That's why the Geek regrets seeing it fall off the wagon of truthful, impartial and accurate reporting. VOA blew it with a treatment of the foreign policy views of Senator Barrak Obama. Not the views, per se. Rather in how the outlet framed the senator's positions. Take a look at the article in question: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-13-voa13.cfm.
VOA quotes "experts" (only one is identified and quoted by name) as saying that Senator Obama's foreign policy stance is in the "mainstream" of US experience during the past century. Consider the following assessment.
His views reflect some of the foreign policy positions of previous American presidents, particularly those of the Democratic party. Harry Truman, John Kennedy and others stressed that the promotion of democracy and human rights cannot be separated from the struggle against poverty and despair.
The quote makes presidents, Cold Warriors of the most determined sort, out to be a collection of social workers and do-gooders. Get a grip!
The historical record shows clearly that the two named presidents as well as others unnamed used the promotion of democracy, the underscoring of human rights as well as campaigns for economic development and (to a limited extent only) economic justice as tactical weapons in the strategic confrontation with both Moscow and Beijing sponsored communism. In the same way and to the same end both Truman and Kennedy used armed force.
The first in Korea. The second in Cuba, Laos and South Vietnam.
These two Democratic presidents as well as others ranging from Wilson to Lyndon Johnson saw that strategic goals were only achievable through the correct mix of tactics, the proper balance of the several elements of national power.
None would have eschewed the utility of military force--whether actually employed or merely threatened. Senator Obama, pace Voice of America, has given no plausible indication that he understands the military to be an instrument of national power.
This does not mean that either Truman or Kennedy were eager to seek war. Indeed, every historical indicator is to the contrary. Both men were combat veterans. They undoubtedly would have agreed with Senator McCain's statement that "only a fool or a fraud" would glorify war (or, the Geek adds, seek it.)
Senator Obama may have spent a few childhood years in Indonesia but he has not seen a microsecond of combat. Whether his youthful observation of an Asian-Muslim culture represents the basis for a "unique perspective in the conduct of foreign affairs" is at best doubtful.
VOA quoted Peter Beinart, a US foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying,
There's more of a sense in Obama, echoing back to [President] Woodrow Wilson, of the idea that we are in a world of common threats, things like global warming, public health threats, economic instability, threaten us as well as other nations so they have to be dealt with through cooperation.
Either the CFR has fallen on tough intellectual times or Beinart was desperately misquoted. The Geek hopes it was the second.
Why?
Because Peter Beinart's analysis is as historically wrong as a cat barking. Leaving aside the risible anachronisms of global warming, etc, it is important to note two historical realities about the Princeton University political science professor turned politician, Wilson.
Wilson was willing, even eager, to sit at the head of the post-World War I peace conference. He knew that only American participation in the two and a half year old war would allow him to do that. He had a vision, an ideal, of the world being made safe from big power war through the creation of an international league. He was willing to purchase that vision with the blood of American men. Roughly ten times as many Americans died in the next eighteen months than have died in Iraq to date to buy the Man From Princeton his ticket at the head of the peace table.
What did the sacrifice get Wilson? The US? The world?
Quick answer. World War II.
If Senator Obama is Wilson reincarnate, the world had better watch out.
The second fact about President Wilson ignored by the VOA "expert" is simply that the idealistic, moralistic, church-going Presbyterian ordered more US military interventions than any other American president to date. It might also be mentioned that all of these were unilateral. No UN fig leaf back then to cover American policy genitalia.
The Voice of America offered a defense of Senator Obama's strongly criticised willingness to meet with leaders of countries hostile to the US. The defense? Read on--
Obama has dismissed such criticism, saying previous presidents including Republican Ronald Reagan met with America's enemies.What he failed to state was the self-evident: Reagan's meetings were well-staffed and briefed in advance. President Reagan had an agenda. Even so, the strongly anti-nuclear weapons oriented president went over the edge--more than once. It took intense effort on the part of others in his administration to get the nuclear arms limitation and reduction talks back on line. That they were ultimately successful owes much less to our efforts than to those of the Soviet leader.
Summit talks are dangerous. Even with careful preparation they are a human minefield. The US-USSR summits from Vienna on show this clearly. A nice smile and a childhood in Indonesia won't change that.
Neither will fascination with a half-Black, half-White candidate overseas. Here's the CFR expert again--
The fact that he's lived in Indonesia, which is a Muslim country, but also that he himself has roots outside the United States and that he has roots in the Third World, I think will be a powerful thing for people around the world and that will have an impact on their leaders.Right. Sure.
If the Geek were a leader of a hostile state, he would be licking his lips and sharpening his knife for the encounter with the Nice (Naive) Young Man From Chicago. The Geek might even paraphrase one of the Commander Guy's less felicitous phrases, "Bring him on!"
1 comment:
Your points are well taken. However, the real problem that "President Obama" (if he actually gets that far, which is still to be determined) is that there's a reason that all those Democratic Senators and Reps were in his corner. Part of it was that Hillary would bring too much baggage to the table, but also they know that she's a whole lot tougher than Obama is, and not an easy candidate to be rolled.
Bottom line, he gets in office, and he's going to be treated like an empty suit by his fellow congress critters. He's going to get played by everybody in town, because truth is, they (a Democratic Congress) owe him NOTHING. The Republicans won't play ball, because he (unlike what he says) brings nothing to the table in terms of cooperation, and basically he's brought nothing to the Congress - if anything, they put him in position to win the office.
The first 9 months of his Administration (assuming he can win) are going to be a domestic policy oriented nightmare. And that's assuming nothing bad happens in foreign policy arena during that time frame.
Btw, you might think all the above is just "political". If you want to know the real background into his decision making, look at his tenure in the IL State Senate when he was Chair of Senate JCAR (Joint Committee on Administrative Rules).
That's where the legislature will review, amend, codify, and implement rules for administration of all sorts of different programs (State Medicaid, Environmental initiatives from the federal government, etc., etc.) as they apply to the State and local governments. It's a hard, thankless, job - but it has to get done, and people are always waiting on you to get it done, so they can do their jobs.
Obama just could not make up his freaking mind (and other Senators on both sides have made this observation) - and when the Chair of Senate JCAR can't make the call, everything STOPS moving.
Well, when you are POTUS, you don't get to make the "easy" decisions - they've already been made long before they get to you. All your decisions as POTUS are the ugly ones. If Obama gets elected, he better grow up quick - his track record in IL Senate is not encouraging, IMO. (Yes, I'm from IL)
You talk about Obama being taken advantage of by foreign nations - long before that happens, he'll be taken to cleaners more times than he can count by Congress critters in both parties, but primarily his own. Book has already been written on him.
Post a Comment