Colin Powell And The GOP's Future

A response to KevDog at Beautiful Futility:

I wasn’t one of those who cracked on the man for the U.N. speech. I think he was more deceived than duplicitous. The Frontline special Bush’s War makes a good case for exactly how pissed Powell was by what happened.

More recently, I think that he has been one of the leading voices of reason (sorry, Andrew) on the ills of the GOP. As a Democrat, I hope they don’t take his advice. There does need to be an opposition party, but the Republican party as it is currently formed needs to go the way of the Whigs.

A) As to Powell: I am simply disappointed that at no point he voiced his anger. I can’t remember where exactly it was sourced (The Daily Show poked fun at it), but when he received the first draft of the UN Speech, he apparently threw it up in the air and shouted, “This is bullsh**.”

Furthermore, if you look at the Powell Doctrine of the use of force, it actually seems to me that even if you believe what the Bush Administration was putting forward during the lead-up to war, the war doesn’t qualify under his own guidelines. I have a huge respect for the Powell Doctrine, and it hurts that he didn’t stand up for it when it was tested.

He should have known that. He should have investigated the plans for a post-war Iraq, and as the Secretary of State he should have realized that there was no plan. As the head of the diplomatic corps, he should have understood that there would be a more complex situation in a post-war Iraq than “being greeted as liberators;” he should have mentioned the words “shi’ite and sunni.”

Maybe he didn’t know everything. But I remember Albert Speer, in his memoirs about his time as a Nazi, saying that although he didn’t know anything about the concentration camps, he was always ten minutes away from knowing, if he really wanted to know.

Contrast Colin Powell to General Eric Shinseki. Shinseki still didn’t go as far as I’d have liked in terms of vocalizing his belief in the misguided lead-up for war. But Shinseki did not back off on his statement that we would need more troops. Powell went out there and defended the planning for the war, for the post-war; he defended Bush as going to war “only as last resort.”

I think he was neither deceived nor duplicitous. I think he abdicated responsibility. And the responsibility was his. He should know the responsibility to soldiers that the Presidential Administration has.

B) You’re right that the Republican Party as it is currently composed should go the way of the Whigs. But Democrats will be worse off if the Republican Party doesn’t take Powell’s advice. As Obama understands, if you have a smart, organized opposition that its actually in conversation with you, your ideas will get /better/. The ideas that lose out are the ideas that should lose out. If we’re actually debating on the issues in a smart and informed way from two different perspectives, Democrats may not get what they want, but their progressive positions will be better served.

The same goes for the Republican Party. Conservativism will be better served when they understand how to communicate with liberal groups and find common ground. There was an article recently somewhere about the pro-life argument for Planned Parenthood–if only they would understand that PP seeks to reduce abortions, the way that the conservatives say they want, then they should support it. There will always be fringe liberals and fringe conservatives whose ideas won’t have a place, but the mainstream of conservative and liberal thinking should come together to constructively criticize each other and create better policies.

I like Democrats, but recently I saw an ad with Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch, and Nancy Pelosi was telling the viewer to “Contact their Congressmen and tell them to support legislation against climate change.” And my first instinct was: “What the hell are YOU doing? Aren’t you the head of the House? Isn’t that your job? who exactly is running this boat?” Democrats have a lot of sins that I think a strong, sane Republican party can help wash out of them.

New Islam

Via The Daily Dish, a post from Irshad Manji:

Here’s news of a superstar Iranian scholar — and devout Muslim — who’s shaking the core of Islam as we know it. Abdulkarim Soroush argues that the Qur’an could have been authored by the Prophet Muhammad, not by God.

Like the Muslim Summit which signals a shift in our relations with the Muslim World, I again warn against taking this a little too enthusiastically for two reasons.

1) This is going to create a sectarian split. I'm not saying that because of anything against Muslims--this is the sort of theological split that caused divisions in Europe, and which continues to split churches (see: Episcopalian/Anglicans and homosexuals or Southern Baptists). People will decide for themselves: do I agree with this view, or do I not? There are plenty of people all over the world who already believe that the Qu'ran is a human document, but in terms of Muslim institutions, I think it's fairly rare. Suppose in Iraq, certain mosques and groups form around this idea of a humanist Islam (one in which the truth is not absolutely known, and must be sought out and discovered). And others believe that this is heresy. In a country like Turkey that might not cause violence; in a country like Iraq where people routinely kill each other over beliefs, it might foment more violence before it creates more peace.

2) The United States will want to support this line of thinking, because it is a distinctly anti-extremist strain. It gives moderate Muslims one rhetorical strategy to fight extremism. And the United States' goal is to fight extremism. But if these sects square off, it would be dangerous to side too closely with anyone, at risk of alienating others. After all, some Muslims may believe that the Qu'ran is the revealed word of God and because of that are moderate--I remember reading the injunction to respect all of the people's of the book, be they Christian, Jew, or Sabian. I'm fully aware that the Qu'ran also cuts the other way on the issue.

I'm not saying don't hope. I'm just saying we need to have two eyes: one for the opportunities and the other for the traps along the way. We need to be careful how we take advantage of this sort of strain in Muslim thinking to minimize the blowback.

Muslim Summit In Jakarta?

According to the Economist.com:

SPEAKING of Barack Obama's upbringing: eleven months ago, the then-presidential candidate told Paris Match that he wanted to convene a summit in the Muslim world to "have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West." Mr Obama is sticking to the promise, and the location of the summit is being debated among his staff. The Politico found the beginnings of the plan from an early donor to Mr Obama, who heard the candidate speak at a February 2007 event.

Mr Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that 'his first trip as President would be to Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim country. He then said when he got off [Air Force One], he would say "xxxxxxxx"- which we, of course, didn't understand. He said that it was Indonesian (which he speaks) for, "I am back, dudes."

Well, this sounds like a great idea. Amazing. and I'd love to see it come to fruition.

A bit of a reality check, though: who will be coming? Representatives from... Mubarak? Assad? The House of Saud? Many of the governments involved have as much trouble bridging to the Muslim world as the West. Will Ahmadinejad's goverment be represented? I guess that's a very early test of Obama's desire to reach out to Iran.

Of course, it's very possible that the summit proposed is not one of governmental origin; it could be a lot of NGOs. But many sticky wickets will be raised. Some groups which purport to represent the Muslim world will be difficult to bring to the table. Obama wants to increase ties to Iran, but Iran may be unhappy about some of the people we bring to the table. Ditto for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

I'm still optimistic, but not to the degree that I could be. It's a good start, we're gonna get things rolling, and at least we're thinking about a crucial step. This is something that has to happen.

I just am warning that I can see a lot of blowback from various choices that Obama's going to have to make. Tough calls. There aren't going to be easy answers even at the point of announcing the guest list, let alone once the conversation starts. Obama's going to be hearing things that he's going to be asked to denounce; public pressure is going to try and push him one way and the other.

The man has serious balls, though.

The Changing Definition Of "Pro-American"

I was listening to Prime Minister's Question time, listening to Mr. Brown and Mr. Cameron compete for ownership over Obama's mantle. Of course, neither of them have it; Gordon Brown is connected to the liberal policies of Obama's positions, but the sentiment of change against an unresponsive government is easily picked up by David Cameron.

But that's not really the point, from my perspective (I'm not in England). I'm fascinated by the way the Obama election has completely changed the idea of "pro-American" and "anti-American." Was the break in sentiments toward America so transformed by Bush in 2000? Clinton in 1992? I think they were when Reagan succeeded Carter, but that's pre-history to me.

Sarkozy and Harper are two world leaders who spring to mind as having been labelled as "pro-American." Really, what it meant was that they're in favor of the neoconservative agenda. Will they continue to support America in the way they have, or will they be more connected to America's Republican Party?

Will anti-Americanism in the Middle East really be transformed? Within a few days of the election, the Shiite and Sunni blocks of the Iraqi Parliament were already progressing much faster in their negotiations with the Bush Administration over the political and military handover. Several cited the fact that although they distrust the Bush Administration, they have more confidence in an Obama Administration being fair to them.

Some places are less than enthused. Pakistan, for instance, which Obama said he would be willing to launch raids into (with clear intelligence and facing resistance from Pakistan), has reason to be less than enthused. Other countries who are feeling excited about Obama might slowly discover that Obama is not necessarily on their side.

Russia and China both took a full day to respond to Obama's win. They truly expected a McCain win, according to some, and don't know how to react. How will Prime Minister Putin relate to Obama? How will President Hu?

Syria voiced its praise for Barack Obama, and that it was looking forward to working with him. Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister (who is looking to win in elections in February against hardliner Benjamin Netenyahu and labor party leader Ehud Barak--who may himself be replaced before February) warned Obama that speaking directly to Iran might be interpreted as "weakness" (I wonder if Tzipi Livni has ever met Rahm Emanuel?). It will be difficult to stay on Israel's side, in the coming years, but certainly other countries will be closer to us.

Change has arrived already.

The Soft-Bigotry Of High Expectations

Daniel Larison:

What I am trying to say is that we should not set up the next President for failure by making such grandiose, unfounded claims about what his election will mean for our relations with the rest of the world. The next administration is going to enjoy a long honeymoon, and that’s fine as far as it goes, but we should all be as sober and clear-eyed as possible about what a President Obama is realistically going to be able to do and what he isn’t.

Well, yes and no. Conventional wisdom in all quarters is that either Barack Obama will prove to be the Second Coming, or there are going to be a lot of disappointed people. When it turns out his Health Care Plan isn't just a laying-on of hands and curing our collective leprosy, but probably will be a human system with human problems--and may or may not pass, may or may not conflict with his other problems, etc. etc.--well, on that day, certain folks will look at us and smile.

Larison is correct that it's important to distinguish between the tone of the Obama campaign and the substance. As one commenter noted, it's hard to tell the difference between a President who sees cross-border raids into Pakistan and supported Israel's incursion into Lebanon as a substantive change in policy.

These concerns are well-founded. I, myself, as an Israeli in the Jewish-American community, was extremely upset at the sucking up Obama did at the AIPAC event during the primary election; for many years I have believed that Israel's position of privilege in our politics that have complicated our role as a mediator.

On the other hand, there is still a substantive change in the policies that are coming. It has to do with the style in which decisions will be made. Barack Obama looks at the facts. He listens to allies and to enemies. He speaks and he thinks before he acts.

Are those substantive changes in policy? They don't sound like it. But they actually are. When we talk about war being "the option of last resort"; how often is Obama going to be forced to resort to it? President Bush was forced to resort to it repeatedly (and would have more, if he had the resources) because he lacked the patience and the listening skills to be able to cooperate. He was willing to fabricate facts and gun it alone.

Specifically on the issue of Pakistan raids: one of the conditions he attached to that is if they have a very clear intelligence on Bin Laden and the Pakistanis refuse to do anything about it he would strike. Yes, I understand the various complications around that. But at a certain point, Obama is going to have to go it alone sometimes. And yet I have more optimism that Obama would be more successful at getting the Pakistanis to do something about it.

In general, Larison's point stands: let's not be too hyperbolic in expectation about Obama. But talking up Obama's opportunities is not a negative gesture: in The Audacity of Hope (I don't have my copy with me, so I'll paraphrase), he talks about "split-screen vision"; with one eye, you see things as they could be, and in the other eye, you see things as they are. Yes, Obama's presidency will not be all of our hopes and dreams. But we should have hopes and dreams, and continue to evaluate Obama's presidency in those terms.

And unlike President Bush, when he fails to live up to the original deal, it should be us, the followers, the supporters, the ones who fought hard to get him there and bought into his hope, need to be the ones to keep him on the right path.