On Another Planet
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
What repeatedly goes unrecognized by all of Mr. Obama’s opponents is that his political Kryptonite is the patriotism he offers in lieu of theirs. ~Frank Rich
So Obama’s patriotism fatally weakens him? That’s certainly a new interpretation. I’m going to guess that Rich doesn’t know what Kryptonite is.
Rich’s column is yet another in a series of columns defending Obama against criticism of his Pakistan position. The defense of this position seems to be: the Bush administration is already doing this, and McCain is also a crazy sabre-rattler, so what’s the problem? There seems to be no effort to consider whether U.S. strikes inside Pakistan without Islamabad’s knowledge is actually sound policy, especially in the current context when Musharraf appears to be on the way out and the PML-Q was routed in parliamentary elections. Even though the administration’s recklessness in every other part of the world is cited as the rationale for breaking with current policies, the same recklessness directed against one of the most volatile and strategically significant allies in Asia now counts as wisdom because Obama has agreed. David Freddoso remarked on this opportunism of Obama supporters a few days ago:
…I don’t like what we did in Pakistan, and I really don’t like the fact that we’re bragging about it, or that a presidential candidate would openly discuss it as an option. And if Obama hadn’t recommended it in August in a bid to gain political credibility, then you wouldn’t be defending it, either.
In fact, you can be sure that if Obama had not specifically recommended doing this many who are now cheering the position would have cited this (correctly) as evidence of the administration’s aimless and counterproductive Pakistan policy. Obama’s foreign policy judgement may prove to be his actual “political Kryptonite,” since almost every other judgement besides Iraq that he has made has been biased towards an aggressive and interventionist stance. When a candidate can make the bellicose McCain appear to be more sane on a major foreign policy question, he has definitely made the wrong political move and has likely endorsed a terrible policy.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Agreed on all counts (except that I think your conclusion regarding Obama’s judgment overall states the case against him a little too strongly. Though even there, I’m afraid that you are mostly correct). A couple questions though. One, is it really credible that we are (in fact) doing this without the knowledge and (at least tacit) approval of the government there? (Not that that would make it a wise policy, mind you.) And is there any data, either polling or anecdotal, indicating how our actions are being recieved? I haven’t seen any, but I haven’t been following that issue very closely.
As one of those non-interventionist liberals, I am absolutely horrified by Obama’s foreign policy views.
And it occurs to me that Obama’s rhetoric “about changing the mindset that got us into Iraq” is profoundly disingenuous. The old mindset that got us into Iraq is the belief that we can blow up and kill people in other countries whenever we think it is in our interest to do so.
And yet Obama stakes out a foreign policy position based on exactly that mind set, which politically and electorally is sensible. From what i can tell blowing up and killing foreigners is the cool thing to do in politics.
But I find it galling that Obama is winning this primary on the perception of a difference in foreign policy that doesn’t exist and that in the general election will be a liability (of course it should be noted that Clinton is just as bad if not worse than Obama on this score).
Why only Iraq?
Thanks for your comments. That states the matter very well, Jaloren. This is what I was trying to say the other day in the back-and-forth about Kosovo, but seemed to be unsuccessful making my point. The mindset entails the presumption that our government can act however it wishes in the world and attack any other country for whatever reason occurs to it. I grant that Obama’s judgement may not be as uniformly poor as I implied. His work on securing Russian nukes, while somewhat obvious, is important and right. His willingness to engage with “rogue” states, while sometimes overstated, could bring about some useful changes.
Regarding Pakistan, as I understand it Musharraf was informed while this strike was in progress, but not before, by which time it was too late for him to do anything about it. I don’t know how most Pakistanis have received the news of the strike, but I suspect it feeds into the already deep dissatisfaction with Musharraf. The majority’s dissatisfaction with him extends to us, and their objections to his relationship with our government deepens their hostility to him, so any incident that highlights his dependence on Washington or our government’s willingness to ignore Pakistani sovereignty will likely intensify the pre-existing resentments.
This is the only way for McCain to win – make Obama seem MORE insane than he is.
I think McCain will have an uphill battle.
Agree that Rich’s comment about Kryptonite doesn’t seem to make sense, but I think it’s simply not well phrased, not that the former drama critic doesn’t know what Kryptonite means.
I think what Rich is saying is that Obama is patriotic, but that his sincere love for America as a melting pot (if I can indulge in an old cliche to make the point clearly) trumps attempts to disrespect him as a leader because he doesn’t wear a flag pin. (To cite one example.)
In other words, his Kryptonite is what disarms his opponents.
Obama may have issues with the electorate, but I very much doubt that his position on Pakistan will be one of them. Americans like leaders who are willing to strike militarily, regardless of what the State Department says. That position might hurt him with a few leftist Democrats, but it won’t bother Republicans and Indepedents — and they’re the votes he will need.
I hadn’t thought of Obama being the one wielding the Kryptonite against his opponents. That would make more sense, but it would also put him in the unflattering role of Luthor. I agree that Obama’s refrains about American unity do work to undermine attacks on his patriotism.
Unfortunately, I expect that you’re entirely right that Pakistan policy will have no importance for most voters, and Obama’s position on this will probably do what he hoped it would: win him credibility with skeptical voters as someone willing to use force. It could hurt him to the extent that it blurs the lines between his and Bush’s policies, undermining the “change” theme, and it could also feed into an inexperience critique if the media draw attention to the general disapproval of such tactics by regional experts that the McCain people can use as a bludgeon.
I think you’re both exagerating the significance of Obama’s Pakistan “bombing” policy. All he’s saying is that if he has knowledge of Al Qaeda leadership’s location in the outlying regions of Pakistan (which, truth be told, the Pakistani goverment doesn’t even have control over, and can’t trust the locals to keep secrets from Al Qaeda), that he would go after them. This is a very low level of “intervention”. In other words, he’s not trying to intervene in Pakistan’s internal affairs, its government, its economy, or in any way attack it militarily. He’s only going after outlaws who are actually the expressed enemies of the Pakistani government, and who have no standing to even be in Pakistan in the first place. So this is really a rather dubious “outrage”.
Likewise, Obama’s actual Pakistani policy is to stop interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs by propping up Musharaff. And this is “horrifying”? Get real, dudes.
As for Pakistanis being upset about this kind of thing, well, it sure doesn’t result in any support for Jihadist parties, which suffered even worse defeats than Musharaff. The Pakistanis don’t like Al Qaeda using their country as a safe haven any more than we do. If they tolerate Bush doing this kind of thing, I don’t think they’re going to be hostile to Obama.