Matthew Yglesias (July 24, 2007) - "Presidential" (Media)

Thanks, Matt. Great points.

Posted by David in NY | July 24, 2007 9:47 AM

"I see Clinton and Biden both taking relatively more right-wing positions on Iraq and then refusing to take responsibility for the fact that they don't favor a speedy withdrawal from Iraq by pretending that the military somehow "can't" organize one."

How long do you think it takes to safely withdraw 170,000 troops plus equipment? It took eight months to build up our forces. Getting out will be harder than invading. I think we should start getting out immediately, but it's going to take awhile.

Posted by Jose Padilla | July 24, 2007 9:52 AM

I thought Ms. Clinton's answer to the question about meeting with dictators was spot on. Why say you're going to meet with the leadership in Iran or Syria or whoever before you know what subjects will be on the table? She didn't say "never", just that it was premature to be making promises.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 9:57 AM

Well, I dunno, Matt, it's an empirical question. How long will it take? Biden really seemed to think it'll take more than 6 months, and there was quite a bit of run-up to the war. I don't know who's right.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2007 9:59 AM

I responded to this point on Marc's post, but I think it's worth repeating (and emphasizing) that Hillary's response to this question is something that I would imagine George Bush saying in a press conference... "Sure, I'll meet with Ahmadinejad as soon as he simply bows to every one of my demands." That's not diplomacy, by the way.

Also, the notion that she would not meet with world leaders to avoid handing them a "propaganda victory" is really a way of saying that she won't meet with them. Worse, it's borne of the same thinking that went into the Murdoch attacks on Pelosi's Syria trip, that meeting with foreign leaders is surrender. Perhaps it's couched in softer terms, but that's what she's saying.

Posted by Jerry Medium | July 24, 2007 9:59 AM

Is it just me, or is any when else noticing that prospective primary voters are beginning to reject what talking heads have so long deemed as serious and presidential?

Posted by sy | July 24, 2007 10:00 AM

really on target. the use of language and framing to hide real issues has become ingrained in the political discourse (incredibly successfully by the right wing. it is always shocking how many seemingly intelligent people just accept their framing).

Posted by della Rovere | July 24, 2007 10:02 AM

Matt,

I disagree with the assessment that reviewing our options in Iraq, especially with regard to maintaining some troops in country, is "right wing". We Democrats will likely inherit this mess. It's important to think through our policy options before we decide that we should do the opposite of whatever the wingnuts did. We will have to get out of Iraq regardless of who becomes president. We will also have to shoulder the burden of this debacle as a country. The next president should be trying to figure out how to limit the damage. It would be nice to just pull everyone out and pretend this never happened but we are not blessed with the same gift for self delusion that the Republicans are. Hilary or whoever is elected is not likely to get the same kid glove treatment from the press that this president enjoyed for so long. They will want to know what we are doing to prevent a full scale Iranian Theocracy in Iraq.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 10:13 AM

It will take awhile to withdraw the troops and their associated equipment in an expeditious but safe manner. And this is really something where the military and logistics people at DoD need to put their heads together and produce an estimate, to aid Congress in its legislating.

Getting out is really going to be much trickier than getting in was, so this is why when someone such as Sen. Clinton raises the question, it's important that she get a straightforward answer based on the DoD's best assessment of their abilities and the challenges involved, rather than a slam against her patriotism.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 24, 2007 10:17 AM

J Medium,

Look, is it not prudent to keep your options open with regard to places like Syria and Iran? We have no idea what the next year or two will bring in the saga that is the middle east but this much is clear, it will likely involve us on one side and either Iran, Syria or both on the other. Ms. Clinton said she would employ high level envoys who would presumably hash out the perameters of any meetings between heads of states. That seems about right to me. Saying as president you're personally ready to meet with these guys is not productive. Why meet with them if a month later we will be dropping bombs on their cities? It's not the most likely option but it's not like we can rule it out either. The whole situation is too fluid to be making promises that limit our options.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 10:22 AM

Why is the Atlantic trying to drive James Fallows away?

Posted by anon | July 24, 2007 10:23 AM

that's a silly and bum rap on Hillary. she gave a thoughtful, experienced answer and it was certainly not right wing. should the american president sit down for a tete-a-tete with the holocaust denying ahmendinajad or the others for some kumbaya hand-holding? absolutely not and obama showed his naivete by saying he would. presidents do not use their power to prop up dictators. one does negotiate with one's enemies but not at the presidential level. at the presidential level, things are agreed to and signed on to. to describe that as right wing is to truly ignore the dangers that these dictators present. And they are dictators and enemies of america and a Democratic President who denies that fulfills all the worst stereotypes that wingnuts construct. Hillary ain't nobodies fool.

Posted by joker | July 24, 2007 10:34 AM

ny nick,

It would be nice to just pull everyone out and pretend this never happened but we are not blessed with the same gift for self delusion that the Republicans are. Hilary or whoever is elected is not likely to get the same kid glove treatment from the press that this president enjoyed for so long. They will want to know what we are doing to prevent a full scale Iranian Theocracy in Iraq.

The hard truth here is that the path to 'full scale Iranian Theorcacy in Iraq' was inevitable the minute Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Bathists army and disenfranchised the Sunni community. The rest is commentary. The hard truth is that the Unites States, even with its 150 000 force presence in Iraq, is not in control of the country's political direction or destiny. So I have a hard hard time accepting that we should wring our hands for the democrats of tommorrow when we can't even get the media to tell the truth about the situation on the ground in Iraq today. It is up to you and all other americans to slap back at the media when they try and pin a failure narrative on the new Democratic President in 2009. There is nothing the Dem candidate can say or do now to make future Shia Theocracy in Iraq go away. You are writing a story that can only end in failure. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot. The real failure occurred under Bush in 2003, we should remember that and insist that the country remember that too, because lord knows, the neo cons and the AEI and Fox News and all the other miscreants that sold this disaster to the American public will be trying to make everyone forget as quickly as possible.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 24, 2007 10:34 AM

NY Nick,

My responses to your questions:

"Look, is it not prudent to keep your options open with regard to places like Syria and Iran?"

I don't see how promising to engage foreign leaders constrains anyone. Talking to people doesn't somehow relieve pressure. It's just talking.

"Saying as president you're personally ready to meet with these guys is not productive. Why meet with them if a month later we will be dropping bombs on their cities?"

And this is exactly my point: diplomatic engagement is the tool you use to settle disputes peacefully. That's why a promise of robust, top-level diplomacy is crucial in my mind.

Second, what does bombing someone have to do with meeting/not meeting with them? Is it rude to meet with someone one week and bomb them the next? In my mind, you should do everything you can to avoid military action, and an in-person appeal would fall into the "everything" category.

"It's not the most likely option but it's not like we can rule it out either. The whole situation is too fluid to be making promises that limit our options."

I just don't see how top-level diplomacy shouldn't be promised. What's wrong with talking? Who loses?

There are people in this country who think every meeting with dictators is going to result in a replay of Munich. I fundamentally disagree.

Posted by Jerry Medium | July 24, 2007 10:38 AM

What continually amazes me is that people talk about the apparent disagreements about how long it would take to disengage from Iraq as somehow being relevant to the question of when we should START disengaging from Iraq.

Whether it takes six weeks, six months, eighteen months... What difference does it make? In every case we should start disengagement RIGHT NOW. That's the only question up for debate. It's silly that we keep deflecting it to "how long will it take."

When do we start? WHEN DO WE START?

That's the only question of substance here.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | July 24, 2007 10:39 AM

Well, I dunno, Matt, it's an empirical question. How long will it take? Biden really seemed to think it'll take more than 6 months, and there was quite a bit of run-up to the war. I don't know who's right.Well, I dunno, Matt, it's an empirical question. How long will it take? Biden really seemed to think it'll take more than 6 months, and there was quite a bit of run-up to the war. I don't know who's right.

You might recall that Hillary recently wrote the Pentagon asking THIS EXACT QUESTION, and some deputy blew her off, adding for good measure that even talking about these issues emboldens the enemy.

So the answer is, only the military knows for sure at this point. In Rumsfeld's Pentagon, they probably would have been forbidden to even draw up contingency plans for a withdrawal, but these days who knows.

Posted by Steve | July 24, 2007 10:40 AM

All this handwringing over what the U.S. is going to do about Iraq is growing tiresome. The elephant in the room is the nasty truth we're not going to do much but continue to be there and continue to kill and be killed. For years and years and years. Through 2009? Ha, that's funny! Try 2019 or beyond. We'll be the frog in the pot of ever hotter water except fate will set the thermostat just short of boiling, assuring a long, slow cooking away of the flesh. Stop treating the emanations of Edwards, Clinton or Obama regarding Iraq as if they mean a damn thing. There are very good reasons TRW, Hughes, Lockheed, Halliburton, Boeing, and all the petroleum corporations have more lobbyists in the halls of Congress than there are federal employees in the entire building. There is a lot of money to be made in the Middle East. Those few pennies on the dollar getting re-circulated back to the DNC and RNC in the form of campaign contributions amount to untold millions. And that's just the legitimate, traceable money. Abramoff, Wilkes & Co provide a picture of what sloshes around under the table. The U.S. is not leaving Iraq save a few soldiers here and there to keep the dogs of reason at bay. Hell, even military funerals line somebody's pockets.

Posted by steve duncan | July 24, 2007 10:42 AM

Here's another empirical question: do the editors of the Atlantic keep track of the relative popularity and strength of these blogs? That is to say, if I and others who agree with me were to continue to read this blog, and Sullivan (from time to time), and Fallows, and refuse to read Ambinder's blog because he is just an exhaust vent for conventionally "serious" viewpoints, will the editors of the Atlantic eventually get rid of him?

Posted by interloper | July 24, 2007 10:48 AM

Democrats will likely inherit the Iraq mess. But they need to be careful to always frame their policy solutions in such a way as to remind everyone who created the mess. There really are no good options, and it is entirely due to the incompetence of the Bush administration. The MSM (due to their complicity) and the Republicans would have the public believe that the Iraq situation is just an unpleasant reality that has evolved over time in the course of fighting the "war on terror", and everyone shares equal responsibility. That is of course a complete lie. We are all equally responsible to try to contain and eventually fix the horrible policy failure that the Bush admin has inflicted on the Iraqis, this country, and the world.

Posted by Del Capslock | July 24, 2007 10:51 AM

How long do you think it takes to safely withdraw 170,000 troops plus equipment? It took eight months to build up our forces.

Huh? President Bush ordered the military to begin deploying to Iraq on Dec 21st 2002. We invaded in March 2003.

Equipment? I forsee a lot of it staying. It's not cost effective to ship out thousands of portable buildings. It will cost more to get them back to the states than they're worth.

At most is should take six months.

Posted by Davebo | July 24, 2007 10:54 AM

Northern O,

We're on the same page here. I agree that we are left without any good options in Iraq. That's not the fault of the next president. That GWB is ultimately responsible for creating this mess is obviously true. But we, and by we I mean the United States, not the Democrats, will have to live with the fallout from this debacle for decades to come. Regardless of what the press does or does not do, we can't ignore the facts on the ground and our contribution to whatever comes next in Iraq. You say there is nothing the next president can do to prevent a full scale Iranian takeover in Iraq. That may well be true but we ought not to accept it without at least trying to engineer some other outcome. It's a monumentally difficult task but we really don't have much choice. Iran's takeover is not pre-ordained. Don't forget that although outnumbered, the Sunnis have ruled Iraq since it became a country.
They are ruthless fighters and it's not clear at least to me how the Shi'ites dispose of the Sunni minority. Then there are all the border countries who will fear a failed state next door or worse, the Sunni/Shia war spilling across their borders. It's important we face facts, the next step in Iraq has the potential to get real ugly real fast. We all know who's responsible for this but that guy won't be president when the fecal matter hits the fan. The next president had better come up some way forward other than it's that last guys fault.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 11:06 AM

"Huh? President Bush ordered the military to begin deploying to Iraq on Dec 21st 2002. We invaded in March 2003."

We atarted deploying in August 2002. You think we deployed 250,000 troops in less than three months?

Posted by Jose Padilla | July 24, 2007 11:17 AM

amen, Steve.

Posted by Cougarhutch | July 24, 2007 11:19 AM

There was some slight ambiguity in the wording of the question, which Clinton-supporting commentators, taking their cue from Mark Penn, have exploited with a willfully implausible reading. Th question which was:

"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

In asking what "you" would be willing to do, I understood the questioner to be asking the candidates a question about the policies of their administrations. Clearly neither Obama nor anyone else believes that heads of state typically call each other up and schedule face-to-face summit meetings without advance work, and preparatory meetings between lower-level representatives in their administration. But the background to the question, clearly indicated by the questioner's choice of phrasing, was that meetings between the US government and the Iranian government, separately and without preconditions, at any level, would be a break with current US policy. Current policy is to insist on preconditions, and absent the meeting of those preconditions to allow only non-separate side talks at other regional gatherings, or communication through intermediaries.

Obama stated rather clearly and directly that the current policy would be changed under his administration, and that an Obama administration would talk with the governments of countries with whom we have difficult and adversarial relations, particularly Iran. He said:

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

Yet everyone knows that neither Reagan nor JFK constantly had presidential-level summit meetings with their Soviet counterparts. Reagan had a few, but they were not "constant", and I don't think Kennedy had any such meetings. So it seems clear that Obama was speaking here of all kinds of direct talks between governments, something that in the case of the current US-Iran relationship are non-existent.

Clinton simply ducked and waffled on the question, and lamely attempted to split the difference between left and right - with perhaps more concern for the right. At some undetermined time in the future, after some possible meetings with some "high-level envoys" of unspecified nationality, following "diplomacy" of an unspecified nature, and after we "know what their intentions are", then there might be some talks with Iran. How informative. I guess this sort of multi-directional pandering is what counts as "presidential" in Washington.

What really ticked off the Washington pundits was Obama's suggestion that (a) Iran can be part of the solution in Iraq, and (b) that the US should state that it is not going to be a permanent occupying force in Iraq:

... We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

Since Middle East hawks want the US to be a permanent occupying force in Iraq, to some degree at least, and want the US to use that permanent Iraqi presence to challenge, isolate and delgitimize Iran, and prevent it from playing any regional roll whatsoever, they are aghast at this talk. HRC, who sends all kinds of signals that she intends to perpetuate the current hardline confrontational approach to Iran, and maintain a significant presence in Iraq, is more their cup of tea.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 11:23 AM

I thought Ms. Clinton's answer to the question about meeting with dictators was spot on. Why say you're going to meet with the leadership in Iran or Syria or whoever before you know what subjects will be on the table? She didn't say "never", just that it was premature to be making promises.

We all know what subjects would be on the table. They have been ready for table presentation for several years. Somebody just needs to bring out a damn table and get started.

This notion that "more study and preparation are needed" is just a pandering, procrastinating dodge, and a built-in excuse for inaction. The result of taking this line will only be Cuba all over again: a half century of unproductive stupidity.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 11:28 AM

Dan, you make some very good points here.

Obama clearly looked at it as a question about engaging vs. not engaging, and he used the question to repudiate the Bush Administration policy of non-engagement.

By contrast, Hillary took the question very literally as a way of showing that she's "tough" and "serious", and it turned me off.

And you're totally right: Middle East hawks will not be happy with Obama's answer. Expect some post featuring Obama lunching with Hitler in "The Spine" very soon.

Posted by Jerry Medium | July 24, 2007 11:35 AM

Yes, exactly. The 'relatively right wing media' sees themselves in Hillary, hears themselves in her answers, and proclaim her the winner because what she says sounds the most like the little voices inside of their own heads. She and people like Joe Biden reinforce their view of themselves as being correct and well-informed. When I hear Hillary talking about not wanting to be used for propaganda, I just hear an attempt to appeal to right wing reactionaries. It is to be assumed that no Presidential meetings would occur out of the blue with flaming dictators, I mean come on, how stupid does she think we are? When I hear people like Joe Biden talking I hear an less successful attempt to sound right wing, I just hear a pretty clueless dolt with a way overblown ego. Joe Biden talking about how "every man in uniform, in or out of the military that I've ever talked to says it will take at least a year to leave Iraq" when Chris Dodd, who has actually been in the military, comes on right after saying that Biden's quote is nonsense, is a perfect illustration. Joe Biden doesn't feel the need to know what he's talking about before he opens his mouth, which he has in common with Bush. Hillary is smarter, but more fundamentally dishonest than that. Biden is what Gandalf would call "an honest fool".

Posted by onceler | July 24, 2007 11:35 AM

Dan, Jerry,

It's not at all clear to me from the question that "you" meant his/her administration et al.
Having some contact to avoid unwarranted confrontation is a good idea. That being said, sometimes, the best option available is to fight.
We may well have to do that at some point during the next presidents administration. Promising high level public meetings with our enemies when we are not in a position of strength does more harm than good. We can debate what the question meant but I bet the guys in Demascus and Tehran are not concerned with such questions of semantics.

Dan, one cannot compare our policy towards Cuba to that of Iran or Syria. Cuba is not a threat to our national security and hasn't been since the early 60's. Not so Iran and to a lesser extent, Syria. Like it or not, oil flows from the middle east and that oil is vital to our national interests. Also, I don't think Ms. Clinton was being evasive, she was being intelligent. There is no purpose served by promising Iran, Syria or whoever anything at this point. They are our enemies. Let them worry and wonder what they can expect from a Democratic Adminstration. The next administration will not take charge until Jan. of 2009. A lot can happen in that time. We would be wise to wait and see what the situation is at that point.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 11:51 AM

. Reagan had a few, but they were not "constant", and I don't think Kennedy had any such meetings.

Vienna, 1961. Khrushchev thought he was weak.

Posted by John | July 24, 2007 11:54 AM

...oil flows from the middle east and controlling the flow of that oil is vital to the bottom lines of major international corporations.

Fixed your typo.

Posted by Cougarhutch | July 24, 2007 11:58 AM

ny nick: "We have no idea what the next year or two will bring in the saga that is the middle east but this much is clear, it will likely involve us on one side and either Iran, Syria or both on the other."

Why is it in the national interest of the US to maintain antagonisms against Syria and Iran, both of which (Ba'athist state and Shi'ite state, resp.) are naturally predisposed to being antagonistic to Al Qaeda?

Yes, it's in Israel's (incorrectly perceived, IMHO) self-interest, but the fact of the matter is that it's not in ours.

Posted by anon | July 24, 2007 12:09 PM

On this question I feel it's always important to point out that Hillary's clinging to the right flank on Iraq in this primary is about gender. To be sure the DLCites on her team also like the fact that the press will say she gave a "serious" and "Presidential" answer. But it's a function as much of her trying to compensate for her ovaries as it is a simple issue of ideological spectrum positioning. The issue isn't that she wins any praise from the Ambinders or whoever else. It's that the alternative of an Edwardish full-throated critique of Cheneyist, right-wing militarism and commitment to move the country far away from those policies would present more of a downside risk for her. So she can't take that tack, despite its probable appeal to Dem primary voters and viability in the general election with independents (who poll almost identically to Dem primary voters on Iraq), because the press would leap to frame her foreign policy views in the context of her feminity. On the one hand, I feel bad for her that in constructing her campaign she genuinely does have to factor in the mysogyny and stupidity of gas bags like Chris Matthews. On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of those idiots having so much influence on the views of our would-be President.

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 12:09 PM

Concerning the original deployment of U.S. forces to Iraq:

Commenter Davebo says it began on Dec. 21, 2002, while Jose Padilla says it began in August 2002.

My memory of the specifics is hazy, but Davebo seems closer to the mark. For one thing, the Bush administration didn't begin its PR offensive in favor of starting the war until after Labor Day 2002. Remember Andrew Card's line about rolling out new product?

Also, think back to the Gulf War. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. By January 1991 the U.S. military and a genuine "coalition of the willing" had assembled an immense force that dwarfed the Bush/Rumsfeld contingent of 2003. If it took only five months to prepare for the Gulf War, surely it took less than that to deploy a significantly smaller force 12 years later.

And Jose, where did you get that "250,000" figure from?

Posted by davep | July 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Vienna, 1961. Khrushchev thought he was weak.

Thanks John. I didn't remember that one.

Three years later, Khrushchev was a pensioner in Moscow, so I guess all that fearsome propaganda value derived from meetings with the US really helped him. And last I heard, Castro was still in power in Cuba, no doubt a result of all that highly presidential and strategic non-meeting with the Cubans over the decades.

When I hear someone express a fear of meetings, I generally assume they are thinking, "Someone is going to get taken to the cleaners, and it's most likely to be me." Assured speakers and leaders, on the other hand, are confident of their ability to control a room, set the agenda, and bend their interlocutors to their way of thinking.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 12:14 PM

Dan,

The idea that Iran is part of the eventual solution to our Iraq problem is not new. It's also wishful thinking. Iran wants to be a regional superpower. Our idiocy in Iraq has given them a good shot of reaching that goal. Please understand how dangerous that is for our national interests. Iran, with the annexing of Iraq will have what they could only dream of a few years ago. Newfound oil wealth, access to sophisticated refining capablility and control of the vital shipping lanes through which a good deal of the worlds oil flows. None of this is good for our interests. Iran would be able to virtually blackmail the rest of the world into opposing us. Surely Russia and China would rather not have their oil supplies disrupted, not to mention most of Europe. Iran has been a leading sponsor of terror for political purposes for the better part of three decades. One need only look at Hezzbollah's war with Israel last summer for evidence of that. What can we expect from a newly empowered Iran with the capability to export terror through their proxies across the middle east and beyond? Their ability to damage our national interests has increased at the same time our ability to project power in the region has decreased substantially. Talking to them isn't going to stop them from developing a nuclear capability. It's not going to stop them from supporting a full scale Hezzbollah takeover of Lebanon. It won't stop them from formenting violence directed at Israel and it won't stop them from overwhelming the weaker Sunni dominated states within the region. Iran is the beneficiary of our hubris and stupidity. We should be trying to limit our losses instead of compounding them with more wishful thinking about Iranian intentions.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 12:17 PM

Promising high level public meetings with our enemies when we are not in a position of strength does more harm than good.

I honestly don't understand this attitude, ny nick, which I continue to hear from Iran hawks. The US has a cooperative relationship in every country on Iran's borders but Turkmenistan. We have troops fighting to the east and west in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have security relationships and in several cases military bases throughout the Gulf States and in Saudi Arabia. We have aircraft carriers in the Gulf. We have several thousand nuclear weapons and Iran has none. We have a security relationship with another nuclear power just to the southeast of Iran. We have long-distance strike capabilities. It looks to me like we have a virtual noose around Iran's neck. I can't imagine what level of total freaking domination hawks would require before they recognize the US position as a "position of strength." Your topsy-turvy cavil just seems like a lame excuse for a continued policy of belligerence under the pretense that we must wait for some idealized Day of Total Strength that we asymptotically approach but never reach.

And it is not a question of "promising" anything to leaders of Iran and Syria - nobody is being asked to sign any contracts - but simply communicating one's current intentions to the American people without hedging. As a voting citizen, I don't want to "worry and wonder" about what to expect from a Democratic administration's Iran policy. I want the candidates to tell me what their policy will be, so I can vote for the policy I prefer. I trust my own judgment, and am disinclined to rely on father (or mama) knows best deference when I cast my vote.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 12:39 PM

"It's not at all clear to me from the question that 'you' meant his/her administration et al." I went back and checked the transcript and the preface about Sadat actually does spin the question more toward an actual face-to-face meeting. That said, being as charitable as I can be, I still think it's clear that wasn't what Obama meant in any of his remarks. Perhaps it's wrong to assume that most reasonable people intuitively get that no U.S. President will be sitting down with Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong Il any time soon, but it's pretty silly to try to append that to Obama's comments.

"We can debate what the question meant but I bet the guys in Demascus and Tehran are not concerned with such questions of semantics." Honestly, why is it of such consequence how such a thing would play in Iranian state-run newspapers? What great advantage do these leaders stand to gain from better diplomatic relations with the U.S.? The implication seems to be that this would prop up these regimes, which are otherwise on the brink of crumbling. That's the kind of thing that Neo-cons and AIPAC like to pretend to be the case. But it bears no relationship to reality whatsoever. The mullahs in Iran are going nowhere as long as they can sell oil, and nothing we say to the Chinese will curb their appetite for Iranian oil. When the Democrats win the Presidency, I hope, above all, it will provide this country with a chance to start actually living in the real world and to stop believing so much of its' (right-wing's) own bullshit. These types of magical thinking frames on our foreign policy debate need to be eliminated from our national dialogue. On that stage last night, Hillary seemed like the person who was least qualified to be able to provide such a change.

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 12:43 PM

"Please understand how dangerous that is for our national interests. Iran, with the annexing of Iraq will have what they could only dream of a few years ago. Newfound oil wealth, access to sophisticated refining capablility and control of the vital shipping lanes through which a good deal of the worlds oil flows."

OK, I didn't realize you were a specialist in magical thinking on Iran. The idea that Iran would ever even think of screwing with oil shipments is really pretty laughable. You must see that. If we hesitated at all in our response, the French, British, Russians and Chinese would beat us to the punch. And, just to clarify, the Iranian refining capability isn't for a lack of technology, it is because of lack of equipment and expense of acquiring it and building a refinery, given the semi-embargo. This wouldn't change if they annexed Iraq; in fact, it would be exacerbated. Not to mention that if the Iranians actually "annexed" Iraq the violence in the aftermath would make this war look like a friendly game of Yahtzee. Iran is doing fine, even well, under the current regime in the middle east as designed by this administration. The downside of the blowback would outweigh the gains of taking over Iraq. I don't want someone in the White House who is motivated by these kinds of irrational fears. I've been very dissatisfied with the current regime's tendecy toward that approach. I'd prefer someone who can look at where interests compete, diverge and converge, and advance our national interest accordingly.

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 1:10 PM

>>Marc wonders if "those Democrats who watched the debate on television agree." I'm not sure. I do, though, have a question of my own for him. Doesn't "presidential" in this context, like "serious," just mean "relatively right-wing" rather than "reflective"?

This seems like a cheap pivot. How is it "relatively right-wing" to say you'd want to think through a meeting before having it. What's right wing about being worried about propaganda? Seems like you're jumping at shadows here and since this guy is your colleague it seems like you're kinda being a jerk too.

Your point about Biden and Clinton and the war seems like you're closer though I'm not sure you're right either, for the reasons stated by other posters.

Posted by zimmerman | July 24, 2007 1:11 PM

I could re-read Dan Kervick's 12:39 comment all day and not grow tired of it. Thanks, DK.

In response to MSB: Hillary's clinging to the right flank on Iraq in this primary is about gender.

Can't agree. This is in line with her and former President Clinton's consistent policy on middle east matters. It has much more to do with the base of her support than with any effort to overcompensate to appear 'tough' because she's a woman. What would be the point of that? She's already regarded as one of the most ruthless women in politics.

Posted by Nell | July 24, 2007 1:27 PM

ny nick,

I'm not sure what exactly is the difference between a superpower, and just a major power. But Iran is clearly going to be a major regional power, given its size, population, resources and strategic positioning. That is just a fact of life, and it is thus in the US interest to develop a better relationship with the country, and move ultimately toward something like cordiality. We have in within our means to use the influence we still do have to promote a regional balance of power in the region, promoting neither Saudi nor Iranian interests preferentially, and relying on both countries to bring their natural relationships inside Iraq to bear on helping to stabilize that country.

One keeps hearing of this terrifying new Iranian hegemony in the region, or the emerging "Shia threat". But so far this just seems like a lot of hot air from our Sunni and Israeli allies, designed to preserve their current privileged positions with our government, and extort more support out of Uncle Sam. I'm waiting to see those vaunted Iranian armies flooding into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, North Africa, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Egypt. But so far they are invisible. Maybe it's all that US hardware and manpower surrounding Iran that is blocking my vision.

The current US government can't even get its story straight on Iran's behavior in Iraq. Usually it is fairly obvious to people that Iran is actually supporting the government of Iraq, and its main Shia backers, the same government we helped put in place, and the one which represents the majority of Iraqis. Whether that government stays intact, or is succeeded by separate Shia and Kurdish entities, the Iranians will work with them, and have sought to develop friendly commercial and diplomatic relations with the two communities.

This state of affairs is highly perplexing to hardline administration policy mavens. Sometimes they try to portray the fact that Iran is supporting the same government our soldiers are dying to defend as a bad thing. But when that line becomes too ridiculous and offensive to the families of these soldiers, they try to persuade us that Iran is actually assisting it's long-term Sunni antagonists in Iraq, and even the Shia-hating, Salafist jihadi nutjobs. Please.

Unfortunately our economic interests are bound up with the owners of resources in the Middle East, and we need to promote stability and seek good relationships with those owners for the sake of resource security. That's just a fact of life. I don't like having to accept this dependency, and I eagerly await the day when some genius figures out how to get our cars to run on cow dung, and we can just pull up stakes and leave the region entirely.

But I don't know why I'm supposed to feel so much more worried or outraged about a partial dependency on the Islamic Republic in Iran than a partial dependency on that blasted monarchy in Saudi Arabia. At least the women in Iran can drive, and the Iranian people get to vote for a few things from time to time. Iranians even seem to like Americans more than Saudis do. I see more long-term potential in a US-Iranian relationship that the US-Saudi won.

Iran is not going to "annex" Iraq. That's just silly. But they are going to have good relations with the Iraqi government in Baghdad. Again, that's just a fact of life. And unless your solution is that we blow up Iraq entirely, only to prevent the Iranians from having good relations with a neighboring state, we should begin facing up to the new alignment of power in the region, and work with it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 1:38 PM

Fearmongering over Iran serves Israeli interests at the expense of the U.S. A rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran is the best thing we could do for our national interests right now.

Posted by mq | July 24, 2007 1:48 PM

We should prepare to be occupied by Iranian troops and submit to their revolution. It wouldn't be so bad, actually. Women and gays, freed from the oppressive Western patriarchy could finally flourish. Under Iranian occupation no one could blame America for the evils in the world -- Iran would get that prized role.

And finally, without or crass materialism in the way, Iran would be able to restore the glory of Persian civilization on a global scale. It wasn't right that the Greeks surpassed them, handing down their legacies of democracy, theater, philosophy, logic, etc. The Persians were passed over! It's time to submit to this Fredo of civilizations.

Posted by Juan | July 24, 2007 2:16 PM

Dan Kervick wins the thread.

"That being said, sometimes, the best option available is to fight.
We may well have to do that at some point during the next presidents administration. Promising high level public meetings with our enemies when we are not in a position of strength does more harm than good. We can debate what the question meant but I bet the guys in Demascus and Tehran are not concerned with such questions of semantics."

We are to fight Iran and Syria to what purpose? To take out Hezbollah for the benefit of Israel? Are we going to declare war on the Shining Path and the FARC as well? According to the Pentagon, are ground forces' backs will break in April. We could use missiles and such to overthrow Tehran and Syria if we really wanted to, but then who would be in charge there? We wouldn't have the ground forces nor the goodwill to be successful occupiers. The truth of the matter is a powerful Iran could be useful to us. It's not the best thing, but you have to make policy based on reality, not fantasy. For one thing, their proxy in Iraq is our proxy in Iraq. When we went into Afghanistan, Iran provided the State Department with good intelligence before Cheney found out and shut down that relationship. After all, the Taliban had issued a fatwa against Tehran. When Clinton backed down the pressure on Tehran in the late 1990's, the mullahs grew less paranoid and the reform movement took place. Much of the reform movement traces its death to the Axis of Evil speech that re-invigorated the mullahs' paranoia. The policy you seem to be arguing for carries a whiff of a self-fulfilling prophecy in favor of war with Iran and Syria.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 2:17 PM

The fellow from the Chicago Newspaper who Blitzer asked if Barack was "black enough". Pointed out that the american public is smart enough to understand that if Obama or Edwards went to meet with a dictator, they would lay ground work (afterall theyr'e not W). He specifically pointed out that CNN's analysis of Clinton's patronizing explaination as 'more presidential' is total BS. i.e.- "I don't just wash my hands after I piss, I USE SOAP" wow that Hillary is way more hygenic than Edwards!.

Elizabeth Edwards did a good job on dismissing the "you called Hillary a man" smear, but she failed to admonish Wolf for furthering the lie without reservation, or apology once he was corrected.

Kucinich called them out for putting him on the far left, and I think Biden told Wolf to shut up too, during the "fact check" on Biden's 1 year to get out pronouncement.

All nice developments in democratic media management, and its about time.

Posted by feckless | July 24, 2007 2:18 PM

MSB,

"OK, I didn't realize you were a specialist in magical thinking on Iran. The idea that Iran would ever even think of screwing with oil shipments is really pretty laughable. You must see that. If we hesitated at all in our response, the French, British, Russians and Chinese would beat us to the punch."

The idea that Iran would not use oil as a strategic weapon is what is laughable. Why would Iran, lead by a bunch Ayatollah's with a decidedly nihilistic vision, suddenly embrace the United States as some sort of strategic partner? That's truly magical thinking. Iran may have some shared interest in stability on their borders but it ends there. Yes, we have a lot of military hardware in the region. So what? We've had that presence for quite some time and Iran continues to export expertise and know how to Iraq with goal of killing more of our troops. Iran continues to build a nuclear program. Heck, they recently kidnapped and held hostage a group of British soldiers. Our presence in the region hasn't served as much of a deterrent thus far. No one believes the Iranians are willing to confront our superior military directly. They will use proxies. They are using proxies in Iraq right now. Or did you think the Mehdi Army sprang forth from whole cloth? I'm not defending our partnership with the corrupt royals in Saudi Arabia either. But the idea that we replace our disfunctional Saudi relationship with a more disfunctional relationship with Iran makes no sense to me. Also, it's a fool who assumes we can expect the french or the russians or the chinese to use force in the middle east while we sit on the sidelines.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 2:19 PM

ny nick, nothing in your above response shows why we shouldn't have actual discussions with Iran, such as actually recognizing the government. You want to make Iran not do that? Then talk to them. We don't have the troops to occupy them, so talk to them. Iran's ascendancy is a direct consequence of our policy of bluster and acting macho. We probably wouldn't get a perfect deal, but that never happens. By your logic, Bush shouldn't have met with Hu Jintao last year because China is ascendant in Asia and backs policies we don't like. This is International Politics 101 type stuff.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 2:27 PM

"You want to make Iran not do that?"

should have been:

"You want to make Iran not do the things that you fear it will do?"

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 2:29 PM

Dan,

"As a voting citizen, I don't want to "worry and wonder" about what to expect from a Democratic administration's Iran policy. I want the candidates to tell me what their policy will be, so I can vote for the policy I prefer. I trust my own judgment, and am disinclined to rely on father (or mama) knows best deference when I cast my vote."

Dan, with all due respect, I think Ms. Clinton provided you with a pretty straightforward answer. She said she would use high level envoys to communicate our positions to places like Iran and Syria. She would not promise to meet with their leaders unless and until there was something to meet about. That seems pretty clear to me. You may not agree with that position and obviously you can cast your vote accordingly but it was not an evasion of the question. She said what you could expect and gave her reasoning behind that thinking.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 2:37 PM

"She said she would use high level envoys to communicate our positions to places like Iran and Syria. She would not promise to meet with their leaders unless and until there was something to meet about. That seems pretty clear to me."

You're backpedaling here quite a bit. Are we to think that Obama and Edwards would meet with Bashar Assad just to discuss girls and suits? Saying "we need to actually talk about something" isn't a pre-condition as much as logistics. You tried to spin something pro-Clinton to the detriment of the other Democrats, you got shot down and now you're changing your story.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 2:46 PM

Speaking of honesty and political leanings, it's now well-established that Marc Ambinder is a dishonest right-wing hack.

Posted by mz | July 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Reality,

There is no reason to go to war with Iran or Syria right now. None. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that we could find the situation a lot different down the road. Either better or worse. The point is, a president is wise to keep their options open.

You write:

"We are to fight Iran and Syria to what purpose? To take out Hezbollah for the benefit of Israel?"

That's a hypothetical scenario so let's follow it to conclusion. What should we do? Whatever we don't do to protect Israel empowers Hezbollah in this scenario. It would appear you are making an argument for engaging the Arabs/Persians and disengaging with Israel. I could not disagree more. The history of the Middle East is littered with miscalculations and fanaticism. In short, we cannot always expect the Arabs to act rationally. How many former hostages do we need to hear from to finally learn that lesson?

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 3:14 PM

I didn't watch the debate but did any of the candidates say in so many words that talking was preferable to military force and that use of force was an indicator of failed diplomacy?

I thought not.

Posted by JB | July 24, 2007 3:37 PM

Reality,

"You're backpedaling here quite a bit. Are we to think that Obama and Edwards would meet with Bashar Assad just to discuss girls and suits? Saying "we need to actually talk about something" isn't a pre-condition as much as logistics. You tried to spin something pro-Clinton to the detriment of the other Democrats, you got shot down and now you're changing your story."

You should work on reading comprehension. I'm not backpedaling and this thread began with an attack on Ms. Clintons answer to a debate question. Saying I think that attack is misplaced is not "spinning something Pro-Clinton to the detriment of the other Democrats..."
I'm definitely a supporter of Ms. Clinton's but any one the Democrats on that stage would be preferable to a Republican in my eyes. I don't agree with Matt when he says "Presidential" equals "relatively rightwing". Agree or disagree but at least make a coherent argument.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 3:50 PM

"I don't agree with Matt when he says "Presidential" equals "relatively rightwing"."

You may not see it that way, but in this case it's kind of a fact. Hillary's position is just objectively more right-wing from a foreign policy standpoint. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's true.

Obama expressed a willingness to engage in diplomacy with unsavory foreign leaders, and Hillary tried to slam him for this, going as far as coloring her response with that blather about not wanting to be used for "propaganda".

Based on her response, it appears she might have disapproved of Pelosi's trip to meet with Assad... Did she? Did you? Was that a useless trip that handed Syria a PR victory? Or was that what leaders do: talk to each other to work out their problems?

Posted by Jerry Medium | July 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Why would Iran, lead by a bunch Ayatollah's with a decidedly nihilistic vision, suddenly embrace the United States as some sort of strategic partner?

Iran's Ayatollahs and clerical leaders are not "nihilists". They are part of the religious elite of a sect of Islam that has existed for more than 1100 years. Some of them are also leaders of, or participants in, the Iranian revolution of 1979. As religious leaders, their outlook is not much different from the outlook of their Twelver Shia predecessors, who have quite un-nihilistically upheld and perpetuated their religion for centuries. As revolutionaries, the goal was to create an Islamic government that would survive and flourish. That was the whole point of the revolution. Since the initial period of revolutionary chaos and war, though with some ideological ebbs and flows, Iran has increasingly acted like a normal state, working to build its economy, stabilize its new governmental institutions, and provide a better life for its people. It has invested heavily in education and infrastructure, evincing a concern for the future and long-term plans that are not typical of "nihilists".

You seem to be confusing Ayatollahs in Qom with desperate and depressive Palestinian teenagers, and imagine that the former are as ready as the latter to strap on some sort of national suicide bomb and take down their whole country for the sake of an ultra-fanatical death wish.

They are using proxies in Iraq right now. Or did you think the Mehdi Army sprang forth from whole cloth?

The Mehdi Army is an arm of the Sadr movement whose heart and soul lie in Baghdad. Sadr is himself an advocate of Iraqi nationalism. However, the Sadrists have ties with the Da'wa Party which in turn has close ties with Iran, and no doubt most of Iraq's Shia have friendly associations of some sort with some of their co-religionists in Iran. The evidence of material support from Iran is meagre, and the evidence of support from the Iranian government even more scant. But to the extent that the Iranians are supporting the majority Shia community in Iraq, including those in the governing coalition, their chief goal is to prevent the return to power of the minority Sunni Arab bloc that previously ruled Iraq, oppressed Iraq's Shia, had antagonistic relations with their neighbor to the East, and are now responsible for most of the daily civilian casualty toll in Iraq.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 4:32 PM

Dan,

You wrote:

"Iran has increasingly acted like a normal state, working to build its economy, stabilize its new governmental institutions, and provide a better life for its people. It has invested heavily in education and infrastructure, evincing a concern for the future and long-term plans that are not typical of "nihilists".

Normal? Is it normal to kidnap people and put them on the TeeVee? You say they are investing in Education. What kind of Education? Religious Education maybe? As for the rest of their "investing" in infrastructure, they might want to look into why they are forced to ration gas in a region where gas is plentiful and costs a fraction of what we pay. Reliable data is difficult to come by but most experts agree unemployment is at least 15%. It's a documented fact that Iran has one of the smallest levels of work force participation in the world. It's estimated only 32% of the population is working fulltime. All of this, nearly twenty years after the so called "revolution". The Ayatollahs preach the primacy of Islam which is itself nihlist. They believe that infidels are less than human and should either be enslaved or killed. Is it your contention that these guys are going to be reliable partners in peace?

As for Sadr, he's sure got a funny way of promoting nationalism. My understanding of the term might be a little vague but tell me, should a nationalist movement include death squads aimed at a religious minority? Is it your contention that Mr. Sadr, who was in exile in Iran prior to our invasion, somehow built an army, trained them, provided them weapons and logistical support without any help from Iranian intelligence? That would make this guy the greatest leader of all time.

Posted by ny nick | July 24, 2007 5:37 PM

" The evidence of material support from Iran is meagre, and the evidence of support from the Iranian government even more scant. But to the extent that the Iranians are supporting the majority Shia community in Iraq, including those in the governing coalition, their chief goal is to prevent the return to power of the minority Sunni Arab bloc that previously ruled Iraq, oppressed Iraq's Shia, had antagonistic relations with their neighbor to the East, and are now responsible for most of the daily civilian casualty toll in Iraq."

And don't forget that we learned just this week how the evidence of Saudi support for and direct participation in the fighting in Iraq was actually greater than any other country.

NY Nick, you seem like a bright and engaged fellow, but I gather you've bought into a lot of nonsense about Iran that has been floating around the mainstream media. Just like Cheney, the Israeli hawks who toss off dire predictions aboout Iran have a vested interest in causing a military conflict, both in terms of their own power and usually their financial well-being. And you have yet to cite a single example of the supposedly irrationality demonstrated by Iran. I agree that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is wretched, but he's a) essentially a figure head, and b) generally trying to dsitract the public from things like the gas lines and the failure to appoint an oil minister. He's more or less the Iranian George Bush. The actual steps the mullahs have taken--attempting to initiate talks with Washington, offering to suspend the nuclear program, offering intelligence support in Afghanistan, developing strategic economic ties with other world powers--simply cut against your portrait of Iran as hell bent on conflict with the U.S. (or even Israel, for that matter). Unless you can offer more and better evidence of the bad intentions Iran has toward America, you sound exactly like Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and all the other fear-mongering, deficient members of our government who brought about the mess we are currently in and legitimately deserve to have their competence and sanity questioned. As long as you identify with Clinton based on these views you espouse, I am convinced that she is by far the worst choice for the Democrats next year.

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 5:48 PM

MSB,

Iran isn't looking for direct confrontation with the US. It's actually the last thing they want. But, Iran is the leading exporter of terror as a political strategy. My point is, Iran is the beneficiary of our stupidity in Iraq. That is going to have consequences for our interests if not today, than some day in the not too distant future. You are obviously not a fan of our relationship with the corrupt royals in Saudi Arabia, nor am I. Everything we dislike about our relationship with the Saudis is present in Iran. The biggest difference is that Iran is not nearly as weak militarily and they have relationships with Russia and China that make their embrace of the United States difficult to imagine.

Posted by ny nick | July 25, 2007 1:04 PM

"Presidential"

Comments (59)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories