Frummaging Through Foreign Policy
David Frum is Dickensian: the best and worst of Republican thinkers. Assuming there are any left. His work on a domestic reform based conservatism is I think excellent. His foreign policy views, eh, not as much.
The latter is sadly on display in this post in The Week today. All the old neocon gibberish and character smears are out in full force, partying like it was 2004 all over again.
The president initiated this commitment [Afghanistan] for campaign purposes in his candidate days, to allow him to balance hawkish themes in Afghanistan against his dovishness on Iraq. The commitment was not connected in any organic way to the rest of his foreign policy, the grand theme of which is conciliation through moral and practical concession.
To put it rather graphically, why is the neocon vision always prone to sexual euphemism? Why is the entirety of foreign policy whether we are “giving it” to everybody else or else “taking it”?
To respond logically to this illogic, Obama said that he was out to get al-Qaeda. Given that they have now migrated to Pakistan, it’s unclear whether a nation-building exercise in Afghanistan achieves that goal. That proposition is dicey, and I’ve heard very intelligent people argue both ways on that one. But it’s certainly possible to imagine Obama starting a draw down (rather than a ramp up as his generals are asking for) in Afghanistan while still targeting al-Qaeda leadership (i.e. with drones in Pakistan).
And the hits keep coming, Persian style:
Averting its eyes from the rigging of the presidential election and the suppression of dissent, the Obama administration will begin mid-level talks with Iran on Oct. 1.
Does anybody in their right mind think somehow the Obama administration doesn’t think the election was rigged? What are they supposed to do? Reagan (Son of the Light himself, May Glory be forever his in the invocation of his name) you might recall talked with the Soviet Union–who you know actually had a world-destroying, life annihilating arsenal of nuclear weapons and didn’t much elections even to rig. And I think it would be fair to check the box on suppression of dissent by the USSR.
On Latin America:
They [Team Obama] now show amazingly little interest in the even more serious crisis of law and order in Mexico. Under Obama, the U.S. could face a threat not experienced since the very earliest days of the republic: violent instability on the nation’s border, unless this self-certain president bends enough to learn some lessons from his predecessor. But can he? Obama’s reaction to the power struggle in Honduras, admittedly a non-strategic country, reveals a depressing, knee-jerk partiality to the Latin American left-wing, even at its most anti-constitutional and authoritarian.
Now the point about Mexico is actually well taken. Except what is Frum’s solution? He doesn’t say specifically, only that he learn the lesson his predecessor meaning what exactly? That we invade Mexico and occupy it? Or does Frum think the US should try the same approach it supported in Colombia (which he elsewhere in this piece refers to as one of the great quiet successes of George W. Bush’s term in office)? i.e. Should we support a pretty hard core counter-narcotics effort that would likely lead to a more professionalization and cartelization of the drug trade?
And on Honduras–maybe countries shouldn’t simply be labeled as whether they are “non-strategic” or “strategic” since you know actual human beings live their lives there. Maybe Obama was just not a fan of a military junta takeover–given the US’ history of involvement with said realities in that part of the world. I think it’s dumb that whatever happens around the world is supposed to have a US response to it, but even so, I’m not clear that Obama did the right thing. Still, I hardly imagine it’s because of some “knee jerk partiality to the Latin American left-wing”. Yeah, that must be it. Riiiighhhht.
And on Israel/Palestine:
The U.S. is applying pressure to Israel, because Israel is susceptible to U.S. pressure, in hopes of gaining concessions from the Palestinians, who are not.
That last sentence is correct, the US should not hope for Palestinian concessions, but not for the principal reason I imagine Frum thinks it is. The problem with sending Secretaries of State and/or ambassadorial envoys is that it assumes there is such a thing as the Palestinian state. Of course there isn’t. It’s often argued there are two Palestinian states (Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in West Bank), but even that isn’t right since neither of them is a state.
Continued efforts to form a peace treaty based on statehood–as Israel has with Egypt and Jordan–will I believe not work given the different circumstances of this case. The answer however is not the neocon support Israel to the hilt version Frum would advise.
–
Maybe I’m being a too harsh. It’s not all bad. I agree with Frum’s criticism of nascent trade protectionism. But it’s hard to have a constructive conversation when the wells are so poisoned by such character attacks.
Take a look at the comments on Frum’s site, NewMajority.com. Aside from some liberal snark, a good amount of the comment volume is composed of Republicans calling him irrelevant RINO who nobody pays any attention to and can’t possibly care about conservatism because he attacks conservatives. As obnoxious as they are, the flamers have a point: his ideas are going nowhere fast within the party and nobody is listening to him. He’s like the last telegraph operator.Report
On domestic policy yes–which again I think is a shame. But on foreign policy–to the degree the right is thinking about it at all at this point which isn’t much–it is still neocon dominant. So though it may have to flow from Frum to a more approved channel (Hugh Hewitt, John Podhoretz, whoever), then it still has influence.Report
The U.S. is applying pressure to Israel, because Israel is susceptible to U.S. pressure, in hopes of gaining concessions from the Palestinians, who are not.
[Response to Frum] Well, and because the Palestinians have nothing to concede, so they have nothing left to lose, so they’re going to keep fighting unless something happens to give them confidence that Israel is at all interested in peace. Every peace agreement since Camp David has included the provision that Israel needs to leave the Palestinian territories, and yet they’ve built up settlements in the area continually since 1967.
If the Israelis were just worried about terrorism, they could have made peace while the Palestinians were still throwing rocks. They chose not to.
And on Honduras–maybe countries shouldn’t simply be labeled as whether they are “non-strategic” or “strategic” since you know actual human beings live their lives there. Maybe Obama was just not a fan of a military junta takeover–given the US’ history of involvement with said realities in that part of the world. I think it’s dumb that whatever happens around the world is supposed to have a US response to it, but even so, I’m not clear that Obama did the right thing. Still, I hardly imagine it’s because of some “knee jerk partiality to the Latin American left-wing”. Yeah, that must be it. Riiiighhhht.
I second your “riiiight”. The US doesn’t seem overly upset about the coup and seem inclined to let it stand until elections (if they occur as scheduled) in December. All the same, Obama’s condemnation of it was not only the ethical thing to do, it was the politically smart thing to do: the less the US looks like “The Empire” – which it would if Obama said, as Bush did in response to a coup against Chavez, “he had it coming” – the friendlier Latin American nations are inclined to be.
But then, I’m bewildered at the right’s obsession with the Latin American left – they’ve never done anything to the US, heated criticism isn’t a weapon, they’re simply not a threat. The right’s view seems to be that criticism alone makes a nation an enemy of the US.Report
On Latin America, agreed.
One of the few identifiably consistent trends in President Obama’s foreign policy is the desire/emphasis to plant the seeds of a new image of America abroad. He’s done that to the arab world, in part through his tougher stance on Israel, not to mention the “great apologia” or whatever conservatives called it in Cairo. He’s attempted to do so with Iran and unfortunately for him the Iranian election really stunted those efforts.
In Latin America, anyone and everyone could predict that self-appointed mouthpiece for the Americas south of Mexico, Hugo Chavez, would blame America or American involvement for the coup, regardless of facts. A statement of support or even silence on the matter only reinforces Chavez’ optical framing.
I don’t think that criticism of America instantly makes a country a target of the right, though admittedly they’re hyper-sensitive to it, but instead the collectivist and particularly anti-corporate policies of the Latin American left. Which also accounts somewhat for their push for a free trade agreement with Colombia, it’s pro-business and pro-Uribe.
Honestly though I don’t think South America is flashy enough for the right, except when they can use it to say “look, we’re awesome,” or more commonly “look, at how terrible the Democrats are screwing up, today.” Then there’s the rare but always enjoyable, “if Democrats have their way, we’ll end up just like a banana republic.”
Obsessed, probably not. Contemptuous, probably so.Report
Well obviously the Israelis have their own internal factions. But anything they build they can destroy or just hand the keys over to the Palestinians. They did pack up their settlers and drag them kicking and screaming out of Gaza and were gearing up to do the same in the West Bank so right there is an example of the buildings themselves being no impediment. The rainstorm of rockets combined with Sharon’s horribly timed stroke pretty much squashed that for now but nothing says they can’t gear up to do it again. They’re going to want something in return (and yes, I know it’s in their own damn interest to get out, I am 100% anti settlement) for all the trouble it’ll be; I gather what they’d really like is an admission/concession that the refugees and their descendents won’t be moving into Israel proper. Meanwhile their wingnut faction is furiously pushing for expanded settlements.Report