Wednesday, June 17, 2009

It's Hard Out Here For Barack...

From Matt Duss on Robert Kagan's, "Obama's Conundrum: Shunning Iran's Opposition":

It’s hard out here for a neocon ....

I have to say, Mr. Kagan,
your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach. These sorts of claims are better left to your friend and occasional co-author Bill Kristol, who uses his series of valuable journalistic perches (with which he inexplicably continues to be gifted) to launch an endless stream of comically transparent bad faith arguments. You’re better than that. You’re the smart neocon ....

By backing pro-democracy rhetoric with American war and occupation, President Bush and his conservative supporters cast the cause of freedom and democracy into disrepute

Hmm, well, actually no ...

Check this, from Daniel Finkelstein, "
Fancy that. They want freedom. Just like us. The protests in Iran show the neocons were right. No people, whatever their culture, want to live under despotism":
For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don't want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn't true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don't want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn't American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

This idea that the critics of neocons advanced so vociferously, that liberal democracy can't be “transplanted” on alien soil - what does it mean to the people of Iran who have thronged the streets to express their will?

Does it mean that we think the morality police is just part of Iranian culture? Just their way of doing things? For the thousands of protesters it is not. It turns out that they don't think it's right for young girls to be arrested, snatched from the streets for wearing the wrong coat. And they don't think there is a cultural defence to beating these girls until their parents arrive with a “decent” garment.

They don't think that public hangings are Iranian, either. Nor arbitrary detentions of doctors who dared to organise conferences on Aids, nor keeping human rights activists in solitary confinement, nor sentencing trade union leaders to five years in jail for trying to organise fellow workers. They don't think there is anything culturally valuable in sentencing political activists to death after secret trials lasting less than five minutes, or returning lawyers to jail again and again for opposing the death penalty or “publishing insulting material with unacceptable interpretation of Islamic rules”.

It is not part of their precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women's rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

And what of the other leg of the neocon argument? What of the idea that peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy? Can anyone really doubt that should the reformists succeed, even a little bit, the world would be a safer place? A democratic Iran would stop financing world terrorist movements, it would stop obsessing about external enemies and foreign conspiracies, it would stop threatening its neighbours. It would still oppose Israeli policy, it would still want to acquire nuclear material, but the threat of violence would recede.
Jennifer Rubin adds the finishing touch:

If this ends poorly — in a brutal crushing of the protesters — the lack of moral leadership will haunt the president. Why didn’t America do more? And if the regime is upended, Obama’s dreams of a deal with the mullahs will fade and there will be great upset and turmoil. Either way, Obama’s fondest hopes for a return to the status quo will be dashed — and with it the mythology that his aura can motivate, inspire, and change events on the ground.
Well, Duss, sorry man, it's hard out here for Barack, 'cause a whole lot'a bitches jumpin ship...

10 comments:

AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks Philippe!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Douglas: In your last link to this post, I think you mean "Duss" not "Russ."

I think the situation is more complicated than you allow. Granted that Mousavi is better than Ahmahdijinuts, how high must he jump to clear that bar? Concrete example: suppose the Mousavicrats are successful, and send the mullahs and their stooge packing. What will Mousavi do with Iran's nuclear program? Smile and toss it away? What will his followers think of such a tossing? My bet is, they won't like it much. Next, what will the new govt of Iran's policy be toward Israel? Anything short of "live and let live, and we're giving up our nukes" is going to leave the Israelis feeling threatened. Right now Israel is in a pickle. Iranian nukes are a mortal threat under the current regime. Suppose Ben Netanyahu called you and said, "Hey, Don, the Mossad's been giving me and the Cabinet hell about these Iranian nukes. They're ready to fly, and this new guy Mousavi ain't much different from the old gang. Half the Cabinet wants me to call in the head of the Air Force and say, 'Get going!' I dunno if we could destroy Iran's nuke capacity completely, but certainly enough to buy us time, which is all Israel can expect these days. But if I tell the Air Force to get going, the Arabs will lock arms against me, and that ninny at 1600 Pennsylvania will rag on me until my eardrums get calluses. Probly send that bigot Stephen Walt as Middle East envoy. That's some choice I'm facing. Got any ideas?"

What would you say to him?

Better still, suppose Ben calls Philippe Ohlund and says, "Phil, whatcha think of this new guy Mousavi in Iran? I'm with you, democracy and freedom is the best thing, and we do that pretty well here in Tel Aviv. But is Mousavi gonna shut down the nukes? This decision is 'bet-the-country' time for me. What should I do? Trust Mousavi, or tell the Air Force to get going? Whaddaya think of democracy and freedom now?"

Facetious yes, but it does raise a serious question. This peril is raised tenfold by The One's witlessness. His behavior beggars belief, and must give the Israeli citizenry night sweats. Day sweats too, for that matter.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

cracker said...

A part you left out , 2nd to last paragraph.....

"The mistake the neocons made is that we were not conservative enough, not patient enough. Such impatience with dictatorships is understandable, indeed laudable. But the frustrating truth is that there are limits to what can be achieved by outsiders. Instead we have to wait as national movements, one by one, stand up for their rights. And sometimes, tragically, we even have to stand aside as those movements are crushed by their oppressors. "

I dont mind the partial cut and paste, and I always appreciate the opportunity to investigate the full breadth of your sources assertions. It seems par for the methodology


anywhoms, We all know neo-cons didnt corner the market on the advancement freedom, or come up with the fact that people desire it......nah, they just completley effed up an oppotunity to do it right when their time came....Neo-cons simply mapped out one more way to do it completely wrong and at very high national costs.

AmPowerBlog said...

"Neo-cons simply mapped out one more way to do it completely wrong and at very high national costs."

Everybody's a neocon now, Cracker. I don't agree that neocons did everything wrong, you see. That's the thing. You're an Obama worshipper, Cracker... and that's not good.

cracker said...

Well Hello!

I do appreciate Obamas stance on DOMA DODT. (ja hear Frank, whine and sniffle today?)

And As you Know, I am one of those Conservatives that didnt like the Neo-cons when they arrived on the scene....but voted along party lines....only to watch it all turn to ...what it is.

We dont have to agree, thats why I read your blog....

but I dont get the "everbody's a neo-con now....statement?

Expand if you will....

cracker said...

Did you mean "everybody's impatient now?....incompetent now?

No, I dont think so....There are a few screaming, that the "sky is falling"......but we have heard that before. About 6 years ago.

Hows that old saying go....fool me once shame on you....fool me twice...and I will bury you, No thats what many Conservatives are saying now about the neo-cons. (sorry wrong sayin)....it was shame on me.

Tom the Redhunter said...

So maybe these liberals who insist that Obama should continue his "hands off" policy with regards to Iran should issue an apology to the surviving apartheid rulers of South Africa.

Ronald Reagan knew how to handle tyranny. In an address to the nation a few weeks after martial law was declared in Poland in 1981, he said:

"I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct ``business as usual'' with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection."

No mealy mouthed statements from him.

LFC said...

Daniel Finkelstein (as quoted in your post) is mostly tearing down a straw man. Anti-neocons never claimed that only Westerners want democracy and human rights. The argument had to do with whether these things could, or should, be imposed from without by force. And on that issue the neocon position was and continues to be unconvincing, to say the least.

LFC said...

And Iran in 2009 is not Poland in 1981.

dave in boca said...

Tom The Redhunter's quote reminds us that Obama is the anti-Reagan, or rather the reincarnation of mealy-mouthed Jimmy, the guy who convinced the USSR that the USA was so weak and messed-up after three years of Carter mismanagement and give-aways [The PRC thanks Jimmy for the Panama Canal, and the NorthK regime thanks James Earl C. for his unilateral illegal Logan Act silliness in '94 that made Billy Jeff send waddling Madeleine to give billions to the NorKs in order to starve 2 million of its "serf-slaves"].

My guess is that Robert Kagan will be seen as the winner and the writer "Wuss" demonstrated as wrong as Obama is in cringing and cowering.

Where is Ronnie Reagan this time around? Closer to Kagan than to Obama, bowin' to King Abdullah while Brian Williams bows and kowtows to BHO hisself, The Very Won!

Tom, you should have mentioned Obama's bowing and listening reverentially to Ortega, whose Commie butt RR whipped mercilessly....

Now it seems that Castro, Chavez, and Ortega are Obama's advisors on foreign policy!