[blackshoe]

I did not say that past foreign policy did not lead to problems — Assad, the Shah, the Saudis, Noriega, Marcos, Ho Chi Minh are all examples of one sort or another. I only said, and say, that the particular problem of Assad and his recent use of chemical weapons against his people, and what we do about that single problem, is not affected by past or future US foreign policy. I suppose one could argue that how we got to this situation might affect what future US foreign policy should be, but that's a different issue.

[y66]

Ross Douthat's cute riff on Putin's op-ed: Call me Vlad.

Excerpt:

Quote

When I came into my office, he was in my chair, feet up, shirt off, an AK-47 propped against the desk.

“President Putin,” I said, playing it cool. “Nice Op-Ed last week.”

He looked up from my computer. “Ah, yes. I was just checking this, how you say, ‘most-e-mailed list’ that your New York Times keeps. I see I’m still No. 1.”

“Only until someone writes a piece about Ivy League admissions, Mr. President.”

His laugh sounded like ice cracking in a Siberian spring. “Call me Vlad,” he said. “And tell me: Is it always this easy to get a rise out of you Americans? I watch your TV, I follow your elections. I thought you are used to propaganda.”

“And this anger about the paragraph where I questioned American exceptionalism? After reading the online comments, I concede that American people are exceptional: exceptionally easy to bait.”

“Well, you can’t blame us for being annoyed with the situation. President Obama traps himself by threatening a war that Congress wouldn’t support, you sweep in with a bogus solution he has to accept because the alternative is impotence ...”

“How is the solution we have offered not a good one?”

“Will it lead to Assad giving up his chemical weapons?”

“I have no idea. But the diplomatic to-and-fro makes him unlikely to use them, which is what you wanted, no?”

“Well, the ultimate goal is to remove him from power ...”

He banged his hand on my desk. “This is how it always is! You cannot stop with reasonable goal. You must have unreasonable one. Toppling the Taliban was not enough — you had to repeat our mistake and occupy Afghanistan. Saddam contained was not enough — you wanted regime change, democracy. Killing terrorists is not enough — you want the Muslim world to love you.”

“Well, there’s that exceptionalism thing ...”

“Yes, yes, I admit, America really is different. Sometimes, deep in my cold, black heart, I even feel flicker of admiration for that difference ...”

“Well, thanks ...”

“But mostly it makes me insane. I have been dealing with American government for 13 years, and my needs have always been simple, straightforward. I just want what Russian leaders will always want: a sphere of influence, a partner to fight terrorism, stability at home, respect abroad. But your presidents, Bush and Obama — who can tell what they want? One minute they ask me for help in Afghanistan or offer some sort of ‘reset’ button; the next they push NATO to my borders and try to topple my only Middle Eastern client ...”

“Well, maybe they both started out hoping that you were something other than a thug and ended up disappointed.”

He stroked the AK-47. “Maybe. But you are lucky to have me. After the 1990s, you could have had a crazy revanchist who tried to conquer his neighbors instead of just bullying them like me. Or another clown like Yeltsin, who let everything fall apart. Instead, I’ve delivered growth, stability, continuity — even our birthrate is now higher than yours!”

“O.K.,” I returned, “but your continuity is just corrupt one-party rule, and your hold on power is actually weakening. You’re relying more on demagogy, cracking down on civil society ...”

“Your Obama would still give his eyeteeth for my approval ratings.”

“Touché. But in the long run, you’re a prisoner of your corrupt system. You’ll either hang on while it crumbles or step down and end up jailed by your successor.”

“I cannot let you change the subject, American columnist. Here is a message to transmit to your readers: As much fun as I had baiting them, part of my Op-Ed was sincere. I am not America’s enemy. I do not wish a new cold war. I do not wish to dominate the Middle East, whatever that means.

“No,” he went on, “all I want is an American foreign policy that sees the world as it actually is, and an American leader who can arm-wrestle at my level. Which is what you Americans should want as well, no? Maybe someday you should consider electing one.”

He rose, pecs flexing, and looked around my office. “Oh — and if I should need post-presidential career outside of Mother Russia, I think my Op-Ed sets me up nicely to become a columnist for your New York Times, no?”

[kenberg]

Excerpt from the excerpt:

Quote

"I cannot let you change the subject, American columnist. Here is a message to transmit to your readers: As much fun as I had baiting them, part of my Op-Ed was sincere. I am not America's enemy. I do not wish a new cold war. I do not wish to dominate the Middle East, whatever that means.

"No," he went on, "all I want is an American foreign policy that sees the world as it actually is, and an American leader who can arm-wrestle at my level. Which is what you Americans should want as well, no? Maybe someday you should consider electing one."

An ongoing tension. I know that many people, including posters here, see the U.S. in a very bad light. I ask that they consider, at least consider, the possibility the we, at times, wish to make the world a better place. This sometimes is at odds with "seeing the world as it is" and arm-wrestling with Putin. We backed Iraq in its use of nerve gas in its war with iran. The enemy of an enemy is a friend, I guess. Putin would certainly understand such a decision, but it is hardly the moral highground.

We end up in great inconsistency. In the 50s, we failed to back the French in their war in Indo-China, (can't support colonialism of course) but later we went in ourselves. We opted out of the Suez crisis in 56 (or thereabouts) but we are now deeply involved in the Mideast. We first backed Iraq and then later invaded Iraq. And, as the hypotetical interview with Putin says, we followed the Soviet mistake of getting heavily involved with Afghanistan. Bringing down the Taliban government was one thing, but trying to build a democracy there? How we gonna do that?


Do we look to Machiavelli or to idealism for our foreign policy? Sometimes it seems to be an unsettling combination of both. David Ignatius has a column today about Machiavelli and lessons for Obama.
http://www.washingto...1964_story.html
I like Ignatius so I am sorry to say this, but I see the views expressed there as whistling in the wind. What he sees as clever maneuvering by Obama I see as incoherent stumbling.


Anyway, exceptionalism rears its head again. I see this as an argument with no purpose. Exceptionalism is not a policy. It's not even a coherent basis for a policy. The French never tire of pointing out that they are just oh so much more sophisticated than Americans. Perhaps so. Who cares? Sophistication is not a policy, exceptionalism is not a policy. The Irish are better story tellers. Again, who cares? You walk up to someone and announce that you are exceptional, it starts an argument with no end and no purpose.

[y66]

Less smugness and more seeing things as they really are seem like good places to start renovating U.S. foreign policy. I admired the Sheriff Bell character in No Country For Old Men but I thought his uncle had it right when he said "This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity". Why do U.S. foreign policy makers think we have to be the sheriff to play a constructive role?

[blackshoe]

Because they've fallen in love with the myth of their own rectitude? Because, like politicians everywhere and throughout time, they see it as an opportunity to increase their personal power?

[mike777]

don't worry about it...

no one will punish Assad for being a killer...


Now many will keep him in power despite Obama saying he must go....

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-September-17, 00:52, said:

don't worry about it...

no one will punish Assad for being a killer...


Now many will keep him in power despite Obama saying he must go....

There should be a resource available to accurately describe what world leaders say - perhaps something placed "on the line". How about that?

Quote

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way,” Obama said in a written statement. “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

[kenberg]

I pass on a quip from Gerson relating Syria and the budget battles:

Quote

Recently overheard from a senior House Republican, commenting on prospects for a budget agreement: “At this point we’re hoping Vladimir Putin comes up with a plan.”

[Winstonm]

Another quote from a New York article:

Quote

Ronald Reagan warned conservatives in 1961 that if Medicare passed into law, “one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” The conservative movement sustains itself by constantly disregarding its warnings of the last mortal threat to liberty and redirecting itself onto the next one.

[Aberlour10]

Quote

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar
al-Assad is standing in their way," Obama said in a written statement. "For the
sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad
to step aside."

Its true, but unfortunately not only Assad is standing in their way,
Obama seems to forget following player in this determination:

Turkey
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Katar
Hisbollah
CIA
Al-Quaida
Russia
GB/France

Its not high probable that only one of them will step aside.

[Winstonm]

I only had one point to make: that saying "it is time for Assad to step aside" is a far cry from saying "Assad must go".

[kenberg]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

[dwar0123]

kenberg, on 2013-September-17, 17:24, said:

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

In the way they were intended, they likely mean the same.

However, if you want to come up with a continuing comment. What follows from "Go" can be a lot stronger without sounding silly.

1.
Assad must go, lets get a CIA operation going to assassinate him.

2.
Assad must step aside, lets hope this comment convinces him to do so.

[kenberg]

Agreed, there could in fact be different meanings, But really, as you say, there aren't.

Assad might:
1. Stay in power, Not go, not step aside.
2. Be killed. "Step aside" is sort of a nice euphemism. Louis XVI stepped aside during the French Revolution.
3. Go into luxurious and protected exile. Various dictators have stepped aside in this manner.

I don't foresee Assad stepping aside in the sense that he will then retire to a peaceful life on a camel ranch in Southwest Syria.

Larry Summers, perhaps, stepped aside, sort of. He stepped aside so as to not get run over, but we can be polite and say he stepped aside. Assad won't be doing that.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-September-17, 17:24, said:

I'm having trouble seeing the difference. "Step asisde" seems like a polite way to say "go". And a quick search had Clinton, back when she was Secretary of State,saying, with quotation marks around it, that "Assad must go"..

I would not want to be the minister in the Syrian government telling Assad that he has nothing to worry about because while Clinton said he must go, Obama only said that he had to step aside.

At any rate, he has no plans to do either, if indeed there is some difference between the two actions.

Last time I checked Clinton was still not Obama.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 09:26, said:

I don't understand where you get that idea.

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

Rik

Russia responds to UN report

This sort of thing is more predictable than you think.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-September-17, 18:17, said:

Agreed, there could in fact be different meanings, But really, as you say, there aren't.

Assad might:
1. Stay in power, Not go, not step aside.
2. Be killed. "Step aside" is sort of a nice euphemism. Louis XVI stepped aside during the French Revolution.
3. Go into luxurious and protected exile. Various dictators have stepped aside in this manner.

I don't foresee Assad stepping aside in the sense that he will then retire to a peaceful life on a camel ranch in Southwest Syria.

Larry Summers, perhaps, stepped aside, sort of. He stepped aside so as to not get run over, but we can be polite and say he stepped aside. Assad won't be doing that.

If you ever had to testify under oath with a court reporter taking down your words, you would understand that there is a significant difference bewteen saying "xyz has to go" and saying "xyz needs to step aside". The first sounds like a mafia don talking about an enemy while the second sounds like the chairman of the board discussing a competitor's CEO.

Sure, we can assume that the underlying meaning is the same....just don't try to prove it...

[kenberg]

Any resemblance between the Middle East and a court of law is accidental and unlikely.

Anywau, maybe this will work out better than I think it will, I guess we can hope. I have no desire to be right in my pessimism, but I think that a year from now Assad will not have gone, will not have stepped aside, and the chemical weapons will not be destroyed.As I get it from the NYT op-ed, Putin still believes, well Putin still says, that the rebels gassed themselves.

[blackshoe]

If he has to "step aside", but doesn't, we presumably regretfully leave him alone. His person, anyway. If he "has to go", then we give him the chance to step aside. If he does not, we send in the troops to remove him.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-18, 08:52, said:

If he has to "step aside", but doesn't, we presumably regretfully leave him alone. His person, anyway. If he "has to go", then we give him the chance to step aside. If he does not, we send in the troops to remove him.

That's how I understand the difference to be.