Middle East countries prove Obama right, McCain wrong

[Thomas Veil]

Oh, the Obama people are gonna have fun with this. Bush and McCain have been mocking Obama's supposed "naivete", saying that it is not good policy to talk to your enemies.

Well...

U.S. on the Outside in Peace Efforts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102569.html?hpid=sec-nation)
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2008; A20

Just days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration.

Two major peace efforts -- a surprise announcement of indirect talks between Israel and Syria brokered by Turkey and an eleventh-hour deal to prevent a new Lebanese war brokered by Qatar -- were launched without an American role, and both counter U.S. strategy in the region.

For years, the Bush administration has resisted overtures from Jerusalem and Damascus to participate in revived peace efforts over the Golan Heights. The administration balked at including Syria in the Annapolis conference on Middle East peace last year, relenting only under pressure from allies, according to Western officials.

At his Senate confirmation hearing on May 1, James B. Cunningham, the ambassador-designate to Israel, said expanding peace talks to include Syria would be difficult. "We have taken the position that it is not very useful right now for us to be talking to Syria," he said. As a result, over the past year Turkey has taken the initiative to launch shuttle diplomacy, a role once reserved for U.S. secretaries of state.

For the past 18 months, the United States has also urged the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to resist a new political arrangement that would reflect the shifting balance of power on the ground. Over the past two years, Washington has pledged $1.3 billion in aid, much of it to build up Lebanon's military.

"The United States wanted the Siniora government to take a harder-line position and hold out against Hezbollah, but it couldn't provide enough support to make this possible," said Marina Ottaway of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

To prevent a new war, Qatar stepped in to mediate. The peace deal struck yesterday favors Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite political party and militia armed by Iran and Syria, which will gain enough new cabinet seats to veto any decision.

The United States is not playing a role in other critical Middle East initiatives, Ottaway noted, including an Egyptian effort to reconcile the two major Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, and negotiations between Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council sheikdoms. The Bush administration is absent "across the board," she said.

That absence reflects Bush's lame-duck status, experts said. "The president spoke in Jerusalem a week ago about standing up to dictators and not appeasing those who used force. He isn't home a week, and the dictators and the forces of violence have triumphed," said Bruce Riedel, a former National Security Council staff member.

John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described as a "wake-up call" the Israeli and Syrian announcement of the first peace effort in eight years. "What did the leaders of Israel, already engaged in negotiations with Syria, think when President Bush stood before the Israeli Knesset and invoked Hitler in labeling engagement with rogue nations 'appeasement'? " he asked.

The administration responded coolly to the news of talks in Istanbul. "We hope that this is a forum to address various concerns we all have with Syria's support of terrorism, repression of its own people, and so we will see how this progresses," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.Apparently if you're not gonna take part in Middle East negotiations, they're gonna do it for themselves.

Another way Bush (and by extension McCain) have abdicated our authority as a superpower. And they made Obama look pretty smart in the bargain.

[leekohler]

Whoa- that's crazy. How much do you wanna bet that Bush tries to take credit somehow? Although- the Hezbollah thing is a little scary.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, we'll never know, but maybe if the Bush administration hadn't taken such a hard line itself and had participated in talks, it could have come up with a somewhat different outcome.

If anything, Bush's recklessness and intractability has probably convinced a lot of Middle East nations that they'd rather work things out themselves than deal with the drunken, stampeding elephant that is the Bush administration.

[Thanatoast]

This peace process will soon be derailed by Bush bombing Iran. Then he gets to keep his perpetual war. He really *is* trying to unite the Middle East - against us. Then we have a reason to continue paying $750,000,000,000/year for our military.

[leekohler]

This peace process will soon be derailed by Bush bombing Iran. Then he gets to keep his perpetual war. He really *is* trying to unite the Middle East - against us. Then we have a reason to continue paying $750,000,000,000/year for our military.

He may very well use the Hezbollah thing as evidence that the ME is uniting against us. I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

[Antares]

Middle East politics is an extremely complex thing. I look forward to a time when we will no longer need to be concerned with that region. What everyone needs to keep in mind is that there are no black and white rules that explicitly state when you do or don't talk to nations or leaders. Sure it's a nice idea to be all buddy buddy with leaders of rogue nations. However, there are consequences that need to be considered.

I just find it amusing that Obama supporters are twisting things to make it seem like he's right. At least take McCain out of the thread title as many Democrats agree that Obama's stance on international politics with rogue nations is wrong...though the Democrats put it more lightly as to not harm Obama politically while the Republicans obviously are more extreme with their criticism to try and harm him.

Even though I am obviously anti-Obama, I try to look at things objectively.

Why does the US have to be the negotiator or mediator? Can't sovereign nations deal with things themselves? Unless there is a real need for the US to help, I say we butt out and let them deal with it themselves. But we're too entrenched there because of the oil for ANY president to leave them all alone. Not Obama, not McCain, not Hillary.....

[Peace]

Even though I am obviously anti-Obama, I try to look at things objectively.

Why does the US have to be the negotiator or mediator? Can't sovereign nations deal with things themselves? Unless there is a real need for the US to help, I say we butt out and let them deal with it themselves. But we're too entrenched there because of the oil for ANY president to leave them all alone. Not Obama, not McCain, not Hillary.....

Ever heard of Iraq ?

[Thomas Veil]

Why take McCain out of the thread title? He's made no bones about the fact that he believes you do not talk to enemies. Turkey, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Quatar and Hezbollah have shown that sometimes you do talk to your enemies.

As far as Obama goes, sure, Hillary thinks he's wrong, but people like Howard Baker III, Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell think Bush and McCain are wrong.

And let's not forget that the U.S. has a long history of meeting with our then-biggest enemy, the Soviets.

The U.S. doesn't have to be a mediator. But no one in their right mind would argue that third parties are more likely to have their interests met by sitting on the sidelines rather than by participating.

[Antares]

Ever heard of Iraq ?

What about it? We're responsible. We can't just abandon it flat out.

[Thomas Veil]

I believe his point was that we got stuck our nose into that situation without needing to.

[SMM]

< ... snip ... >

Even though I am obviously anti-Obama, I try to look at things objectively.

Why does the US have to be the negotiator or mediator? Can't sovereign nations deal with things themselves? Unless there is a real need for the US to help, I say we butt out and let them deal with it themselves. But we're too entrenched there because of the oil for ANY president to leave them all alone. Not Obama, not McCain, not Hillary.....

Some US foreign aid is freely given, without any strings attached. However, if it is by the government, it would be for humanity purposes, disaster relief for example. But, most of it is from private charities.

When the government gives military aid (hardware or technical services), it comes with the condition that the recipient will promote US policies. Therefore, we want to be involved in anything that could run counter to those. This is obviously a broad generalization and will not apply to every case.

[zap2]

.

I just find it amusing that Obama supporters are twisting things to make it seem like he's right.


He is. His plan, talk with leaders when they start to show push for real improvement, not this "we'll cut off communication from you, and I bet you'll come to our side real soon!"

.
At least take McCain out of the thread title as many Democrats agree that Obama's stance on international politics with rogue nations is wrong...y.

Wait, what do those two fact have to do with each other? McCain is wrong, because his policy are ones which have failed, point-blank, over the past 8 years. Dems agreeing with McCain, which I see little proof of, wouldn't change that fact.


.

Even though I am obviously anti-Obama, I try to look at things objectively.

Yea....atleast you'll say it. Some people refuse to do that much

[yojitani]

many Democrats agree that Obama's stance on international politics with rogue nations

I personally find this the most attractive of Obama's politics. I'm not sure what harm people like those linked to in your sig. really find in talking to nations that some agency has decided is 'rogue'. People seem to forget the other lesson of Iraq (and Libya if you want to go back) is sanctions don't work and in fact are inhuman. Obama's is the most intelligent international policy I've seen from a presidential nominee. It'd be fantastic if the US could engage Hezbollah and Hamas too, but that wouldn't even happen under Obama


Why does the US have to be the negotiator or mediator? Can't sovereign nations deal with things themselves? Unless there is a real need for the US to help, I say we butt out and let them deal with it themselves. But we're too entrenched there because of the oil for ANY president to leave them all alone.

This is a huge question. One reason is simply because if the US doesn't someone else will. That might sound great to isolationists until foreign interests start getting cut off. The US has played such a large role as mediator etc. since WW2 because of economic interests, not just oil. Stability is usually in the US's better economic interests... That's why typically the US shows up in hotspots where there's money to be made, and only sends a nasty message to places where there's less at stake. Of course, this is a huge generalization.

I've got to ask about that site you've got linked in your sig, stop obama?. Fair enough, there's plenty to dislike about the guy, but the stuff listed on the site is kind of childish. Muslim family? Rev. Wright? It sounds like the kind of mentality of my neighbor who thinks Obama might start a war against white people:confused:. Past the ridicule here, what is it that actually bothers people (like you I guess since you've linked to it) about Obama? What is it about Obama that you are actually afraid of? Reading that website, one might forget that he is just a Washington tool like the best of them.

[SMM]

What about it? We're responsible. We can't just abandon it flat out.

Why? This is an ancient region with very smart people. Only Iraq can solve Iraq's internal problems. We have done nothing but kill hundreds of thousands of people, destroy much of their infrastructure, and generally make a mess of everything we touch. The vast majority of the World, and among Americans, believe we are in Iraq to protect our interests. I agree with the majority. If we leave Iraq, remove any remaining sanctions, they will be able to work things out for themselves. The Bush administration is completely out of depth in understanding the people of Iraq; their culture, religion and history.

I was in Vietnam when I was 19. I was there for 20 months. Whenever I was rotated back to Binh Thuy, which was a fairly secure area, I would spend my nights at my friend Leim's house. In the evenings, I would sit up with the family, watching TV (absolutely nothing like American), and then we would go out in the garden and talk. For me, Vietnam was a vast array of experiences, ranging from horror to love. But, the one dominate feeling was one of adventure and learning.

Over those 20 months, Leim taught me the history of his Country in micro detail. Night after night, after night, Leim and I would talk and I began to understand the war from the Vietnamese perspective. Leim explained that Vietnam had been engaged in a war for independence for centuries. They had been conquered and enslaved by the Siamese Empire, China, the Mongols, China (again), France, Japan and France (again). After the French were defeated, America comes blundering in.

The Vietnamese people knew they were very close to achieving the freedom they had sought, and died trying to achieve, for hundreds of years. Leim told me that the fight for independence went back for so many generations, and was so entrenched in the Vietnamese, Leim told me that it was never going to be possible to change this. For every VC killed, a new one would pick up a rifle. An American General, when asked why we were unable to make significant progress, replied, "What do you want us to do, level every city in Vietnam, starting with Saigon?" He was a man who understood the problem.

The reason I spent so much time explaining this, is because I see the a very similar relationship with how we are blundering blindly in Iraq. We are trying to 'force-feed' our fantasy, on how Iraq should adopt to the US 'vision' we have for them. However, the Iraqi's perception is much different than ours. They understand the issues and we are the ones that do not. They have survived and prospered for over two millennia. I am pretty sure, if we departed, and let them sort thing out, they would be successful.

But then, we are really there to protect our interests, aren't we?

[Thomas Veil]

Another article (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38319.html) that bolsters this point:

...As its closest allies cut deals with their adversaries this week over the Bush administration's opposition, Washington was largely reduced to watching.

More painfully for President Bush, friends he's cultivated — and spent heavily on — in Lebanon and Iraq asked the United States to remain in the background, underlining how politically toxic an association with the U.S. can be for Arab leaders.

Over the past few days:


The Lebanese government, which has received $1.3 billion and political support from the Bush administration, compromised with the Hezbollah-led opposition, giving the Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim group, which Washington considers a terrorist organization, a greater role in running the country.
Israel ignored U.S. objections and entered indirect peace talks with Syria through Turkey, another longtime U.S. ally.
The U.S.-backed Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki deployed military forces to Baghdad's Sadr City slum under an agreement that specifically excluded U.S. troops.
Saudi Arabia, a crucial oil supplier and long a major buyer of U.S. weapons, is quietly closing what could be a multibillion-dollar arms deal with Russia, according to a U.S. defense official.

...Others said that by refusing to talk to adversaries and using bristling "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric, Bush has cut his administration out of the game. Under Bush, U.S. diplomats have had few substantive discussions with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah or the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which in 2006 won elections that the White House had pushed for.

"In that sense, we've dealt ourselves out of the picture," said Richard W. Murphy, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Syria and an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration.

[solvs]

What about it? We're responsible. We can't just abandon it flat out.
For the record, no legitimate plan says we will. The most extreme I've seen from those who actually have a chance to do much about it is a slow, phased, withdrawal. Usually over about a 16 month period. Saying anyone wants to pull out immediately is a strawman used by those who's only plans are to keep doing what we're doing now, which is not working, despite everything said about the surge (which didn't do anything it was supposed to, and just barely brought violence back down to where it was, and temporarily at that). The only people I know even saying it were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and even they knew you couldn't just pull out and that was that. As opposed to more of the same, a slow a phased withdrawal seems like a good idea. What are they going to do, continue to fight the way they already are? Maybe we should focus more on the 'stans, where the real terrorists are and give the Iraqis what they need rather than trying to force more on them that they don't want. If we were actually fixing their country, I would give you your point, but we aren't. All evidence points to the fact that we, especially our contractors, are actually still making things worse, and continue to do so.

I'm not impressed with everything Obama is pushing, I've said as much and why many times here, but McCain has taken on Bush's failed policies, and that's lost my support completely.