Pakistan

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

So now Ahmedinejad has a diplomatic model that we should emulate? Where are you going with this?

as you surely know, the diplomatic boycott of Israel by Iran did not start with ahmedinajad. My point is that meeting with another country (a fortiori at the head of state level, and even more a fortiori when a superpower is meeting with a regional power) is often something of value, to be withheld as a punishment or extended for a quid pro quo. George Bush didnt make that up, nor did Hillary. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Yes, Im quite aware that albright and Holbrooke have endorsed Hillary. Im also quite aware that you support Obama. I will take their word on what is diplospeak above yours.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"Seriously, you're citing Mitt? I only watched five minutes of the last GOP debate, but of that tiny sample I did see Romney interrupting Paul "what about 9/11?" when he was discussing the mistake of going into Iraq. Really now..."

I dont care about Mitt. Im citing what Obama actually said.



"I don't see refusing talk anywhere in that statement. Isolation is a rather broad category."

Really? So far isolation has included refusal of the US to meet Hamas until such time as they accept Israels existence. If thats NOT Obamas position, he hasnt exactly been transparent about it.


" And yeah, I disagree with it; Obama's much closer to your foreign policy views (particularly on Israel) than mine... "

Is he really, though? From what I can tell it flies in the face of the principle he has enunciated wrt Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. Which means either he was shooting from the hip about Iran, etc. Or he is insincere about Hamas. I wonder which it is?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


That's sort of the intent of talking. Mutually beneficial results...

yes, which is why Hillary is open to talking. At the appropriate level. In the appropriate circumstances. With the appropriate conditions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


That's sort of the intent of talking. Mutually beneficial results...

so, since a summit with President Clinton or Obama would be a huge benefit to Iran, and since the US is a superpower, and not in the position of weakness wrt Iran that Egypt was wrt Israel in 1977,(nor is there a third party willing to reward the US the way the US rewarded Egypt) it would make sense to expect some benefit up front in return for the meeting, I would think. Like suspension of enrichment, for example. An end to the arms flow into Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's not in the abstract. The specific context was Bush's failure to go through with a snatch and grab op to pick up Zawahiri and other bigwigs...

the quote is as follows (from the speech on Obamas website)


"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. "


If it was snatch and grab, rather than a bombing attack similar to what was actually attempted (and failed) twice in 2006, he does not make that clear. Is he simply saying that he will continue to do what is already the current policy of the Bush administration?

[lord of the mark]

googling around, I found this on "electronic intifadah"

"Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" "



Note well - if this guy is telling the truth, Obama was critical of US policy in 2000 - when Bill Clinton was president, and US policy was closely aligned with the Israeli Labour Party. Not PNAC "likudism".

[Ramo]

My point is that meeting with another country (a fortiori at the head of state level, and even more a fortiori when a superpower is meeting with a regional power) is often something of value, to be withheld as a punishment or extended for a quid pro quo. George Bush didnt make that up, nor did Hillary.

Why should high-level contacts constitute endorsement, while low-level contacts do not?

Technically, I don't support Obama. I gave him a little money a couple months ago, then gave Edwards some a month ago. At this point, I'm expecting to write-in Feingold.

I dont care about Mitt. Im citing what Obama actually said.

Then let's argue over that instead of Mitt's caricatures. Is not the overuse of air power a symptom of the lack of troops on the ground?

Really? So far isolation has included refusal of the US to meet Hamas until such time as they accept Israels existence. If thats NOT Obamas position, he hasnt exactly been transparent about it.

Since the circumstances in January of 2009 will likely be substantially different from right now, I don't see much of a point in laying out a comprehensive Israel-Palestine policy, particularly given the tendency of the press to demonize the most innocuous statements on the subject (like when Obama told AIPAC that Palestinians are suffering).

Is he really, though? From what I can tell it flies in the face of the principle he has enunciated wrt Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. Which means either he was shooting from the hip about Iran, etc. Or he is insincere about Hamas. I wonder which it is?

If you're going to demand internal consistency from Presidential candidates on foreign policy, you'd better give up on the race now.

yes, which is why Hillary is open to talking. At the appropriate level. In the appropriate circumstances. With the appropriate conditions.

Of course, Hillary hasn't been transparent about this much broader matter. What are her appropriate conditions?

so, since a summit with President Clinton or Obama would be a huge benefit to Iran, and since the US is a superpower, and not in the position of weakness wrt Iran that Egypt was wrt Israel in 1977,(nor is there a third party willing to reward the US the way the US rewarded Egypt) it would make sense to expect some benefit up front in return for the meeting, I would think. Like suspension of enrichment, for example. An end to the arms flow into Iraq.

You realize that this is what everyone means by pre-conditions (NOT going through a bunch of phone calls to organize the details of a meeting), right? And you seriously think we're in a position of strength wrt Iran? Huh?

If it was snatch and grab, rather than a bombing attack similar to what was actually attempted (and failed) twice in 2006, he does not make that clear. Is he simply saying that he will continue to do what is already the current policy of the Bush administration?

There was a Times article released a couple weeks before the speech documenting the snatch and grab operation to get Zawahiri and friends that Rummy aborted at the last moment in deference to Musharraf. Obama didn't talk about the incident in the speech, but this was clearly a reference to it.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0A17F6385A0C7B8CDDAE0894DF404482

[Ramo]

Note well - if this guy is telling the truth, Obama was critical of US policy in 2000 - when Bill Clinton was president, and US policy was closely aligned with the Israeli Labour Party. Not PNAC "likudism".

I know. Very different from what he's said in the past few years. Dunno who's the real Obama. I hope it's the earlier version, but am starting to think it's the later version.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

[qWhy should high-level contacts constitute endorsement, while low-level contacts do not?[/q]


you seem hung up on the word endorsement. Its clear that a meeting with a president of the US is of great use to many folks around the world. A meeting with the Sec of State is also worth something, but not as much. A meeting with an ambassador is worth something, but even less than that.

Since the circumstances in January of 2009 will likely be substantially different from right now, I don't see much of a point in laying out a comprehensive Israel-Palestine policy, particularly given the tendency of the press to demonize the most innocuous statements on the subject (like when Obama told AIPAC that Palestinians are suffering).

The obvious implication of "we should isolate Hamas" is support for current US policy wrt Hamas. The statement about Palestinians are suffering most, stirred up far less than this statement about Iran did.

If you're going to demand internal consistency from Presidential candidates on foreign policy, you'd better give up on the race now.

I expect candidates to be inconsistent, cause they are cynical pols. This man was a state legislator two years ago. The raison d'etre of his candidacy is that he is something different. A new politics.

Of course, Hillary hasn't been transparent about this much broader matter. What are her appropriate conditions?

Its much harder to be transparent about the question of what you will ask for in negotiations, than about whether you think "isolation" precludes high level diplomatic contact.

You realize that this is what everyone means by pre-conditions (NOT going through a bunch of phone calls to organize the details of a meeting), right?

Has Obama said he wants preconditions? Hes no longer just talking about "preparations"? Cite?

" And you seriously think we're in a position of strength wrt Iran? Huh?"

We have a lot of problems in the region. Irans vulnerabilities are far greater. The only thing as bad as going in overestimating our position (as Bush tends to do) is to go in underestimating our position.

[lord of the mark]

barack obama

"The fact of the matter is when we talk to world leaders, it give us the opportunity to speak about our ideals, our values and our interests, and I am not afraid to have that conversation with anybody," he said.

He said if he were to sit down with the Iranian president, "I will send a strong message that Israel is our friend, that we will assist in their security and that we don't find nuclear weapons acceptable as Iran is currently envisioning it."

"That's not a propaganda coup for the president of Iran," he said. He added that the debate over the issue was whether to pursue conventional thinking or consider new ideas.

I watched Sadat's speech in Jerusalem on TV when he gave it. It was certainly a propaganda coup for Israel, even though Sadat said things hostile Begins positions.
If Obama believes what he said, he IS naive.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Then let's argue over that instead of Mitt's caricatures. Is not the overuse of air power a symptom of the lack of troops on the ground?

heres the quote

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"


We are already not JUST raiding villages and killing civilians. Oh yeah, well what he MEANT was, We've got to have enough troops so that are doing LESS raiding villages and killing civilians, and MORE of boots on the ground patrols, killing Taliban, reconstruction, etc. He just got the tone wrong.

Like I said agree or disagree, hes a bigger gift to the GOP, who assuredly WILL use the sound bite, than rehashed scandals from 10 years. Which Obama seems to think are a reason to not support Hillary.

[Ramo]

you seem hung up on the word endorsement. Its clear that a meeting with a president of the US is of great use to many folks around the world.

It only means something to the political class. It's a pointless fiction that we tell ourselves. The level of diplomacy should be commensurate with its importance, not whether or not we're bff with the regime in question.

I expect candidates to be inconsistent, cause they are cynical pols. This man was a state legislator two years ago. The raison d'etre of his candidacy is that he is something different. A new politics.

This is a nonsense messiah-complex that you're attributing to him.

If you're genuinely curious, the raison d'etre of his candidacy is goo-goo, process-oriented liberalism (i.e. the early 20th century progressive movement). Money out of politics, transparent government, citizen mobilization, that sort of thing. This is in contrast to Edwards, who's playing FDR to Obama's TR, and Hillary's who's running a, "it's competence, stupid" campaign.

Has Obama said he wants preconditions? Hes no longer just talking about "preparations"? Cite?

No, I didn't write that. I was demonstrating that this is what everyone means by pre-conditions (NOT hashing out some sort of agenda).

Its much harder to be transparent about the question of what you will ask for in negotiations, than about whether you think "isolation" precludes high level diplomatic contact.

Is Clinton willing to do low-level diplomatic contact? Obama never said that every situation requires high level diplomacy. Obviously he can't personally be involved in absolutely everything. Just that personal diplomacy is not some sort of premature capitulation.

Like I said agree or disagree, hes a bigger gift to the GOP, who assuredly WILL use the sound bite, than rehashed scandals from 10 years. Which Obama seems to think are a reason to not support Hillary.

Like Clinton, who said that terrorist attacks benefit the GOP? Showing utter contempt for the voters' intelligence isn't the best way to run a campaign. That strikes me as much more harmful than what Obama said - which can be explained as being an out of context smear.

Speaking of her, how about her calling for the ouster of Maliki? What happens when she tries to negotiate th details of withdrawal with Maliki still in power due to the strength of the Kurdish alliance? Again, much more problematic than the Pakistan issue.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

It only means something to the political class. It's a pointless fiction that we tell ourselves. The level of diplomacy should be commensurate with its importance, not whether or not we're bff with the regime in question.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I dont agree with your reading of how diplomacy works, and you have said nothing to convince, and I dont think I can convince you.



"This is a nonsense messiah-complex that you're attributing to him.

If you're genuinely curious, the raison d'etre of his candidacy is goo-goo, process-oriented liberalism (i.e. the early 20th century progressive movement). Money out of politics, transparent government, citizen mobilization, that sort of thing. This is in contrast to Edwards, who's playing FDR to Obama's TR, and Hillary's who's running a, "it's competence, stupid" campaign."

IE, being something different. Maybe to you thats about a specific set of process reforms, but my impression is that Obamas appeal is based on much more than that.

Anyway, Im no longer going to debate the specific wording of what Obama said, which to me is important, and to you was taken out of context as a smear.

Like Clinton, who said that terrorist attacks benefit the GOP? Showing utter contempt for the voters' intelligence isn't the best way to run a campaign.

What she said was probably true though. Certainly no less true than that failures in Iraq help the Democrats. Thats reality, and a reality a candidate should be prepared for, either way. AFAICT its not likely to hurt her in the general election, its created more of a stir on the left.

Speaking of her, how about her calling for the ouster of Maliki? What happens when she tries to negotiate th details of withdrawal with Maliki still in power due to the strength of the Kurdish alliance? Again, much more problematic than the Pakistan issue.

I havent seen her quote yet. When Levin said it, it made some sense to me. Its becoming clear to me that the surge has largely done what Kagan said it would, militarily. The obstacle now is the failure to advance things politically. What Levin said may well be helpful in a good cop/bad cop way - you will notice that the Bush admin didnt come down hard on him, but said much the same thing more softly. Someone needs to connect the Baghdad political process and the DC political process, the disconnect of which is the biggest issue now. It may well be useful not only for Maliki to better understand the discontent in DC, but perhaps even more so for Talabani and Barzani to understand it. Right now we may be in the middle of a soft coup - not only the Sadrists, but the Sunnis and the Allawi list have left the Baghdad cabinet, which is now down to the UIA and the Kurds. The Kurds are not stupid, have historically troubled relations with the govt of Iran (the only alternative support Maliki has) , and have strong reason to stay on the good side of the US.

[lord of the mark]

anyway, back to Pakistan.

It looks like theres been major activity in the talks between Bhutto and the govt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20123386/site/newsweek/

There was a better interview in the WaPo over the weekend, but its behind their registration wall.

[Patroklos]

"mission accomplished".

Dubya didn't say that