SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Losing the Democracies: Obama's Heart is With the Hooligans

THE SPINE NOVEMBER 24, 2009

Losing the Democracies: Obama's Heart is With the Hooligans

BY MARTIN PERETZ

At least, that's what many of our old and deeply democratic friends seem to feel.

Now, it's hard to accept that the president of the United States would actually make that choice. He probably feels--but how do I really know? I actually don't--that the hooligans and especially the hooligans who produce our oil and the hooligans who buy our products are the folk we need court more than our historic allies. After all, what else can they do but stick with us? Tough darts!

Obama's initiatives up to now--with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China--have been failures. OK, it's hard to imagine, given how the trade deck is stacked against us with China, that this president would muster the courage to tell Hu Jintao a thing or two. Like screwing around with the openness of his visit. On the other hand, our weakness also gives us considerable strength: Beijing sinks with our dollar. So there.

I won't rehash the degrading courtship in Istanbul, Riyadh and Cairo. You can look these up in my previous treatments of them. How different would it have appeared had Obama flown directly from the pyramids to Jerusalem? How different would it truly have been had he done that? Plenty different. But this would not have fit with his self-designed and self-assigned mission to the Muslims. And, by the way, this is not just about cosmetics. His obsession, his fixation on new construction has forced the Palestinians into the crippling bind of not being less extreme and less fervent than the president on pre-conditions for negotiations. Why, by the way, if all of this is disputed land, which it is, shouldn't the Arabs also freeze construction? Well, that shows how absurd this skewing dogma is.

Enough of my daily lapse into writing about Israel.

There is also India, the largest democracy in the world. It is certainly not a perfect democracy, and its capitalism is quite rapacious--but not at all as rapacious as that of China. India has emerged as a trusted ally, which China is not. India is also a country bedeviled by jihadis, as we are reminded often on the news, as we are reminded this Thanksgiving weekend on the first anniversary of the Mumbai massacre in which 173 random people (except for the Jews among them, the chosen) were basically executed and literally hundreds of others wounded and maimed. In the first of his White House state dinners, the president has feted his counterpart Manmohan Singh. But, as nearly every serious newspaper has observed, the Indians are nervous and resentful, I believe, understandably so, even justifiably so.

Then there is the grumbling of Britain. Con Coughlin, an editor at the Telegraph, has an article in the Spectator, It is called "A Special Form of Disrespect." Coughlin does a narrative of the U.S.-British relationship from 9/11 on. Of course, he could have gone back to World War I. This has been an alliance steeped in common values, the values of democracy, liberalism and, pardon me, Christian civilization. Maybe that's where the troubles come in. These are not the values of the third world. "Being an American ally has never seemed so unrewarding." This little essay tells you why. 

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 51 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

51 comments

Coughlin's rather passive-agressive piece is completely undermined by the following uncomfortable extract about the real relationship between the U.S. and Britain, emerging from an interview with an army officer who worked closely with the U.S. forces in Iraq. This was, of course, back in the dim and distant past of Bush-Blair, when everything was perfect transatlantic harmony, as opposed to the current regime of the evil Obama: "At that level the bureaucratic inefficiency, the inability to spend money, even though it was there, and the frustrations that this caused were immense. This was compounded by US commercial practices as their system of contracts seemed designed to exclude all other but US business. The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with the American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way. As far as the Iraqis were concerned, here was a nation who could put people on the moon but who could not, or would not, fix the electricity supply. You need to have money in order to make things happen, to buy protection from the looters, to smooth out tribal problems and to have immediate and visible effect and we did not have that. Despite our so-called 'special relationship' I reckon that we were treated no differently to the Portugese." The longer extract is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6634115/Iraq-war-files-British-colonels-scathing-attack-on-arrogant-bureaucratic-Americans.html Just in case nobody has noticed, it's from Coughlin's own newspaper.

- ironyroad

November 24, 2009 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reference to the Portuguese is specially distasteful. What kind of special treatment did Coughlin expect for the Brittish that wasn't dispensed to us in Iraq?

- luispc

November 24, 2009 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Marty: I have no words to express my genuinely felt sorrow for your blighted Obamish hopes. I could say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9FZeNOouMM But it's not really fair, because http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEcqxQTitd0&feature=fvw Be comforted that you are one in many. A disappointment shared is a disappointment halved, of something like that.

- noga1

November 24, 2009 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

luis -- I never thought I'd ever say this here on the TNR discussion board, but RIGHT ON, DUDE!

- ironyroad

November 24, 2009 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, please, you aren't disappointed since you were never, lets just say, appointed. luis, yeah, good one. I have been living abroad off and on since 1983, you know, when Reagan was President. Need I remind anyone that during the Falklands war the US remained officially neutral (so much for special friendship) lest we offend the fascist junta of generals in Buenos Aires? Reagan sure as hell wasn't loved anywhere outside the US. And Bush I didn't exactly strain himself about Tiananmen, and actually was against the unification of Germany (as was Maggie) Look, criticize Obama as much as you want, but lets just stop pretending everything was so wonderful before (actually, under Bill Clinton it wasn't bad besides a few massive screw ups, like Rwanda and waiting a little long to counter Milo, but otherwise it was as good a time as we are ever going to see again, but Marty will never say that)

- blackton

November 24, 2009 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty - you have outdone yourself in your utterly moronic, childish rantings.

- WandreyCer

November 24, 2009 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Enough of my daily lapse into writing about Israel.. Never enough, my man.

- basman

November 24, 2009 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er, To understand is not to condone, but in terms of understanding where Coughlin was coming from, perhaps what he was thinking was that the UK participated in the Iraq invasion and had 46,000 troops in Iraq, with 179 deaths, while Portugal's contribution was 128 military police with (fortunately) no deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq The Spectator story by Coughlin does have the following running heading "Barack Obama’s increasing disregard for Britain’s views is no way to treat an ally whose troops have fought side by side with America since September 11, says Con Coughlin" ...and I agree with basman.

- malahat

November 24, 2009 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's true, b, but nevertheless luis should be in line for COTW. However, you're missing the point I made at the top of the thread. Coughlin implies a harmonious US-UK relationship under Bush-Blair that is somewhat of a fairy tale, and certainly -- as we're finding out via his own newspaper -- that was not the case at the command level in Iraq. Anything but, in fact. And to claim that, at the political level, allies were happy with their treatment by the Bush administration is to engage in a rewriting of history on quite a startling scale I imagine also that Coughlin is not a fool, and knows that the "special relationship" is nine parts British fantasy to one part American reality. Read a John le Carré novel. In fact, I think we might discover a better allied military relationship coming into being under new leadership with a new mission in Afghanistan. That is, if the British people don't have their way, as two thirds want (also via Coughlin's paper) complete withdrawal of British forces before the end of 2010.

- ironyroad

November 24, 2009 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Marty - you have outdone yourself in your utterly moronic, childish rantings,,, That's my WandreyCer, ever substantive, ever analytical. Would you care to make your case in support of your, umm, *thesis*?

- basman

November 24, 2009 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, maybe I missed it, but the only reference I noticed in the Spectator article about the US/UK relationship under Bush vs Obama wasn't exactly a fanboy type endorsement of Bush. "...Obama, meanwhile, has made his own deliberations so secretive that only about three people in the whole of Washington — and, ergo, the rest of the world — know precisely what he has in mind, and none of them is talking. Even President George W. Bush, who was frequently criticised for his arrogance and unilateralism, was better than this. From 9/11 until the Iraq war, he kept Tony Blair and other trusted allies (there weren’t that many, let’s face it) fully briefed on what he was planning — so much so that Blair is now accused of colluding with him to invade Iraq from the spring of 2002.

- malahat

November 24, 2009 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't say it was fanclub stuff, b, just that the motif appears to one of a lost harmony and regret for the previously ally-friendly approach taken by Bush (there's a bit of special pleading in "trusted ally" also). I also distinguish between the military command relationship in Iraq, which is what his own newspaper has been printing the inside story on this week, and the political relationship between the then leaders. It just seemed to me there was a startling disconnect between what Coughlin is writing in the Spectator and what (presumably with his knowledge) is appearing in his own publication. But maybe you're right -- I may have over-interpreted his remarks as narrower than they really are. The general tenor of the piece is clear, though, n'est-ce pas?

- ironyroad

November 24, 2009 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'est tout a fait clair.

- malahat

November 24, 2009 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksondyer jack my man You won't believe it after all this time: I finally got back to you on the thread spinning out of Wood's Introduction. Better late than never I hope. Have a gander o'er there and give me a shout if you care to! I'll check in from time to time in the hopes of seeing something back from you.

- basman

November 24, 2009 at 11:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the article: "There will, though, inevitably come a time when Obama discovers who America’s true friends really are. Sooner or later he will have to deal with the considerably more taxing issues of Islamist militancy, rogue nuclear states and other tangible threats to the West’s security. At that point, Obama will discover a simple but essential truth. The world divides between those who support American values of freedom and democracy, and those who seek to destroy them." Does any one care to disagree with his conclusion?

- jacksondyer

November 24, 2009 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, Basman, I'll read it tomorrow.

- jacksondyer

November 25, 2009 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where to begin? Obama's heart is with the hooligans? What utter nonsense. In case the old fool was so completely blinded by Hillary Hate back in the primaries, Obama campaigned on the promise to speak to not only our allies but our adversaries. Only in that peculiarly manichaean world populated by peretz and perhaps his newfound former protege, Charles Krauthammer, does actually communicating with adversaries translate into disrespecting or disavowing one's allies. This is classic zero-sum and this is exactly why the America voted to get rid of this kind of foreign policy and all the cranks and unidimensional tough guys who held this view, specimens like John Bolton, Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and the old grudgeholder himself. Now, it may be true that these adversaries appear to be too stupid to see the opportunity that is present and shame on them. So be it. Now, America can move on and at least say that we have tried to engage and were rebuffed so all options are on the table. But only in that bizarre world of marty peretz is this seen as "siding against" one's allies and "siding with" one's enemies. I think that peretz is truly lost his marbles.

- MrCookie1

November 25, 2009 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JD: "Does any one care to disagree with his conclusion?" Yes, I'd care to.

- ironyroad

November 25, 2009 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony I tried to answer your offered reason to try KSM in New York on that thread.

- basman

November 25, 2009 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman - in a word, no. I don't owe you anything. Marty's increasngly unhinged lunacy speaks for itself.

- WandreyCer

November 25, 2009 at 7:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW - I find it a bit odd that there has been no discussion of the prisoner swap set to take place between Hamas and Israel, according to the NYT yesterday. Can it really be true that Hamas will finally release that poor Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in 2006? And will all of those Hamas creeps really be released? It amazes me. All of this tired back and forth about settlements, and then this bombshell drops. I could care less what Marty thinks, its easy to guess. But I was looking forward to Jackson's take, irony etc. I am not naive, my heart does not swell with hope. I'm just happy for that young soldier's family.

- WandreyCer

November 25, 2009 at 7:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I posted a comment earlier today and it seems to have disappeared.

- jacksondyer

November 25, 2009 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson, Are you being identified as spam? Several pearls of cookie wisdom have disappeared too so you're not alone.

- MrCookie1

November 25, 2009 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cookie: I'm beginning to believe Peretz's Obama support was solely a product of his anti-Clintonism. Much of what MP complains about was fairly foreseeable from his stated positions.

- frippo

November 25, 2009 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

frippo. Bingo. I believe you're right. btw, Happy Thanksgiving to each and all!!!

- MrCookie1

November 25, 2009 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is one Clinton supporter who wasn't disappointed by Obama. He's doing what I expected him to do (which is to say make a mess) on foreign policy issues, which is why I didn't support him in the first place. I didn't expect him to have been so weak on economic issues, though.

- jacksondyer

November 25, 2009 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy Tukey day to most fellow posters.

- jacksondyer

November 25, 2009 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That post was a turkey. Here it goes, again: Happy Turkey day to most fellow posters.

- jacksondyer

November 25, 2009 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Likewise, JD.

- ironyroad

November 25, 2009 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy Thanksgiving to you JD and all who would be kind enough to accept as intended.

- jacko

November 25, 2009 at 9:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happy Thanksgiving, Spinesters.

- malahat

November 25, 2009 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmm... I should have said Happy Thanksgiving fellow Spinesters. I blame the turkey.

- malahat

November 25, 2009 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So I ventured into the free fire zone, and what do I find? Thanksgiving wishes! Happy Thanksgiving to all of you on TNR Online, and thanks for your interesting and provocative arguments. And for those of your overseas or any who do not celebrate for other reasons: have a nice Thursday.

- JEFF FREY

November 26, 2009 at 2:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These sorts of thanksgiving wishes are not enough for me. I want "special treatment"! Or I'll start winning on how you Americans treat yourselves and the British better than you treat the Portuguese!

- luispc

November 26, 2009 at 5:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Correction: NO better than, of course

- luispc

November 26, 2009 at 6:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Canadians celebrated Thanksgiving a few weeks earlier. Happy Thanksgiving to all American posters here. http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2007/11/happy-thanksgiving.html

- noga1

November 26, 2009 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This last post was nasty in its Canadian rooted American exclusivism. Of course, I'm no American. Not even British. But that's no reason to be rude! And I do like the idea of Thanksgiving, a kind of common celebration of America's civil religion, something so quitessentialy Jeffersonian (and ultimately Christian, if you ask me, but let's leave that for now). Anyway, happy Thanksgiving to you all from this side of Atlantic (Canadians included).

- luispc

November 26, 2009 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A welcome editorial surprise from the NY Times in which they actually criticize Obama on Iran, however mildly: "Iran Punishes Its People " "Iran’s fraudulently elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will clearly stop at nothing to stifle legitimate dissent and hold on to his illegitimate power. The most recent horror is the sharp rise in executions since the June presidential elections. As The Times has reported, many of those capital sentences have been carried out on people charged with criminal, rather than political offenses. But human rights groups and Iranian political experts believe that the rising numbers are meant to frighten anyone who might criticize or openly oppose the government...." Later on: "We believe that the Obama administration was right to reach out to Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear ambitions. But we also believe that there have to be limits to that forthcomingness, and time is running out." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/opinion/26thur2.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

- jacksondyer

November 26, 2009 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Luis. You are The Prince of Portugal. The Lapis of Lisbon. May all be well in heart and hearth. Reciprocal sympathetic sentiment with generosity. ( Spanish included )

- jacko

November 26, 2009 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What was rude about my post, Luisp? Thanksgiving is celebrated only in America and Canada. And in Canada we celebrated it, Christians and non-Christians alike, a few weeks ago. Are you seeing things?

- noga1

November 26, 2009 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I really think luis meant nothing nasty at all, but his little bit of friendly joshing changed its shape unexpectedly while crossing the Atlantic. A sort of Lusitanian transmission error. And a restrospective Happy Canadian Thanksgiving to you, if that doesn't sound too odd!

- ironyroad

November 26, 2009 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga. Gee, how nice you are! Which makes me think on Thanksgiving as given by the recipient: he's really the one who has virtue, if he is able to see it and give thanks to it... It's not so much about "transmission" as it is about reception... Anyway, again, happy thanksgiving to you all!

- luispc

November 26, 2009 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga. I vouch for Luis. He is a tops kind of guy even though he might deny. That's part of his charm. Further, his vantage gives him some unique insights worthy of serious consideration. Hey Luis, I saw Tep hanging about on another thread. Yard and icausr are around here and there as well. It's good to see some familiar scratchings from various luminaries of constellations past.

- jacko

November 26, 2009 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TEP ? Where is that layabout? Why isn't commenting on Geithner and on the case for deficit spending as it is his duty?

- luispc

November 26, 2009 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know what you mean. Perhaps the Tep is in the midst of a rewrite.

- jacko

November 26, 2009 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...and for anyone hankering to know everything you ever wanted to know about Canada's Thanksgiving but were afraid to ask (as Noga said, we celebrate it earlier here). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_%28Canada%29

- malahat

November 26, 2009 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And I do like the idea of Thanksgiving, a kind of common celebration of America's civil religion, something so quitessentialy Jeffersonian (and ultimately Christian, if you ask me, but let's leave that for now)." Thanksgiving as a national secular holiday was began when Lincoln was President. "Spurred by magazine editor Sarah Josepha Hale to make an annually observed day of thanksgiving “a National and fixed Union festival,” President Lincoln did what he could in a few sentences to bring people together. Just several months after the battle of Gettysburg, and just one month after Chickamauga claimed his own brother-in-law, Lincoln on Oct. 3, 1863, issued a Proclamation of Thanksgiving." Before that it was left up to the States (by George Washington) to celebrate the day and the Jeffersonian Southern States did not adopt it till much later.

- jacksondyer

November 26, 2009 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've just ducked out of the kitchen, where I've been for the past 48 hours. I have a break before guests come. Happy Thanksgiving, and a retroactive one to the Canookies. And happy Thanksgiving to Luis.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 26, 2009 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cookie, if the Spine thinks you might be spam, it usually asks you to copy letters from one box into another before allowing you to post.

- MOLLYSIMON

November 26, 2009 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Basman - in a word, no. I don't owe you anything. Marty's increasngly unhinged lunacy speaks for itself... Please! Of course you don't owe me anything nor did/do I suggest that you do. But you may as matter of intellectual self respect want to desist from ranting and actually make an argument. You confuse the headline of Peretz's post with its content and proceed to slag him on the basis of the headline regardless. He may be right; he may be wrong. But, *unlike* him, stop your spewing and argue something. Your assertion of his self evident "utterly moronic, childish rantings"/ his "unhinged lunacy" seems an excuse for your unwillingness/inabilty to take a stab at a sustained argument, or forget about sustained, just an argument.

- basman

November 26, 2009 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Molly! Nice to see you around here again

- luispc

November 27, 2009 at 3:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close