Going Deeper With Obama

I'd forgotten that The New York Sun is so around the bend that they don't print the term "Palestinians." Instead, we read that Barack Obama "has faulted the Bush administration for not pushing harder for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs." Lawyer Alan Solow, a longtime Obama supporter and Jewish Community Center Association leader is trotted out to assure Sun readers that Obama has "been very strong on the defense of a safe and secure Israel." The article also notes that Obama says "he would tend to support a missile strike on Iran if other methods fail to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear program" which I think is unfortunate.

I was most interested to see the views of Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell and a major Obama supporter. Power turns out to have significantly sounder views (none of this nonsense for example) than I had thought. All in all, he looks pretty good assuming he's not too serious about that whole starting a war with Iran thing.

Comments

I can see why one might be concerned that a policy of intervening to prevent genocide will serve as a pretext for launching wars that people want for other reasons. But that is not a good enough reason for us not to intervene in places like Darfur, and it certainly doesn't make the idea that we should do so nonsense.

Posted by David J. Balan | December 27, 2006 11:27 AM

Totally agree. At least he seems serious about having a foreign policy based in part on human rights - rather than the bush administration, which pretends to have a human rights agenda, but really just has an oil and "security" agenda.

The point about Pakistan is interesting. How strong is Musharaff's government? How long can Pakistan support having a Saudi Arabian/Egyptian style government, where the U.S. pays off a group of repressive autocrats? Unless there is some economic or human rights development for the average Pakistani, I think we're going to see problems there in the next decade.

Posted by MH | December 27, 2006 11:34 AM

Matt, will the military-industrial complex allow a President the luxury of not waging war? Weapon systems either need to be expended, worn out or proven insufficient to the task in actual combat. Lockheed, Hughes, Boeing et. al. are not going to suffer revenue stream interruptions, diminishments or stoppages. The Middle East is our petri dish and abandoning the weapons lab isn't in the plans, now or in the future.

Posted by steve duncan | December 27, 2006 12:00 PM

I'm sorry, but IMHO, this is just one more reason to believe that like Saint John McCain, and his mentor Holy Joe, Obama will say whatever he thinks he has to to get in good graces with the Wise Old Men of Washington (h/t Atrios).

Nuking Iran is as brain-dead and bloodthirsty as any foreign policy ever though of--and this whole "My gosh, I guess it's OK if he's not *really serious*, and just saying it to 'position' himself" line is crap. If he's 'positioning himself' alongside the people who think this could ever be a "good idea", then he sure as hell ain't positioning himself anywhere *I'm* comfortable...

C'mon, people, take off the rose-colored glasses, already. The whole narrative that says "Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and because of that they're not 'faults', they're 'character traits'" is really starting to piss me off.

OK, the guy is good in front of a crowd, and he apparently did well by his district (not that I've actually seen any hard evidence of same, myself) Further than that, he seems to have that Clintonesque quality that gets otherwise sane people to drop any pretense of objectivity like a dead octopus.

Color me more and more nervous about this guy and what "great things" we can really expect out of him.

Posted by Captain Goto | December 27, 2006 12:08 PM

The article also notes that Obama says "he would tend to support a missile strike on Iran if other methods fail to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear program" which I think is unfortunate.

It's more than a little unfortunate. It's a fucking disaster. Is there any serious candidate who would not tend to support a missile strike on Iran? It's enough to make you think of voting for Nader.

Posted by otto | December 27, 2006 12:13 PM

otto, good point: is it actually now The Conventional Wisdom(tm) that it's OK to do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb?

God help us.

Posted by Captain Goto | December 27, 2006 12:16 PM

I don't care. I'm not even going to think about supporting someone who wants to start a war with Iran. I'm not even going to consider voting for someone willing to support such an attack. It's not an electable position, it's not a strong position. It's the position of the kid who's bullied into going along with the cooler kids. By 2008, you won't be able to win the presidential election by favoring starting new wars, or by supporting the current one. That's why McCain doesn't worry me in the slightest. Is there anyone here who really thinks invading Iran is a popular position? They don't even want the war we have. You might read polls that say to wait a year and get out and think "The public still holds out hope for victory!". I read those polls as see a public that wants a withdrawal thats well planned and orderly. Make no mistake though, they want a withdrawal.

Posted by Soullite | December 27, 2006 12:21 PM

Samantha Power is good people. Her endorsement means much to me.

On Iran, most of what you hear means that an attack is going to happen, and politicians aren't going to waste political capital on something that can't be stopped, and has unpredictable fallout.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 27, 2006 12:26 PM

Iran will be a bombing, not an invasion. I fear many Americans will think it offers the prospect of a 'win' without the risk of another quagmire, and find it a thrilling prospect. Also, the Israelis usually get what they want.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 27, 2006 12:39 PM

"Barack Obama "has faulted the Bush administration for not pushing harder for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs."

Does Marty Peretz know about this?

Posted by Nan | December 27, 2006 12:41 PM

Ah the joys of triangulation:

In his new, best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama devotes a 53-page chapter to international issues. In one passage, he scolds self-described liberals for saying in a poll last year that their top foreign policy concerns were "withdrawing troops from Iraq, stopping the spread of AIDS, and working more closely with our allies."

"The objectives favored by liberals have merit. But they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy," Mr. Obama declares. Alluding to the Vietnam War, he says, "It's useful to remind ourselves, then, that Osama bin Laden is not Ho Chi Minh, and that the threats facing the United States are real, multiple, and potentially devastating."

So what's going on in Iraq shouldn't be a top concern?

Posted by AJ | December 27, 2006 12:44 PM

Samantha Power is actually a member of Obama's staff.

Posted by Chris | December 27, 2006 1:07 PM

AIPAC deems Obama reliable. He wouldn't get free celebrity otherwise. Something already stank about him when I saw David Brooks cooing over him at the Democratic convention in 2004.

Posted by brendan | December 27, 2006 2:07 PM

Matthew Y:

You hope he's "not too serious about starting a war with Iran"?

How is Obama going to take these words back? What is Obama giving away now to get all this free advertising and name recognition? Will a one-term (not even) Senator President have the power to resist the pressure to attack Iran, much less withdraw troops from Iraq? He's pliable, therefore reliable.

Posted by brendan | December 27, 2006 2:11 PM

Before this turns into another one of those Obama myths - "Obama said he would nuke Iran!" "Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill!" "Obama said Lieberman was his mentor!" (It was the reporter who used that term, not Obama. See here.) - here's what I found on his Senate website. There does seem to be some inconsistency between his initial statements on the subject and some of his later ones. But his tone on Iran isn't nearly as alarmist as some others have been, and as far as he gets into specifics on the issue, it's usually talking about energy independence and beefing up the NPT. Whatever he's been telling this Solow guy in private, I can't speak to.

[...]

He dismissed the possibility of an invasion of Iran, which is under scrutiny for a nuclear program that critics say seeks to develop nuclear weapons.

"We can rattle our sabers all we want but, realistically, we don't have troops for an invasion and surgical strikes aren't going to work," Obama said.
--Obama pledges to improve schools, health-care access: By Steve Silverman , The Bloomington Pantagraph February 25, 2005

Today, we face a similar situation. With the rest of the world questioning our intelligence capabilities, and nuclear proliferation threats from Iran to North Korea that may require action by the U.N. Security Council, we must be able to convince the world that we are right. Now, more than ever, we need a credible messenger at the U.N.

Unfortunately, I have some serious reservations about whether Mr. Bolton is the right man for the job.
--Opening Statement of Senator Barack Obama at the Confirmation Hearing of John Bolton April, 11, 2005

Meanwhile, the fanatical terrorist organizations who want these weapons continue to search every corner of the Earth, resorting to virtually any means necessary. The nuclear programs of nations such as Iran and North Korea threaten to destabilize key regions of the world. And, we are still learning about the tremendous damage caused by A.Q. Kahn, the rogue Pakistani weapons scientist.
--Remarks of Senator Barack Obama About America's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy May 26, 2005

"We can't keep financing Saudi Arabia and Iran" through oil dependence, he said.
--Obama listens to residents' concerns: PEKIN DAILY TIMES, By Sharon Woods Harris July 7, 2005

We had the opportunity on the first day to meet with a variety of members of Israel security forces and get briefings from them about the border situation and their concerns surrounding Iran as well as the prospects of elections both on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side...

But, having said that, one of the things you do get a strong sense of is that Israel at this point possesses such superior military forces, that they don't really have enormous vulnerability in a conventional sense.
--From the Road: Israel and the Palestinian territories: Podcast January 14, 2006

In Iran, Islamic fundamentalists are forging ahead with their nuclear program, knowing full well that the world's response to their actions will be influenced by our need for their oil. In fact, reports of a $100 billion oil deal between Iran and China were soon followed by China's refusal to press for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear intentions.
--Energy Security is National Security: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, Governor's Ethanol Coalition, Washington, DC February 28, 2006

Let's take a look at what is happening right now. In Iran, you've got an Islamic, fundamentalist government that is saying Israel should be wiped of the map, and that the Holocaust did not happen. We are sending them billions of dollars in exchange for their oil, they, in turn, are using that money to help finance nuclear programs.
--Energy Security is National Security: Podcast March 1, 2006

Obama said he isn't worried just yet about some reports that claim the Bush administration is planning military strikes in Iran.

"As I've said before, I don't think you take any options off the table," Obama said. He added the president has said any talk of an impending military campaign in Iran is purely speculative. The senator said he is apt to believe the U.S. will try diplomacy before force, since ending Iran's nuclear aspirations would take an extended bombing cycle with heavy civilian casualties.
--Obama discusses state, national issues in Carbondale meeting: CARBONDALE SOUTHERN ILLINOISAN, By Caleb Hale April 15, 2006

"Here's the one single thing that we could do that's most important to eliminate the Iranian threat. We could pursue energy independence here in the United States," Obama said.

"... Part of the reason Iran is able to pursue nuclear weapons is because oil has been at $70 a barrel and even though we don't directly import oil from Iran, we drive up the price because we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, even though we only have only 3 percent of the worlds oil reserves... so what happens is that we are making Iran richer all the time."
--Sen. Obama at Joliet town hall: By Mary Baskerville – KANKAKEE DAILY JOURNAL September 23, 2006

Iraq is descending into chaos based on ethnic divisions that were around long before American troops arrived. The conflict has left us distracted from containing the world’s growing threats – in North Korea, in Iran, and in Afghanistan...

Finally, we have to realize that the entire Middle East has an enormous stake in the outcome of Iraq, and we must engage neighboring countries in finding a solution.

This includes opening dialogue with both Syria and Iran, an idea supported by both James Baker and Robert Gates. We know these countries want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region – and within their own countries.

And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, Jordanians, the British and others. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution.

Make no mistake – if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to drawdown forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us.
--A Way Forward in Iraq: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, Chicago Council on Global Affairs November 20, 2006

This report will offer us a unique chance to forge a bipartisan consensus about how to move forward in Iraq, and I hope that in the coming weeks the White House will engage in good-faith discussions about how to proceed that will seriously consider the ideas put forward by the Study Group, as well as other proposals such as a regional summit that would include both Iran and Syria in a discussion about Iraq's future.
--Obama Statement on Reports that Iraq Study Group Will Call for a Redeployment of U.S. Forces November 30, 2006

I am also pleased by their call for a regional summit that would include both Iran and Syria, an enhanced Iraqi training program, and their proposal to condition further assistance to progress in Iraq.
--Obama Statement on Iraq Study Group Report December 6, 2006

Posted by Chris | December 27, 2006 2:40 PM

Obama is not supporting a nuclear strike. The Chicago Tribune article the NY Sun references is from 2004 (registration required).

The first paragraph makes clear the kind of attack he's referring to: "U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

Based on the quotes from Chris, it looks like he changed that position by February of 2005 because of a judgment on the strike's likelihood of success.

Posted by Greg Sanders | December 27, 2006 3:01 PM

He's my senator, I'm calling up and asking him.

I'm sick of trying to read tea leaves to figure out what he's about.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 3:33 PM

The Pakistan problem is the most significant foreign policy test facing any new President. Here we have a supposed ally (in the "realist" sense, anyway) that bases and trains militants who directly attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. Read Barry Rubin's (the foremost US expert on Afghanistan) article in Foreign Affairs.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86105/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan.html

In his September 21, 2006, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Jones, a Marine Corps general and the supreme allied commander, Europe, for NATO, confirmed that the main Taliban headquarters remains in Quetta. According to Western military officials in Afghanistan, intelligence provides strong circumstantial evidence that Pakistan's ISI is providing aid to the Taliban leadership shura (council) there.

Wow! A Marine Corp. general testifies to Congress that our sworn enemy, the Taliban movement, is getting support from Pakistan in Quetta. Remember that Quetta is in Baluchistan, well under the control of Pakistan's government, not in the ungovernable "tribal areas". Why worry about Iran when we already have a nuclear Islamist force actively plotting and fighting against us?

Posted by aa | December 27, 2006 3:41 PM

Hmm, the NY Sun article also contained this quote:

"An Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, has been asking Israeli opinion leaders each month to score possible American presidential hopefuls. Mr. Obama tends to score at or near the bottom. The paper's chief Washington correspondent, Shmuel Rosner, said that's in part due to Mr. Obama's novelty on the political scene, but also to other factors. "His supporters will come mainly from the left wing of the Democratic Party and from the African-American community — from constituencies which are traditionally not that supportive of Israel," the journalist said."

Posted by Chris | December 27, 2006 4:05 PM

People have been talking about 'energy independence' since I was a teenager in the 70s. It hasn't happened and it won't, for two powerful reasons.

1. The measures required to actually create energy independence and very costly and therefore politically unpalatable.

2. There are lots of measures that can be sold as steps toward energy independence that are less costly, and actually politically advantageous because they involve subsidizing special interests.

Posted by David Tomlin | December 27, 2006 10:18 PM

Sorry, I meant 'The measures required to actually create energy independence are very costly and therefore politically unpalatable.'

Posted by David Tomlin | December 27, 2006 10:20 PM

I suspect that, absent the Iraq war, Power would be pushing hard for an invasion of Darfur/Sudan. She may realize that the times are against her right now, but she's always been of the intervene-everywhere-to-stop-genocide camp.

Posted by Cthomas | December 28, 2006 1:03 PM

So, Matthew, if, after engaging Tehran in talks, we come back completely empty handed, in your view, we should just...what exactly? Look, I'm all for 'give peace a chance' but if they continue down the path to nuclear weapons, we need to strike. And in response to an earlier poster, where did Obama state the strike would be nuclear?

I'm not a great fan of preemption, but what exactly needs to happen for us to engage Iran militarily? (Say, a nuclear bomb detonated in lower Manhattan with materials passed from Tehran to Al Qaeda, perhaps?)

Not trying to be snarky. Just honest questions...

Posted by Aaron Nagler | December 28, 2006 3:41 PM

David Tomlin,

There are some things that are possible but economically unfeasible. Like, say, alchemy. In 1980, Glenn Seaborg used a nuclear reactor to transmute lead into gold. But it was so expensive, it will always be cheaper to mine the stuff.

In contrast, energy independence is economically quite feasible. If you used gasoline taxes to price in the military expenses that are created by our oil dependency, that's a $2 or $3 a gallon tax. The market would reduce the demand for gasoline and find cheaper alternatives (whether its ethanol or coal or electric cars). If we ramped up the tax slowly, there'd be little economic cost and then we really wouldn't care who controlled Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Central Command and all the troops and equipment it deploys wouldn't have a reason to exist (well, I'm sure the troops have families that appreciate their existence).

Raising gax taxes makes a lot of sense, but any politician who voted for it would be thrown out on his ear. We get the government we deserve and plainly this country doesn't deserve energy independence.

Posted by beowulf | December 30, 2006 3:56 AM