"Don't simply be the friendly face of the American Empire..."
--Dr. Cornel West
Open Video letter to President Obama
January 20, 2010
Open Video letter to President Obama
January 20, 2010
All,
Douthat is the NY Times resident in house rightwing conservative political columnist and tellingly he provides the clearest and most brutally honest assessment yet of the openly reactionary (which Douthat predictably labels "realist") foreign policy aims, objectives, strategies, and tactics of what Douthat himself characterizes as President Obama's "coldblooded" vision of American Empire politics in the world today. The chilling and horrifying point of course is that Douthat--and the entire American foreign policy apparatus--agrees 100% with Obama (what could possibly be worse than being compared favorably with a war criminal like Henry Kissinger!) Obviously, this spells deep trouble for Egypt and the people's democratic revolution there as well as the rest of not only the Middle East but everywhere else on the globe the United States is aggressively asserting and imposing their imperialist economic, ideological, and political worldview (which ominously of course is just about everywhere in the world)...
Kofi
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Obama the Realist
By ROSS DOUTHAT
February 6, 2011
New York Times
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama played to two very different foreign policy constituencies. Often he presented himself as the tribune of the anti-war left — the only candidate who had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, the man who could be trusted to civilize the global war on terror, and the perfect figure to smooth the transition to a post-American world order. To more bipartisan audiences, though, he cast himself as a cold-eyed realist — the rightful heir to George H. W. Bush, if not Henry Kissinger, who would pursue America’s interests without pretending (as the younger President Bush often did) that they matched up perfectly with America’s democratic ideals.
This two-step worked during the election season because realists and left-wingers were united in their weariness with the Bush administration, and their distrust of John McCain. But to govern is to choose, and after two years in office we can say with some certainty where Barack Obama’s instincts really lie. From the war on terror to the current unrest in Egypt, his foreign policy has owed far more to conservative realpolitik than to any left-wing vision of international affairs.
Many Republicans have been loath to admit this. In the first year of the Obama presidency, conservatives rushed to portray the president as a weak-kneed liberal who would rather appease terrorists than fight. They accused him of abandoning the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies, taking the pressure off Iran, and playing at being president of the world while giving his own country’s interests short shrift. They insisted that his distrust of American power and doubts about American exceptionalism were making the country steadily less safe.
But this narrative never really fit the facts. On nearly every anti-terror front, from detainee policy to drone strikes, the Obama administration has been what The Washington Times’s Eli Lake calls a “9/14 presidency,” maintaining or even expanding the powers that George W. Bush claimed in the aftermath of 9/11. (Dick Cheney himself admitted as much last month, effectively retracting his 2009 claim that Obama’s terrorism policies were undermining national security.) Time and again, this president has proved himself a careful custodian of both American and presidential prerogatives — and the most perceptive critics of his policies, tellingly, have been civil libertarians rather than Republican partisans.
On Israel-Palestine and Iran, the Obama administration did briefly flirt with new strategies, putting more pressure on the Israeli government and attempting outreach to Tehran. But the White House soon reverted to the policy status quo of Bush’s second term. Indeed, from the twilight struggle over Iran’s nuclear program — featuring sanctions, sabotage, and the threat of military force — to the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, this White House’s entire approach to international affairs looks like a continuation of the Condoleezza Rice-Robert Gates phase of the Bush administration.
Obama’s response to the Egyptian crisis has crystallized his entire foreign policy vision. Switch on Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and you would assume that there’s a terrible left-wing naïveté — or worse, a sneaking anticolonial sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood — at work in the White House’s attempts to usher Hosni Mubarak out the door. But look closer, and it’s clear that the administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik.
Cold-blooded, and probably correct. Obama might have done moreto champion human rights and democracy in Egypt before the current crisis broke out, by leavening his Kissinger impression with a touch of Reaganite idealism. But there isn’t much more the administration can do now, because there isn’t any evidence that the Egyptian protesters are ready to actually take power.
There are moments when American presidents can afford to stand uncompromisingly with democratic revolutionaries. But they need someone to stand for. In the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Pope John Paul II — and ultimately Mikhail Gorbachev. In Egypt, Obama has Mohammed ElBaradei, the Muslim Brotherhood and the crowds: the first dubious as a grass-roots leader, the second dangerous, and the third perilously disorganized.
This is a situation that calls for great caution, rather than grand idealistic gestures. And it calls for a certain measure of relief, from the American public, that this liberal president’s foreign policy instincts have turned out to be so temperamentally conservative.
Douthat is the NY Times resident in house rightwing conservative political columnist and tellingly he provides the clearest and most brutally honest assessment yet of the openly reactionary (which Douthat predictably labels "realist") foreign policy aims, objectives, strategies, and tactics of what Douthat himself characterizes as President Obama's "coldblooded" vision of American Empire politics in the world today. The chilling and horrifying point of course is that Douthat--and the entire American foreign policy apparatus--agrees 100% with Obama (what could possibly be worse than being compared favorably with a war criminal like Henry Kissinger!) Obviously, this spells deep trouble for Egypt and the people's democratic revolution there as well as the rest of not only the Middle East but everywhere else on the globe the United States is aggressively asserting and imposing their imperialist economic, ideological, and political worldview (which ominously of course is just about everywhere in the world)...
Kofi
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Obama the Realist
By ROSS DOUTHAT
February 6, 2011
New York Times
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama played to two very different foreign policy constituencies. Often he presented himself as the tribune of the anti-war left — the only candidate who had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, the man who could be trusted to civilize the global war on terror, and the perfect figure to smooth the transition to a post-American world order. To more bipartisan audiences, though, he cast himself as a cold-eyed realist — the rightful heir to George H. W. Bush, if not Henry Kissinger, who would pursue America’s interests without pretending (as the younger President Bush often did) that they matched up perfectly with America’s democratic ideals.
This two-step worked during the election season because realists and left-wingers were united in their weariness with the Bush administration, and their distrust of John McCain. But to govern is to choose, and after two years in office we can say with some certainty where Barack Obama’s instincts really lie. From the war on terror to the current unrest in Egypt, his foreign policy has owed far more to conservative realpolitik than to any left-wing vision of international affairs.
Many Republicans have been loath to admit this. In the first year of the Obama presidency, conservatives rushed to portray the president as a weak-kneed liberal who would rather appease terrorists than fight. They accused him of abandoning the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies, taking the pressure off Iran, and playing at being president of the world while giving his own country’s interests short shrift. They insisted that his distrust of American power and doubts about American exceptionalism were making the country steadily less safe.
But this narrative never really fit the facts. On nearly every anti-terror front, from detainee policy to drone strikes, the Obama administration has been what The Washington Times’s Eli Lake calls a “9/14 presidency,” maintaining or even expanding the powers that George W. Bush claimed in the aftermath of 9/11. (Dick Cheney himself admitted as much last month, effectively retracting his 2009 claim that Obama’s terrorism policies were undermining national security.) Time and again, this president has proved himself a careful custodian of both American and presidential prerogatives — and the most perceptive critics of his policies, tellingly, have been civil libertarians rather than Republican partisans.
On Israel-Palestine and Iran, the Obama administration did briefly flirt with new strategies, putting more pressure on the Israeli government and attempting outreach to Tehran. But the White House soon reverted to the policy status quo of Bush’s second term. Indeed, from the twilight struggle over Iran’s nuclear program — featuring sanctions, sabotage, and the threat of military force — to the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, this White House’s entire approach to international affairs looks like a continuation of the Condoleezza Rice-Robert Gates phase of the Bush administration.
Obama’s response to the Egyptian crisis has crystallized his entire foreign policy vision. Switch on Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and you would assume that there’s a terrible left-wing naïveté — or worse, a sneaking anticolonial sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood — at work in the White House’s attempts to usher Hosni Mubarak out the door. But look closer, and it’s clear that the administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik.
Cold-blooded, and probably correct. Obama might have done moreto champion human rights and democracy in Egypt before the current crisis broke out, by leavening his Kissinger impression with a touch of Reaganite idealism. But there isn’t much more the administration can do now, because there isn’t any evidence that the Egyptian protesters are ready to actually take power.
There are moments when American presidents can afford to stand uncompromisingly with democratic revolutionaries. But they need someone to stand for. In the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Pope John Paul II — and ultimately Mikhail Gorbachev. In Egypt, Obama has Mohammed ElBaradei, the Muslim Brotherhood and the crowds: the first dubious as a grass-roots leader, the second dangerous, and the third perilously disorganized.
This is a situation that calls for great caution, rather than grand idealistic gestures. And it calls for a certain measure of relief, from the American public, that this liberal president’s foreign policy instincts have turned out to be so temperamentally conservative.
