.Half the job is done
Read this: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists.
Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
Guess who said it.
Well, it was Senator Barack Obama, addressing the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) in Washington last week.
What a transformation! Except for the politically correct phrase "violent extremists" instead of the more accurate "terrorists", the paragraph could have come from the US President George W. Bush. All those who supported the Bush Doctrine should welcome this dramatic change.
Obama's new analysis discards some of his most dangerous ones of just a few weeks ago. The threat from Iran is no longer described as an "obsession". The danger of nuclear proliferation is recognised. And the Islamic Republic is acknowledged as something more than a "tiny" challenger.
Obama has also "evolved" his position on Iraq. He no longer shares the belief of Democrat Majority leader in the Senate Harry Reid that the US has already lost the war.
Obama has also discarded his pledge to pull US troops out in the first year of his presidency. He now talks of "a responsible and phased withdrawal", exactly what Bush is committed to.
More importantly, he no longer says "there are no good options in Iraq". He now says "there are not many good options in Iraq", which means there are some!
Many in the Middle East are perplexed by this sudden transformation. Was it designed to woo the Jewish vote in the United States? But Obama does not need such wooing. American Jews always vote Democrat by a margin of three to one.
Two other explanations are possible. The first is that, to win the nomination, Obama had to court the virulent anti-war groups that propelled his campaign to victory. Now that he has secured the nomination he must appeal to the electorate at large.
In the primaries, Obama collected some 18 million votes, or nine per cent of Americans eligible to vote.
Supposing he also wins all the votes of Senator Hillary Clinton in the primaries, he would have the support of some 17 per cent of the electorate.
That leaves 83 per cent up for grabs. Even if half the electorate don't vote, Obama would still need an additional 33 million votes to win. Since a majority of Americans think that Iran is a threat and a growing plurality are beginning to see that Iraq was not a quagmire after all, Obama has to tailor his message not to reassure them.
That explanation, although based on cynical political calculations, is better than the second one. This one is that Obama had never thought his previous position through with any seriousness and that he may not be serious about his new ones either.
He may be like president William Howard Taft who is reported to have concluded a speech by saying: "Ladies and gentlemen, these are my principles. But, if you don't like them, I have others!"
A third explanation, which I prefer, is that Obama, an inexperienced politician, is learning on the job. This is no bad thing, provided his mind is not atrophied by dogma. No one gains experience without making mistakes and correcting them.
Obama should travel to the Middle East to get a feel of the place, talk to people at all levels, and acquire a deeper understanding of the issues.
He should especially go to Iraq to see what is happening and hear what Iraqis think about their future. I know no one who went to Iraq without a hidden agenda and came back not supporting the building of a new, open and pluralist society there.
Obama should talk to American civilian and military personnel who have put their lives on the line to help Iraq defeat its enemies. Once he has completed his educational tour, he would have to tackle the second half of the task facing him.
Change
The first half was a change of his attitude of appeasement towards the Islamic Republic and defeatism on Iraq. The second half consists of what he is going to do about Iran and Iraq.
Having adopted Bush's analysis, will he also adopt Bush's policies, albeit with variations to calm his party's virulent Bush-bashers? That is the key question of the coming campaign.
For if Obama goes the whole way, he would facilitate the development of a bipartisan policy on the most crucial international issues the US has faced since the end of the Cold War.
That would tell the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that the US, even under Obama as president, will not feed its friends to the wolves and run away. It would also tell the extremist leaders that the US would not allow them to dominate the Middle East in the name of Khomeinism.
The very perception of a truly united United States would go a long way in defusing the situation in the Middle East.
The perception of the United States as a house divided, on the contrary, will encourage those who hope the Americans will run away, leaving the Middle East for them, just to please Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the small anti-war network that helped fly Obama's kite to such heights.
The difference between the two perceptions could mean the difference between peace and war.
GulfNews
I have to remind my Right Wing friends that it was the right that went on an eight year witch hunt against Clinton, that culminated with his impeachment that gave the enemy the idea that we were a nation divided in the first place.
They should practice all that finger pointing in front of a mirror first.
Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
Guess who said it.
Well, it was Senator Barack Obama, addressing the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) in Washington last week.
What a transformation! Except for the politically correct phrase "violent extremists" instead of the more accurate "terrorists", the paragraph could have come from the US President George W. Bush. All those who supported the Bush Doctrine should welcome this dramatic change.
Obama's new analysis discards some of his most dangerous ones of just a few weeks ago. The threat from Iran is no longer described as an "obsession". The danger of nuclear proliferation is recognised. And the Islamic Republic is acknowledged as something more than a "tiny" challenger.
Obama has also "evolved" his position on Iraq. He no longer shares the belief of Democrat Majority leader in the Senate Harry Reid that the US has already lost the war.
Obama has also discarded his pledge to pull US troops out in the first year of his presidency. He now talks of "a responsible and phased withdrawal", exactly what Bush is committed to.
More importantly, he no longer says "there are no good options in Iraq". He now says "there are not many good options in Iraq", which means there are some!
Many in the Middle East are perplexed by this sudden transformation. Was it designed to woo the Jewish vote in the United States? But Obama does not need such wooing. American Jews always vote Democrat by a margin of three to one.
Two other explanations are possible. The first is that, to win the nomination, Obama had to court the virulent anti-war groups that propelled his campaign to victory. Now that he has secured the nomination he must appeal to the electorate at large.
In the primaries, Obama collected some 18 million votes, or nine per cent of Americans eligible to vote.
Supposing he also wins all the votes of Senator Hillary Clinton in the primaries, he would have the support of some 17 per cent of the electorate.
That leaves 83 per cent up for grabs. Even if half the electorate don't vote, Obama would still need an additional 33 million votes to win. Since a majority of Americans think that Iran is a threat and a growing plurality are beginning to see that Iraq was not a quagmire after all, Obama has to tailor his message not to reassure them.
That explanation, although based on cynical political calculations, is better than the second one. This one is that Obama had never thought his previous position through with any seriousness and that he may not be serious about his new ones either.
He may be like president William Howard Taft who is reported to have concluded a speech by saying: "Ladies and gentlemen, these are my principles. But, if you don't like them, I have others!"
A third explanation, which I prefer, is that Obama, an inexperienced politician, is learning on the job. This is no bad thing, provided his mind is not atrophied by dogma. No one gains experience without making mistakes and correcting them.
Obama should travel to the Middle East to get a feel of the place, talk to people at all levels, and acquire a deeper understanding of the issues.
He should especially go to Iraq to see what is happening and hear what Iraqis think about their future. I know no one who went to Iraq without a hidden agenda and came back not supporting the building of a new, open and pluralist society there.
Obama should talk to American civilian and military personnel who have put their lives on the line to help Iraq defeat its enemies. Once he has completed his educational tour, he would have to tackle the second half of the task facing him.
Change
The first half was a change of his attitude of appeasement towards the Islamic Republic and defeatism on Iraq. The second half consists of what he is going to do about Iran and Iraq.
Having adopted Bush's analysis, will he also adopt Bush's policies, albeit with variations to calm his party's virulent Bush-bashers? That is the key question of the coming campaign.
For if Obama goes the whole way, he would facilitate the development of a bipartisan policy on the most crucial international issues the US has faced since the end of the Cold War.
That would tell the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that the US, even under Obama as president, will not feed its friends to the wolves and run away. It would also tell the extremist leaders that the US would not allow them to dominate the Middle East in the name of Khomeinism.
The very perception of a truly united United States would go a long way in defusing the situation in the Middle East.
The perception of the United States as a house divided, on the contrary, will encourage those who hope the Americans will run away, leaving the Middle East for them, just to please Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the small anti-war network that helped fly Obama's kite to such heights.
The difference between the two perceptions could mean the difference between peace and war.
GulfNews
I have to remind my Right Wing friends that it was the right that went on an eight year witch hunt against Clinton, that culminated with his impeachment that gave the enemy the idea that we were a nation divided in the first place.
They should practice all that finger pointing in front of a mirror first.
posted by madtom at 4:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home