Thursday, January 8, 2009

Barack is No George W. Obama

Christian Brose offers a provocative take on the coming Barack Obama administration's foreign policy, "The Making of George W. Obama." Unlike the most dire predictions on Obama's likely approach to the world, Brose argues, the next president will in fact pursue a foreign policy of continuity from the Bush years of 2001-2009:

The 2008 U.S. election was all about change. But that’s not what we’re going to get on foreign policy, says the longtime speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice. Instead of a radical departure from Bush, we’re likely to end up with a lot more of the same. And that may be just what we need.
I'm a little skeptical of this argument, although we do need "more of the same," at least in terms of moral clarity. I've been gearing up for a longer essay on Brose's piece, but I'll hold off now that I've found this piece at the Guardian, "Obama Camp 'Prepared to Talk to Hamas'":

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning U.S. financial aid to the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the U.S. intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.
Readers might remember that Obama's on record, from the primaries, as endorsing diplomacy with Tehran "without preconditions." I'm sure Barack Hussein is likely to go just as easy with Gaza's diabolical terror-propagandists.

Remember, too, that my guest essayist Norm warned against such a turn, in "Obama Must Recognize Evil.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.


Anonymous said...

Nice blog! Happy New Year!

AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks Al!

No Sheeples Here! said...

And with Leon Panetta playing "Colonel Mustard in the dining room with a candlestick" (CIA Director) the global war on terrorism should go swimmingly.

Great post Professor!

Tapline said...

DD, as usual excellent post.....If he does hold theese meetings, I presume it will be seen as weakness on the United States part. We no longer have a big stick to carry. I don't even think we will walk softly...more like creep.....stay well....

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Perhaps he will go to Jamkaran and be received by Ahmadinejab as Mahdi and be worshipped there.,7340,L-3346589,00.html

The description of Mahdi:

“Heavenly light and justice accompany him. He will overcome enemies and oppressors with the help of God, and as per the promise of the Almighty the Mahdi will eradicate all corruption and injustice from the face of the earth and establish the global government of peace, justice and equity."

My, my, my... that's just what Obamites think of their "messiah".

He's the 666 beast. He will call Hamas and all the Arab world to unification. No Western President would do what he will do. Obama is Muslim. And the 666 beast. Obama being for Iran (he has been in numerous signs) and wanting to speak with Ahmadinejab and Hamas isn't "rational". We're seeing spiritual manifestation and fulfillment of scripture, imo. He's the 666 beast of Revelation... as I see it. NOTHING is appearing any differently than that "definition" of him. Rather, he continually confirms it by bizarre unWestern views and statements, plans and goals. #1 on his list?? Going to a Muslim nation and speaking from it's capital within 100 days of his "presidency"... and being inaugurated with his middle name "Hussein". That's #1.

He stated in his book "Dreams of My Father" that he studied the Koran and attended a Muslim school. His father was Muslim. His family on his father's side is Muslim. If he studied the Koran and attended a Muslim school according to the will of Muslim parentage - he's Muslim from youth. And attending Trinity UCC does not counteract that. Muslims aren't "required" to tell people they are Muslim. In fact they have a belief system that states they can "hide it" in order to advance Islam. Why shouldn't Obama then hide being a Muslim? I personally believe he's Muslim.

Obama is the 666 beast, alright, as I see it. Barack Hussein Obama is "the one".


Anonymous said...

Grace: You missed your meds today. Or you took them during happy hour. One of the two.

Good for a chuckle though.

Norm said...

Obama has it backwards. He has to use his abilities and talk to the Palestinian people, who must be convinced that Hamas no longer represents their needs.

Talking to Hamas is counterproductive to the many Palestinians who are willing to live in peace.

He must use the satellite media and get his message through to the people, not Hamas. This is rocket science, surely he understands.

Anonymous said...


I wrote something about this very article just yesterday. I thought it was very thought provoking if not fully convincing.

I entertained the thesis because Obama is privy to a lot of information and experts now that he will be assuming power. Other indications and statements coming from him and his camp seemed to reinforce it.

However, I did see the report where he is entertaining the idea of holding talks with Hamas. If true, that would greatly set back millions of Americans who have grudgingly accepted him as the new LOFW.

Secondly, this reaks of Carter and the typical Democrat's zeal for talks and soft power, while legitamizing murdering Islamist groups that attack a very important ally.

If this is true, it will be a irresponsible and disastrous move on his part.

JBW said...

Yes, Don: Barack Hussein. An excellent argument couched in the studied prose of political hackery. And No Sheeples Here! steps in to lend the argument against Obama the real board game cred it truly lacked in your post. Plus, Grace contributes her own brand of theological nuttery to the mix. This is truly a powerful triumvirate of political thought you've assembled here. Bravo.

Anonymous said...

JBW, sssshhhhh this is an "academic" blog.

***cough cough****

666 beast anyone?

Van Zan said...

It's not uplifting to hear about this "moral clarity" every time there is a partisan need to wash over 8 years of abysmal Bush administration ineptitude. Good intentions don't cut it.

The Guardian - which is noted for Left-leaning commentary, by the way - "has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp".
Richard Haass among several others is named in that article, but the three people are not. They are "the source", "one Middle East expert" and... I can't see a clear ref on who the third is. Who did they talk to?

Obama on Hamas (actual quote):
"I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.".

But "dealing with" does not preclude "talking to", of course. How else are you going to hear and offer terms?