Distorting

Washington Post correctly says that John McCain is "distorting history" as he criticized Barack Obama's pro-negotiations position. The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was a fiasco of such enormous proportions that Richard Nixon's role in undoing it actually manages to stack up in a non-trivial way against his otherwise terrible record in office.

The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure. So that's the path Bush has been taking with Syria and Iran and used to take with North Korea. McCain wants to keep on taking it, put North Korea back under the interdict, and perhaps add Russia to the disfavored list. Like McCain's apparent belief that it would be better if we'd spent another decade or two fighting in Vietnam, it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

Comments

I'm starting to believe that McCain doesn't really quite know what he's saying anymore. I think his mind is slipping.

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 2:09 PM

But Iran is a much more marginal country than China. It doesn't really sway any balance of power to have them be pro-China or pro-Russia vs. pro-US.

And if an embargo of Iran had the same effect as the embargo of Cuba has had, I'm pretty sure the US would sign up pretty quick.

Posted by right | May 21, 2008 2:13 PM

ISRAEL is negotiating with Syria brokered by Turkey. According to press reports, the final peace settlement will be discussed in earnest wiith the new American president. Can ANYONE please please please discuss this? The Isrealis are willing to talk to Syria and the Americans are NOT!!!!! What on earth shows up the Bush and unfortunately increasingly McCain doctrine than this?

Posted by chris uregian | May 21, 2008 2:20 PM

it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

So you're saying John McCain is senile. Ageist!!!

/McCain campaign

Posted by drjimcooper | May 21, 2008 2:54 PM

But Iran is a much more marginal country than China. It doesn't really sway any balance of power to have them be pro-China or pro-Russia vs. pro-US.

This really isn't a defence available to John "Iran is the greatest threat since Hitler" McCain. Particularly as he continues to claim that Iranian support for Al Qaeda extrimists in Iraq is a major reason for instability and U.S. casualites there.

And if an embargo of Iran had the same effect as the embargo of Cuba has had, I'm pretty sure the US would sign up pretty quick.

What effect has the embargo had on Cuba?

Posted by WillieStyle | May 21, 2008 3:13 PM

We refused to recognize the Soviet Union until FDR came in the mid-30s - an almost 20 year freeze-out. We still won't "talk" to Iran (sending them cakes, however is another thing) - and that revolution is going on 30 years now.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 21, 2008 3:31 PM

"The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure."

At least with the Cuba embargo idiocy everyone knows the only reason presidential candidates do it is to win the Cuban vote in Florida and New Jersey. That makes McCain's idiocy on Syria and Iran even more maddening.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 3:41 PM

"...it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about."

Uhhh: no, Matt: there's really not much question about it...

It's becoming increasing obvious that Sen. McCain, whatever he may privately think about the direction of US foreign policy (assuming, that is that he actually thinks about it at all), is committing himself to a campaign based on the most simplistic tough-talkin' jingo he can muster up. Probably because his advisors have told him that the increasingly threadbare mantle of "national security" hawkery is the Republicans' last viable positive in the public mind, and that they's better make use of it while they can.

Posted by Jay C | May 21, 2008 3:50 PM

This really isn't a defence available to John "Iran is the greatest threat since Hitler" McCain.

Well, Iran is only non-marginal to the extent that they can acquire nuclear weapons. As long as they can be prevented from doing so, they are decidedly more marginal than Mao-era China.

What effect has the embargo had on Cuba?

Destroyed its economy to the extent that any notion of it posing a strategic threat to American interests in the region is a bit comical. We'd love it if that were the case for Iran.

Posted by right | May 21, 2008 4:03 PM

if an embargo of Iran had the same effect as the embargo of Cuba has had, I'm pretty sure the US would sign up pretty quick.

Cuba is an island nation about 150 miles off the coast of the US, of about 11 million people, and they make sugar and cigars.

Iran is the second largest middle eastern state, with 65-70 million people, and has 10% of the world's oil reserves.

You're seriously suggesting that a US embargo of Iran would have the same effect as an embargo of Cuba?

Cuba is basically a maximum leverage "crush them by refusing to associate with them" scenario for the US, and we still didn't achieve any of our stated goals with it. I don't understand why anyone would think this strategy would work as well or better with a nation far, far, far more able than Cuba to withstand unilateral shunning by the US.

What's amazing is that, in spite of the obvious, McCain has signed onto it.

Posted by anonymiss | May 21, 2008 4:24 PM

Maybe people are finally realizing that, at least in this respect, U.S. foreign policy has exhibited a maturity level more suitable to a group of fourth graders on the school playground, than to the world's biggest superpower. It really amounts to: "I don't like you so I'm not going to talk to you. Nana nana boo boo!"

Posted by Drew | May 21, 2008 4:26 PM

WillieStyle: "What effect has the embargo had on Cuba?"

Right: "Destroyed its economy to the extent that any notion of it posing a strategic threat to American interests in the region is a bit comical. We'd love it if that were the case for Iran."

Except "the American embargo has destroyed Cuba's economy" is not the Miami-Exile-community-approved answer for why Cuba's economy is in the toilet.

Posted by Bulworth | May 21, 2008 4:38 PM

"Destroyed its economy to the extent that any notion of it posing a strategic threat to American interests in the region is a bit comical. We'd love it if that were the case for Iran."

I'm not sure how Cuba's economy being destroyed removed it as a strategic threat to the US. I think that the USSR's economy being destroyed and thus collapsing removed Cuba as a strategic threat to the US. And that’s assuming you think Cuba was still even a threat after the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved in ’62.

Cuba has sugar to sell and tourists to attract; it’s Jamaica with a tin-pot dictator. Regardless of the effects the US ending its embargo might have on the country, I fail to see how Cuba could ever be a threat. Even assuming Iran really is a great threat, it differs from Cuba in many ways, number one being it has oil. That changes the equation quite a bit.

Posted by Raindog | May 21, 2008 4:42 PM

Thoughts on destroying Cuba's economy so it can't harm American interests:
1. I hope we can all agree that Cuba was not going to invade the US.
2. Castro consistently argued that the embargo was the reason that Cuba didn't make more economic progress (not communism and not his adventures in foreign policy). He used this argument to help keep him in power. Had there been no embargo to blame, he might have paid a tougher price for poor economic growth than handing the reins off to his brother when he got too old to govern.
3. Venezuela.

Posted by JoshA | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM

You're seriously suggesting that a US embargo of Iran would have the same effect as an embargo of Cuba?

Of course not. This is why it's silly to use Cuba (and China) as examples to why McCain's policies for Iran would or would not work.

Cuba is basically a maximum leverage "crush them by refusing to associate with them" scenario for the US, and we still didn't achieve any of our stated goals with it.

I don't know why we care about the "stated" goals. It certainly achieved the actual goals, although it's well past its usefulness.

Except "the American embargo has destroyed Cuba's economy" is not the Miami-Exile-community-approved answer for why Cuba's economy is in the toilet.

Well that's neither here nor there, but there's probably some truth to both sides of it.

Posted by right | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM

"Destroyed its economy to the extent that any notion of it posing a strategic threat to American interests in the region is a bit comical. We'd love it if that were the case for Iran."

I'm not sure how Cuba's economy being destroyed removed it as a strategic threat to the US. I think that the USSR's economy being destroyed and thus collapsing removed Cuba as a strategic threat to the US. And that’s assuming you think Cuba was still even a threat after the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved in ’62.

Cuba has sugar to sell and tourists to attract; it’s Jamaica with a tin-pot dictator. Regardless of the effects the US ending its embargo might have on the country, I fail to see how Cuba could ever be a threat. Even assuming Iran really is a great threat, it differs from Cuba in many ways, number one being it has oil. That changes the equation quite a bit.

Posted by Raindog | May 21, 2008 4:47 PM

I'm not sure how Cuba's economy being destroyed removed it as a strategic threat to the US. I think that the USSR's economy being destroyed and thus collapsing removed Cuba as a strategic threat to the US. And that’s assuming you think Cuba was still even a threat after the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved in ’62.

The threat of Cuba (direct placement of Soviet missiles aside) was always that it would be an example to countries in the Western Hemisphere that it was more advantageous to be a Soviet satellite than a US satellite. The success of the embargo was proving that even with Soviet patronage, any non-US-aligned Western Hemisphere country could be economically devastated by the US more or less at whim. Because of that, Cuba had stopped being of real concern to the US long before the USSR collapsed.

Even assuming Iran really is a great threat, it differs from Cuba in many ways, number one being it has oil.

Indeed, which is why it was silly of Matt to bring it up in the first place.

Posted by right | May 21, 2008 5:17 PM

"And if an embargo of Iran had the same effect as the embargo of Cuba has had, I'm pretty sure the US would sign up pretty quick."

They already have. The US is attempting to freeze out Iran's entire financial sector from being accessible to the rest of the world. It has had some effect, but limited, as the rest of the world - even most of the European countries - doesn't see Iran the way the US sees it.

So Iran is regularly bypassing the sanctions and continues to gain important economic deals with major nations worldwide, including China, India, and others. It has been mostly a problem for smaller Iranian businesses and various smaller financial institutions in the world. The US actually does have enormous clout in the financial world for this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, since it won't work over time, it's just one more reason why Bush and Cheney will end up attacking Iran - which already definitely in the cards before the end of the year.

Matt: "...it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about."

And of course, since Matt can't talk about Iran in any substantive way, the same applies to Matt.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 21, 2008 6:47 PM

Much as the people dislike elites, they really do govern better, and they most certainly do better with foreign policy. The reason why the presidency is an exclusive job is because most people can't do it. Education and sophistication are absolutely necessary in our leaders. It's astonishing to me that Americans would rather vote for somebody they'd like to share a beer with than for somebody who's smarter than they are. And we wonder why our education system is down the tubes? It all starts at home. If parents don't value education and, why should our children?

Posted by judy | May 21, 2008 8:30 PM

Much as the people dislike elites, they really do govern better, and they most certainly do better with foreign policy. The reason why the presidency is an exclusive job is because most people can't do it. Education and sophistication are absolutely necessary in our leaders. It's astonishing to me that Americans would rather vote for somebody they'd like to share a beer with than for somebody who's smarter than they are. And we wonder why our education system is down the tubes? It all starts at home. If parents don't value education and, why should our children?

Posted by judy | May 21, 2008 8:32 PM