“Dignity Promotion” Was Certainly Missing In 2006
Posted on March 24th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Spencer Ackerman has written a very positive review of Obama’s foreign policy team in The American Prospect. In the first section, he describes how the team sees the campaign as breaking out of the “defensive crouch,” as some call it, that defines how Democrats address foreign policy in national debates. What it doesn’t do is consider or “think through” the policy recommendations Obama made last summer, all of which were at the very least questionable and some of which were simply bad ideas. The fact that the Bush administration has actually been putting one of these recommendations into action does not necessarily prove it to be a bad idea, but it certainly doesn’t help in persuading skeptics that it represents some remarkable break with the status quo. Usually, at least outside the Bush administration and its supporters, policies that involve violating allied states’ sovereignty and risking their internal destabilisation are considered unwise–not so with Team Obama.
In the second section comes the discussion of “dignity promotion”:
This ability to see the world from different perspectives informs what the Obama team hopes will replace the Iraq War mind-set: something they call dignity promotion. “I don’t think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does,” says Samantha Power, a former key aide and author of the groundbreaking study of U.S. foreign policy and genocide, A Problem From Hell. “Dignity is a way to unite a lot of different strands [of foreign-policy thinking],” she says. “If you start with that, it explains why it’s not enough to spend $3 billion on refugee camps in Darfur, because the way those people are living is not the way they want to live. It’s not a human way to live. It’s graceless — an affront to your sense of dignity.”
Well, it’s pretty “graceless” to full-throatedly support the bombardment of a country, Lebanon, when the campaign kills 1,000 civilians and displaces a million more, putting hundreds of thousands into refugee camps for months and years afterwards, but that is what Obama did during the summer of 2006. His appreciation for human dignity is truly overwhelming.
Then there is this gem:
“Look at why the baddies win these elections,” Power says. “It’s because [populations are] living in climates of fear.”
Viewed another way, they win because significant numbers of people in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine don’t think of these groups as “the baddies,” and not least because these groups have come to represent them and their aspirations to some degree (which is a troubling development all its own), because they offer them a means to vent their resentments against someone else (in the cases of Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel) and because the groups may also provide some meaningful social services (Hizbullah) or local policing (see Sadr’s militias in Iraq), and serve a function beyond demagoguery and thuggery. One might note again that the empowerment of Hizbullah in the aftermath of the “Cedar Revolution” was then redoubled by the solidarity against Israel on account of the wide-ranging, disproportionate and indiscriminate war against Lebanon, and then one could observe that Obama was right there along with most of the Senate cravenly endorsing the campaign to the hilt. In other words, Obama has proudly backed policies that have struck at the dignity of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, and he has proudly backed policies that contribute to the “climate of fear” that helps empower what his then-advisor described as “the baddies.” (Seriously, “the baddies”? Who talks like this?) This is the candidate who offers a change of direction in foreign policy? Really?
Those who continually come back to his position on Iraq seem satisfied that Obama reached the right conclusion without concerning themselves very much with how he reaches conclusions and makes decisions. Taking the longer view, his assumptions about America’s role in the world are more significant than his view on any particular policy. Basic assumptions are more valuable for understanding what a politician is likely to do in a crisis than how he has responded to any one particular policy or event.
Ackerman adds towards the end:
Conservatives are using Obama’s argument about the inextricability of international prosperity and U.S. national security to portray him as a “post-American globalist.”
For my part, I have never used the phrase “post-American,” but it seems undeniable to me that Obama is in some real sense a globalist (as is most, if not all, of the foreign policy establishment). And Obama does not argue for “the inextricability of international prosperity and U.S. national security” as such, but argues explicitly that the security of every other country is inextricably bound to American national security: every security crisis, in theory no matter how local or contained, is fundamentally our business because it (supposedly) affects us. It seems to me that people who agree with this are globalists and would probably not mind being called by this name. I would conclude by noting that it requires someone with the strange assumptions of a globalist about the vast scope and extent of American security interests to have ever believed that a third-rate dictatorship on the other side of the world posed a meaningful threat to the United States or American interests worthy of preventive war. The “mindset” behind the Iraq war is the mindset that says the following: state sovereignty is irrelevant when Washington says it is, international law exists to be used as a justification for our policies and a bludgeon against other countries, and civilian populations of states that supposedly or actually harbour or support terrorists are essentially expendable. In his comments on Pakistan and his vote on the war in Lebanon, Obama has not only failed to repudiate this mindset, but has demonstrated his fidelity to it on occasion.
I wonder if progressive realists interested in a sane and responsible foreign policy will see these flaws, or if they are so intent on getting out of the “defensive crouch” that they will endorse a bad foreign policy paradigm simply because it is being presented as a break with the past. Thus far, my impression is that the latter is more the case than the former.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
10 Responses to ““Dignity Promotion” Was Certainly Missing In 2006”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I give a huge discount to any statement made with regard to Israel and neighbors. In that case, Obama is being forced to make these statements at gunpoint, essentially.
There is a great interview with Justin Raimondo on this very topic here.
But this wasn’t just a “statement.” This was a recorded vote in the U.S. Senate. He boasts about it in his campaign literature. If he felt that he had to take a certain position under duress and against his better judgement, would he make a point of touting that particular part of his record? Or do we always discount what he says and does about Lebanon, Iran and Palestine because he is under tremendous political pressure? Won’t he be under equally great pressure not to withdraw from Iraq? Isn’t this evidence that he yields to pressure a little too easily?
In short, we’re supposed to let Obama slide for effectively showing political cowardice over a major foreign policy issue when he was actually in office, while giving him endless credit for taking a politically convenient position in 2002 Illinois on another one when he wasn’t yet in national office, and then take this as a reason to think he would be a good President? Does that really make sense? Have I missed something?
In short, we’re supposed to let Obama slide for effectively showing political cowardice over a major foreign policy issue when he was actually in office,
When it comes to Israel “cowardice” is a relative term.
There is a difference between bravery and foolishness, and taking on The Lobby head on is suicidal (at least for now).
BTW, the best part of this Rainmondo interview is between 9:30 and 14:20, although he continues on to talk about McCain which is interesting as well.
davegnyc,
“There is a difference between bravery and foolishness, and taking on The Lobby head on is suicidal (at least for now).”
Does it bother you at all that Obama is, essentially flat out lying about a major foreign policy position? And doesn’t making those kind of statements in the campaign effectively limit his maneuvering room if elected? After 7 plus years (or 15 years, if you prefer) of jaw-dropping dishonesty from our elected officials on these issues, a little clarity and honesty would be refreshing, indeed, it would be audacious.
I’m not asking that the man declare in the middle of an election year that he wants to shut off all aid to Israel or take some similar position that is obvious political doom. I would like to see someone who claims to have a more subtle understanding of what it means to be “pro-Israel” actually, well, demonstrate that subtle understanding when it comes to speaking about the relevant subjects, answering actual policy questions and casting recorded votes. Reciting the party line about Israel’s right to self-defense as it is seriously damaging an entire country to get at Hizbullah in on part of the country and unequivocally backing the campaign don’t measure up.
Does it make it better that S. Res. 534 passed by unanimous consent? I don’t think it does. Ironically, the resolution called for all sides to respect infrastructure, which Israel obviously did not do and apparently had no intention of doing. So far as I know, Obama never said anything about that later on.
I’m hardly the only one who has noticed these things.
As I read the Ackerman piece, a mounting sense of dread began to form. If this doctrine is any guide to what Obama will do, then my liberal brethren should be very, very afraid if they are opposed to military adventures in other countries that have no connection to our national security (I am beginning to suspect they do not). At no point did Ackerman wonder what policies that “dignity promotion” would entail.
In my experience, whenever a politician focuses his rhetoric on feelings (eg compassionate conservativism and the War on Terror) as a basis for a world view, then it is likely that we are about to embark on a course of action that has enormous costs and no clear benefits.
We are a country consumed by imperialism, our political class (Democrat or Republican) sees our country as possessing the inherent right to project our military power anywhere in the world to achieve whatever objectives we deem appropriate, without regard to the countries we are invading.
The rule of thumb I use in determining whether someone is “changing the [foreign policy] mindset” to something better is if they plan to reduce military spending. In our current context, the only purpose our military serves is to kill people and blow things up. Increasing the military’s budget means increasing the United States ability to kill people and blow things up and the only reason for that is additional imperial mis-adventures.
Obama, like Hillary and McCain, is planning to increase the military’s budget. Up until this point, I had a shred of hope that Obama was less of an imperialist than Hillary and McCain. This article indicates that he’s far worse.
What I find even more sickening is that most liberals seem to think the opposite. As Daniel suggested, they seem more interested in embracing a bad foreign policy to escape their “defensive crouch” then they are about ridding this country of our imperialist mindset. If Matthew Yglesias, a smart liberal fellow who wrote a book specifically condemning American imperialism, can embrace Obama than liberals are in a great deal of trouble (and deservedly so).
If Obama wins this election, then history may look back at George W. Bush’s foreign policy as restrained by comparison.
“If this doctrine is any guide to what Obama will do, then my liberal brethren should be very, very afraid if they are opposed to military adventures in other countries that have no connection to our national security (I am beginning to suspect they do not). At no point did Ackerman wonder what policies that “dignity promotion” would entail.”
Or you could think, per davegnyc, that Obama is simply lying through his teeth to get past the AIPAC sentinals that guard the Oval Office and his true supporters just “know” by some undefined secret handshake/decoder ring that he doesn’t mean a bit of the whole “end the mindset that got us into Iraq” schtick. “A mounting sense of dread” covers it quite nicely. The last time I had that feeling was reading The Project for the New American Century’s website.
All of that seems right to me. If progressives assume that “humanitarian intervention” isn’t imperialistic, they will keep coming to these same mistaken conclusions. If they believe you can have U.S. leadership backed by military supremacy and expressed through disregard for other states’ sovereignty and also believe that this isn’t hegemonic, it is very difficult to persuade them that Obama’s hegemonism is fundamentally not really that different from Bush’s. People always talk about McCain’s veneration of T.R. as evidence that he really is or has become an imperialist by conviction, and I think there is something to that. The people someone admires do tell you something about a person, and Obama repeatedly expresses his admiration for Lincoln, FDR and John Kennedy, the three Presidents who entered into three of our four bloodiest wars. If McCain’s T.R. fetish confirms his imperialism, what does it tell you about Obama that he admires such people? T.R. as President never got us into any wars (though he did persist in brutally suppressing the Filipinos at an appalling cost), and he even negotiated the end to a foreign war.
In the 3/24 issue of TAC, Dr. Hadar has a section about a very different “Obama Doctrine” that seems relevant here:
“In a show of bipartisan spirit, Democratic and Republican lawmakers stood up and applauded President Obama after he delivered a major foreign policy address before a special session of Congress. He proclaimed that the U..S. would support an “independent and free Kosovo” with economic and military aid and would it from “outside aggression.” Dubbed the Obama Doctrine, the speech outlined a strategy aimed at forming close security ties with nations in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, “and other free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by the new totalitarian regimes.” President Obama said that NATO will sign a security accord with Pristina that will eventually allow Kosovo to join the organization.”
Not only do I think such a scenario is plausible, but Obama has already all but said as much about Kosovo in one of the debates. The most insightful part of the article, of course, is that Dr. Hadar repeats the exact same scenario for a McCain administration.
So this leaves you… hoping for Clinton? ;-)