous to yours. If you will obsess about my absence, please obsess with attention and focus! :)" I don't obsess over your absence IR. Please. Your extremely mild comment in no way showed that you might have disagreed with icarus's verbal extravagances which was the point in my "peeps" comment. It is hard to believe that you misunderstood my intention and then turned it into a not so subtle sneer about obsession. Shabby. Or maybe you agree with him that Marty secretly thinks Obama is "an evil anti-Semitic Muslim nigger out to destroy Western civilisation, democray, capitalism, liberty and God -" ?? Or, if you don't agree, then you don't really think it is garish, demeaning, over the top "criticism" of Marty's points? I wish icarus would stop doing these things. He has lots to say that are worth attending but when he goes into these self-indulgent tantrums he loses even the good points he makes. Icarus, just remember this, sometimes (often) as with food and makeup, more is less.

- noga1

October 9, 2010 at 9:54am

I'm a bit crestfallen by the lack of obsession, but surely I'm still entitled to a mild comment or two to mark time. I didn't sneer (why on earth would I sneer?) and the :) emoticon means "transmitted without any malice" or similar, I believe. Also, I sometimes shy away from arguments that have more to do with style than content (although in somewhat self-contradictory way I like style too). In general, ick can run with a conceit long enough to get to the stage when it becomes tiresome. I'm sure he knows this. But in responding to Marty it's difficult at times to grasp whether or not this is one of his garish, demeaning, or over the top posts, even when it isn't. Marty's own style is closer to Lenny Bruce than to Jack Benny, after all.

- ironyroad

October 9, 2010 at 1:20pm

10/09/2010 - 4:20am EDT | ironyroad "we [America] have just about zero to do with them" Irony, you really should read more international news. Japan's government had to call sudden elections over U.S. pressure on Okinawa base. Britain's early election was more about the impact of the US-led financial meltdown (which was a very bi-partisan Clinton-to-Bush43 creation, and even the events of 2008 can be laid at the feet of Geithner, hardly an inspiring pick by Obama under the circumstances of Geithner's tenure at the NY Fed - yeah, maybe Tim SHOULD have sounded the warning bell on Lehman Brothers - heavy sarcasm - and Obama's treatment of Gordon Brown did not help hapless Gordon.) my eyes are rolling at your naivete.

- K2K

October 9, 2010 at 5:25pm

And you should read with more attention, dude. The British elections were not early -- for constitutional reasons they had to be in fall 2010 at the latest, so if they hadn't been in May they would probably be happening now in October. Take your pick. Nobody is claiming -- I'm certainly not -- that the U.S. banking and economic crisis didn't have a major effect worldwide, but that happened, as you say, during 2008, so it's difficult to see how Obama brought down the western world on his own.

- ironyroad

October 9, 2010 at 5:38pm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/08/how_lebanon_was_lost?page=full James Traub "How Lebanon was Lost" "...On the other hand, engagement only makes sense when it advances U.S. interests enough to justify possible unintended consequences -- not a clear balance in Syria. The Syrians are slippery customers who love to be courted, whether by Saudi Arabia, France, or America. "The Syrians like to make us believe they are winnable," says Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel and head of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. But in the end, he says, "Syrians don't deliver." There is a kind of symmetry between the naiveté of the Bush administration's controlling belief that it could sow the flowers of democracy in rocky Arab fields and the naiveté of Obama's belief that a new posture of respect and understanding could win over recalcitrant states and publics in the Middle East. Indyk doesn't blame the Obama administration for "losing" Lebanon. It was not, after all, America's to win or lose. It is Lebanon's tragic destiny to be sacrificed in the hopes of achieving larger goals -- which themselves seem never to be attained. ..."

- K2K

October 10, 2010 at 10:35am