Centerfield

I doubt this will stop the slide for Obama Starbuck. I notice many on the Left quite optimitic that Iraq could turn sour again. Casey will likely be drowned out by many other issues as Muthra endorsed Hillary not long ago. I doubt Obama will come close in Penn. Why? Because there is forming a basic question and some consensus on the picture Americans are forming over Obama. I think however, as more is vetted about Obama and his advisors and associations, it will form a pattern of judgment and inclination if not a certain lack of credibility. A central argument will arise. Obama has made Iraq is central claim to great judgment so lets begin there.

Today, Bush answered some questions about Iraq. Forget the rabid Democratic resistance to Bush for a moment. He basically said, Maliki promised to bring all groups under the law. This is a bold move to act on his word and Iraqis are going into a tough militant stronghold. Isn't this a sign that the iraqi government finally has some backbone and use an Iraqi army to enforce the law.

Bush said that most people want to have normal lives. Basra has always been a center for criminals. A victory for Maliki with Iraqi forces is a voctory for reformation.

Now it should not be a GOP talking point to say that the reformation of Islam is critical. A stable Iraq, a peaceful signal to Iran that it cannot extend hegemony with impunity, a signal to the Middle East that moderates can triumph, that extremist positions will be contained, is certainly a victory for reformation.

Normally, this support of reformation would be a bipartisan position. It was in 2004. It was clear after 9/11 what Democrats wanted to do. 1. create better domestic securtiy, 2. go after those responsible 3. move to reduce the related global threats and the coming nexus between WMD and terrorism. It was felt that Western secuirty and the dangers of extremism's spread needed to be acted on ASAP.

Obama has switched the Party line from, "Iraq was an incompetent and poorly timed pre-emption of a serious threat", to the more orginalist Lefty take that "pre-emption against Saddam was illegal, the biggest mistake in US foreign policy history and an attempt by a corrupt adminstration to dominate and control oil supply for corporations". He might not say that exactly, but let's not kid ourselves.

After the former stance was half-heartedly followed by Kerry to defeat, "Incompetence" was replace with "impotence". there arose again, the idea that removing Saddam was wrong in principle. It refelcted distrubed thinking and very bad judgment by HIllary Clinton. Many actually say that life with Saddam is preferable to the present mess no matter the result, despite the rational prediction of what exactly Saddam would mean to the world if ruling today. Sorry for this bandwidth, but I think this really important. So a bit more folks will;ing to follow.

The idea went from the kind of American leadership and self-interest both Clinton and Reagan believed in (the benign hegemony of Western Liberal Democracy [see Adams and Jefferson's letters to each other]), to the meme that our so called "enforcement of self-interest and use of force is counterproductive and that said "hegemony" in our multipolar world is merely the pretense of domination". We need to understand, as Powers puts it, we can never win. Not in today's world. Black and White has become obsolete. We must learn how to "deal with" and talk with our enemies. After all, we handled the Soviets, didn't we? We just need to live with the least terrible available option. Therefore, Iraq moved from a question of timing and incompetence as Bill explained shortly after the war started, to Iraq is Lost. Nope, as Obama's advisors suggest, we can never win in the sense centrists still believe. Iraq was Lost before we got there.

Last and more dangerous is that this mindset has lead to another article in Book of the New Church:

If a bomb goes off in an American city, Tehran will be glass.

Maybe NK. Koppel coined this line of thinking as the Don Corleone doctrine of American retaliation. This is the major reason, many Liberals already accept an Iranian bomb. Hell, the Soviets didn't start anything......Let's pull away from regions of conflict (instead of formerly, exploiting their own hatreds and insure they kill each other). If we get hit, we'll nuke them into vapors and glass. Hell, the inventor of the Neutron Bomb claims his device does this in much more eco-humane way.

Now how is it a GOP talking point to say this is absurd thinking?

We do not have the forensics to be certain where our next attacks will come from. Iran is hardly going to fire a missle at any other nation. except after any hostiles occur. The idea we can pin-point where something came from is an uncertain affair. Quds is already in Caracas. We all know FARC would prefer the good stuff rather than depleated uranium as recenlty found. Would any American President incinerate millions of civilans based on today's NIE of where it came from? Would they give the President the same high probabilities of certainy that claimed about Iran? An Iranian nuclear device going off in American city any time soon would be in itself a complete refutation of today's NIE..LOL

The idea that we can just sit back and wait until Israelis and Iranians, Pakistanis and Syrians, Indians and eventually the other nations in the Middle East go after each other is not only unprincipled, but goes against the guiding necessity to promote Islamic Reformation and the enforcement of international law. How else can Darfur be saved, or Tibet free, Iranian women liberated, militants defeated if not through the enforcement of international agreements backed up with sanctions, embargoes and eventual force?? Or is even such critical reformation a "victory" that no longer is possible in Powers or Malley's eyes? Should we step back and adopt the Zbig/Baker soft interventionist concept of aiding enemies kill themselves? And how Powers can we stop genocide if the UN can't disarm Hizb'Allah as mandated or cut arms into the Sudan?

In short, this more cynical view that Obama has re-introduced (but in a form he is selling as "hawkish" and "centered") is actually a departure of bipartisan policy at a critical moment. Barak calls Hillary's more centered stance, Republican Lite. He depicts the departure he posits as one from a Bush position. The original Democratic position condemned Bush in his timing based on political expediancy and bad intelligence and incompetence in executing an exit strategy. The majority of Democrats including Lieberman agreed with this. Under the old thinking, had we acted in the manner many Democrats and even the NYT suggested, Malaki might be moving with greater force long ago against extremists in Basra amd Mosul. Iraq would not be the huge problem it is and perhaps, Iran and Syria would actually be ready to even talk honestly to an American or Western president. Even Obama went fro telling Russert Iraq was be saved from his position to Itaq is Lost.

If Reformation is the critical key to our security, if we still believe in the Jeffersonian notion of international advocacy through the progressive hegemony of Western Ideals in order to secure our own liberty over time, then one must question the judgment and end game of this reent and new turn in Democratic thinking. It goes against all save Jimmy Carter, who Zbig was a top advisor. The Irony will be whether Obama actually repudiates the Carter Doctrine while working with Zbig.

We see this battle between Obama and Hillary and represent the singular issue over the soul of the Democratic Party. Obama has shown himself to be representitive of the more Liberal and radical elements of America, though I do not buy he feels far from a more centered view. Unfortunately, in order to reconcile his support from the Left, he has engaged in the strategic shift I have mentioned above. This makes some sense of why Powers, Zbig, McPeak, Malley and Rice. In a no-win world be have to balance our reltionships more with both parties of any conflict. We replace hegemony and enforcement of principles with be far, less agreesive, more accomadtating to different ideals and values. We live after all, in a multipolar world.

Again, this misses the essential problem and its solution. As Gordo can tell you, Zbig's mentor Huffington supports the notion of the clash of civilizations. I am not suggeting Obama is a dove, or that he would capitualte with public opinion on his back. It is a question of the principle and strategy that guides policy and a Dignified Foreign Policy may simply conseal the kind of thinking that leaves us little deterrence unless we nuke millions based on the NIE. Reformation of Islam will decline as weapons and hostilities build.

Now tell me the web that Obama has fallen into doesn't represent the more controversial side on the Left? If one feels the imperitive to elect someone who would not abdandon the position the Democrats faced after 9/11, and plot a competent and agressive reaction to the global forces threating us and the security and stability of the West. Liberal once meant there was a line to hold. The New Liberal doesn't believe this, being far more cynical.

There are some real differences between Hillary and Obama. The one above is the biggest, but for her to make the case would be to say that the plot Obama has been pushing is dangerous to the security of the nation -not because Obama is unpatriotic or radical. The model he is using would encourage extremists, abandon reformation (except if building new schools and paying for new teachers in nations that would never allow us to do so). Do Obama's associations show were he leans ideologically? Do Obama's advisors show a type of foreign policy that supports reformation, alliances, commerce and the enforcement of international law?

I hope some Obama supporters can see why this has nothing to do with GOP talking points and why Hillary supporters react the way they do? It is not about selling a pitch. It is simply how you answer the question: Do you believe in the legitimacy of a benign hegemony of Liberal Democratic values and security concerns?