Means Matter

Yesterday, Andrew linked to some skepticism from Hampton Stephens about Barack Obama's alternative to Bushism:

To replace neoconservative democracy promotion by force, Obama seems to be proposing a different kind of crusade. He and his advisers seem to believe that American foreign policy can deliver the human race from indignity and want. Even if their strategy for achieving this goal doesn't rely on military force, such an expansive view of the capabilities of U.S. foreign policy is dangerously unrealistic. It seems particularly overly ambitious in light of the growing evidence about what traditional forms of development aid have actually accomplished. (Not to mention that Obama's agenda seems too hostile to a form of global development and economic uplift that often proves rather more effective than aid: trade.)

I don't really think this holds water. The rhetoric of American foreignpolicymaking has always been suffused with grand -- some would say grandiose -- aspirations and professions of lofty ideals. And yet the actual substance of policymaking has differed enormously over the years, decades, and centuries. That's because methods -- what's dismissed here as "their strategy for achieving this goal" -- are essentially the entire ballgame. Practical American politicians will always commit themselves to a set of basically similar highest-order goals of spreading wonderfulness throughout time and space. Even in our "do not seek out monsters to destroy" phases we're supposed to be a model the rest of the world will emulate.

Are these aspirations "dangerously unrealistic" and "overly ambitious?" I think it depends on what you mean. To say that the short-run policy objective of the United States is to wage war on tyranny is dangerous and unrealistic. But to say that the long-run goal of the United States is to do what we can to foster the conditions of international peace and prosperity that are most conducive to the spread of liberalism and democracy seems eminently sensible.

Comments

I think he is referring more to something like this. I am all in favor of this piece of legislation, but I do think that folks on the right will use this to depict him as a utopian internationalist.

Posted by The Second Philosopher | May 7, 2008 11:39 AM

I also did a post on this, I think Hampton Stephens' argument is even weaker than your critique indicates. The "dignity promotion" agenda isn't an attempt to just increase the stock of dignity world wide, it's an attempt to restore dignity to those who perceived themselves, often rightly, as being adversely affected by U.S. policy.

On the attempt to deal with the needs of foreigners, I think that is a more conventional ambitious goal, but the means matter critique shows why, as you say, the argument doesn't hold water.

Posted by Greg Sanders | May 7, 2008 11:40 AM

He and his advisers seem to believe that American foreign policy can deliver the human race from indignity and want.

Actually, Hampton, no, they don't seem to believe that at all. In fact I'd be surprised if you could find anyone over the age of twelve who'd answer "yes" if asked, "Do you believe that American foreign policy can deliver the human race from indignity and want?"

How unfair is it that some people get paid to write this kind of half-assed generalization and I actually have to work for a living?

Posted by James Gary | May 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Yes, but as I've said before, the problem is that "waging war on tyranny" sounds much more exciting than does "fostering international peace and prosperity".

In that sense, the one good thing to come out of the Iraq war is that Americans might now be ready for a foreign policy that is as exciting as Sweden's.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 11:42 AM

my fear about obama - and about all the lads like our host who are indignant that hilary the awful should continue to oppose obama the perfect when the lads know, know, know that only obama the perfect can win the nomination - is that he will be jimmy carter redux.

carter was once the outsider who could bind our wounds: in the end, he barely defeated the very weak ford and his administration (somewhat unfairly) has been tarred as weak, vacillating, and a failure and he only lasted one term.

that said, what is it with these right-wingers that they reflexively paint any opposition to an administration-submitted "trade" bill as opposition to "trade?"

Posted by howard | May 7, 2008 11:54 AM

I believe that Barack Obama has shamefully failed to outline the exact ways by which the existing Earth will be transformed into a paradise within his first term. Clearly we are owed this, since he is the first U.S. politician in history to talk about how America would help the world be a better place.

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 11:56 AM

"Yes, but as I've said before, the problem is that "waging war on tyranny" sounds much more exciting than does "fostering international peace and prosperity"."

Yes, and more "manly" as well. And we know how important that is to the Chris Matthews's out there.

Posted by KevinD | May 7, 2008 11:57 AM

Re Matthew's "But to say that the long-run goal of the United States is to do what we can to foster the conditions of international peace and prosperity that are most conducive to the spread of liberalism and democracy seems eminently sensible"
------------

"Sensible" because it encourages the stupid shits to lower their guard so we can sucker punch them. heh heh

Kinda like April Glaspie telling Saddam Hussein that the US Government had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait. Thereby setting Saddam up for that long walk to the howling mob and the hangman's rope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#United_States_Ambassador_to_Iraq

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 12:02 PM

"...half-assed generalization" pretty well sums it up, and not only about Hampton Stevens.

In spite of all the hysterical propaganda frequently in evidence on this blog, our overall foreign policy hasn't changed much in the last century. There's always been a dynamic tension between the isolationists who in years past advocated letting the Europeans stew in their own juice, and today advocate "ending the war" by running out on our traditional allies, interests, and ideals in Iraq; and the interventionists, who thought as they still do that it's in our interests to oppose aggressive totalitarianism whenever necessary and/or practicable. What we end up with is always some kind of compromise between these two points of view as determined by events.

Anyone who imagines that our war in Iraq has anything to do with "democracy promotion by force" is either dishonestly pushing a partisan agenda, or hasn't been paying attention to events. Or, of course, both.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 7, 2008 12:05 PM

my fear about obama...is that he will be jimmy carter redux [because he wants to bind up the nation's wounds]

Evidence? Rationale? I'm not saying you must be wrong, but there has to be an argument, not just a reflexive, superficial comparison to Carter. Carter was a poor president because he was a poor executive, and not a particularly skilled politician. Obama is less of a control freak than Carter, I would hope (most people are), and he has already shown himself to be a better pol than Carter, I think. Remember, Carter was pretty conservative, and alienated an astonishing number of Democrats, among other problems. I'd also keep in mind that the political environment is just a teensy bit different in 2008 compared with 1976.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 12:12 PM

This seems of a piece with a whole class of Obama criticism, which sets up a (usually false) claim that he's supposedly made about how he's going to be utterly revolutionary and change the world, and then knocks it down with the head-shaking worldly realization that he could never accomplish these miracles, and so he's just a fraud.

It's a bogus criticism because the supposed grand claims almost always turn out not to have been made by Obama, and at best all the critic can muster is the weak argument that Obama's supporters seem to think he's a messianic figure, and so the criticism is still valid.

Posted by Doug T | May 7, 2008 12:14 PM

Also, Clinton can't be nominated because SHE LOST, OK? It's been essentially over for quite a while, and that's a fact which has nothing to do with whom you support. I very strongly supported Edwards and was - and still am - bitter about his loss; it was a huge mistake on the part of Dems to not nominate him. But I don't deny that HE LOST. Get over it.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 12:19 PM

count me as one who believes that that our war in Iraq has everything to do with "democracy promotion by force."
the neocons,with their utopian visions, were hell bent on bringing american values to the world at the point of a gun just to prove they could.
anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

for a witty take on determining the best way forward in foreign policy, check out this la times piece that uses the godfather to test different theories: Coppola's film offers lessons in diplomacy that we can't refuse: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mitchell7-2008may07,0,2853781.story

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 7, 2008 12:35 PM

More of Senator Obamas' Israel bashing advisers.

"And that close look is not reassuring. A disturbing number of his advisors espouse views that are decidedly pro-Arab. The latest of the lot, Joseph Cirincione, Obama's nuclear proliferation advisor, has called for Israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal, while calling reports on the Israeli bombing of Syria's nuclear reactor in September 2007, "the most overblown story I've seen since before the build up to the war in Iraq." Commentary magazine's blog compared Cirincione's remarks to that of the Syrian UN ambassador, Bashar Ja' afari."

"First, there are several who are only nominally Jewish, but are viscerally anti-Israel. One example is George Soros, the multi-billionaire, who said that America must undergo a "certain de-Nazification process" because of its policy on Iraq, and accused AIPAC of directing American policy in the Middle East.

For Soros, who, although the world's 28th richest man, has never been involved in any specifically Jewish project or charity, supporting Israel results from "tribal sectarianism" which is "unappealingly chauvinistic."

Obama and Clinton both attempted to distance themselves from Soros's anti-AIPAC remarks but did not hesitate to accept his multi-million dollar contributions to further "progressive American values" and "political change in America.""

"Another example is Princeton emeritus Professor Richard Falk who endorses Obama for President. Falk recently stood by his statements that it would not be "an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity". Falk, who was appointed by the unabashedly anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council as its special investigator on Israeli actions in Judea and Samaria, was actually denied entry to Israel by the Olmert Government on the grounds that his views were so grossly biased and unfair.

Falk has also declared that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was the result of the fact that "the mass of humanity… finds itself under the heels of US economic, military, cultural and economic power." "

"And take, Obama's official blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, a former writer for left-wing, Nation, and Socialist Viewpoint, he credits his political awakening to another infamous Jew, linguist and pop-philosopher, and extremist critic of America and Israel, Noam Chomsky. Interestingly, Chomsky has also been "credited" as a major influence on none other than Obama's lightning rod pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Here is what official Obama blogger Graham-Felsen says about Chomsky:

"For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them-to completely remodel one's understanding of reality with cold, hard facts-blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him-once you've actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)-and deny what he's saying." (That must have been some well-grounded world view that could be completely remodeled by 30 minutes of Chomsky.) "

These, of course, in addition to Brzezinski, Malley, and Power.

Posted by SLC | May 7, 2008 12:37 PM

You go for it, SLC: try to argue that anyone associated with the UN Human Rights Council is beyond the pale of policies with regard to Israel. Good luck with that.

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 1:06 PM

Clever link, djspellchecka. It's just not historically accurate to posit Sonny Corleone as having been in charge of US Iraq policy, though.

In terms of actual history, I'd recommend paying attention less to clever journalism and more to basic facts. After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years. I don't think Neocons had been invented yet in 1991, and they sure as hell didn't have 78 votes in the Senate in 2002.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 7, 2008 1:58 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment "I don't think Neocons had been invented yet in 1991, and they sure as hell didn't have 78 votes in the Senate in 2002."
------------
You don't need 78 votes in the Senate -- you just need 6 or 7 votes at the TV networks, New York Times and Washington Post.

One or two in Hollywood helps, also:
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/race.htm

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 2:14 PM

I'd recommend paying attention less to clever journalism and more to basic facts...I don't think Neocons had been invented yet in 1991...

I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Powell literally does not know how many feet he has.

Posted by 23456 | May 7, 2008 2:16 PM

After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years.

Words fail, RP. That you can dismiss 'clever' journalism and then write something so cleverly and deliberately disingenous is eye googling. I would bet that a large majority of Americans would be surprised to know that they have supported the current war in Iraq for 17 years. Silly Americans.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 2:17 PM

Fuck a guy named Hampton Stephens.

Posted by Luke | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM

robert powell writes: "I don't think Neocons had been invented yet in 1991."

hmmmmm actually the book i'm currently reading, "they knew they were right" takes their origin from the late '30's.

as far as politics are concerned, lots of folks we think of as neocons hung out in the office of democratic cold-warrior scoop jackson.

and they've been in and out of the govenment ever since. in the wilderness during bush 41 [they hated scowcroft with a vengence] and clinton, of course, and finally into the promised land with w.

and they had a bee in their bonnet about overthrowing saddam long before w. took office.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 7, 2008 3:47 PM

After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years.

Words fail, RP. That you can dismiss 'clever' journalism and then write something so cleverly and deliberately disingenous is eye googling. I would bet that a large majority of Americans would be surprised to know that they have supported the current war in Iraq for 17 years. Silly Americans.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 3:52 PM

After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years.

Words fail, RP. That you can dismiss 'clever' journalism and then write something so cleverly and deliberately disingenous is eye googling. I would bet that a large majority of Americans would be surprised to know that they have supported the current war in Iraq for 17 years. Silly Americans.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 3:53 PM

After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years.

Words fail, RP. That you can dismiss 'clever' journalism and then write something so cleverly and deliberately disingenous is eye googling. I would bet that a large majority of Americans would be surprised to know that they have supported the current war in Iraq for 17 years. Silly Americans.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 3:53 PM

After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years.

Words fail, RP. That you can dismiss 'clever' journalism and then write something so cleverly and deliberately disingenous is eye googling. I would bet that a large majority of Americans would be surprised to know that they have supported the current war in Iraq for 17 years. Silly Americans.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 3:53 PM

Ignore Powell. This jerk is a paid neocon propagandist, He's a liar and a thug (and I say that as a ex-con bank robber.) He's paid to post bullshit like he does every single day here.

Actually, on point, the USA could "deliver the world from indignity and want" if they just spent a significant portion of the US military budget on nanotechnology research (and not for military purposes either.)

At the very least, the US could support Professor Richard Smalley's Nanotech Energy Initiative - that alone would be a big contribution by enabling the world to solve its energy problems.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Maybe "words fail" because of that annoying stutter, johnnybutter.

I like clever journalism as much as the next guy, but it's not the same as history. Real history is based on facts. According to Gallup from big-sample, good-methodology polls done about twice a year from 1991 to 2003 always a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging nearly 2:1 for the whole period answered "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Or, you could just trust the rumor, gossip, and boorish blustering of wackos like RSH...

Posted by Robert Powell | May 7, 2008 4:25 PM

DOH. sorry for the stutter. the Atlantic blog code has a problem, as we all know.

Without a citation to that polling data, including the questions asked, Powell's last comment is merely ridiculous. Suuuure, the US public has been continuously and firmly desirous of an invasion of Iraq for the last 17 years. W. Bush just read the polling data, right? Give the people what they have been yearning for for the past almost-two decades! It's all clear to me now.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 7, 2008 4:40 PM

According to Gallup from big-sample, good-methodology polls done about twice a year from 1991 to 2003 always a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging nearly 2:1 for the whole period answered "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Interestingly, the main Gallup page on their Iraq polling lists the results from this question in 1992 and 1993, but then nothing until 2001, when they started asking it frequently.

I suppose it's possible that they asked this question from 1994-00 and don't list the results for some reason. Of course, it's also possible that Robert Powell misunderstood what happened, given that he is the stupidest fucking human being on earth.

(Also, even for the dates given -- mostly post 9/11, when you'd expect support to be highest -- Powell's characterization of the numbers as "averaging nearly 2:1" is a stretch.)

Posted by 23456 | May 7, 2008 5:10 PM

Powell wouldn't know a fact if it bit his dick off.

And the fact that a huge number of US citizens didn't have a clue about Iraq or what a military invasion there would mean is irrelevant to anything going on. You could probably get the same response from US morons for an invasion of China or Russia back in the Cold War - or maybe even today.

Morons voting for morons who implement moron foreign policies are nothing to the purpose.

Neither are the morons who support the notions because they're being paid to be morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 7, 2008 5:12 PM

Hey, where'd Bobby Powell go?

Posted by 23456 | May 7, 2008 6:59 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

I get a kick out of Mr. Hack calling others morons. This from a man who held up a bank and then depended on the local transit service to provide his getaway. What a fucktard.

Posted by SLC | May 7, 2008 8:12 PM

Some of us have to work, 23456.

I don't know why Gallup doesn't any longer list results 1994-00, but the figures were published in the WSJ April 7, 2003. Incidentally, the number for 1993, when it became clear Saddam would not fall in the wake of his first defeat, was 70%.

It may be difficult for people who have only been following Iraq since Bush took office, but the facts are that very many Americans realized we had been dragged into a war by an aggressive totalitarianism in 1991, and that winning is preferable to playing for a tie. A lot of us spent a fair amount of time deployed to the region before 2003, and perhaps a million innocent Iraqis were killed by the sanctions we enforced. These facts may be politically inconvenient, or even irrelevant to lunatic fringe isolationists, but they are facts.

Of course, if your politics are based on the belief that the voting public is just "morons", you don't need facts. Nor are you likely to have any influence on politics.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 8, 2008 12:50 AM

Powell, you're a paid propagandist. Your every post is lame, disingenuous bullshit with made-up "facts" and revisionist history.

Nobody gives a shit here.

Fuck off. Go post on HuffPo where your bullshit will be drowned out by thousands of other moronic posts from lames like you.

Ignoring the fact that it was Bush's FATHER who decided NOT to invade Iraq at the end of the 1991 war, it makes you incredibly fucking stupid to be touting the notion that anybody gave a shit about Iraq through the '90's and up to 2003. Most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map in 2002 and 2003. Some idiots thought it was sixty miles south of Florida.

You're almost that stupid.

And it's even more stupid to keep bitching about "sanctions" which were irrelevant, ineffective (except at killing Iraqi civilians) and could have been ended at any time except morons like you were agitating to maintain them - like that jerk Albright.

Fuck off, nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 3:17 AM

I don't know why Gallup doesn't any longer list results 1994-00

Is there some sort of evidence Gallup ever listed such poll results? I mean, beyond your assertion that the Wall Street Journal said so? I hate to seem skeptical, but you are, after all, the stupidest fucking human being on earth. Beyond that, it also seems odd that Gallup would produce a long article on the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War in 2001 that goes into great detail about US views toward Iraq, yet doesn't mention any of these 94-00 polls on this question, while at the same time specifically listing (at the end) the 92, 93 and February 01 polls; that is, the exact gap on the main Gallup page on Iraq referenced earlier.

Incidentally, the number for 1993, when it became clear Saddam would not fall in the wake of his first defeat, was 70%.

People who aren't fucking morons would notice this poll didn't take place "when it became clear Saddam would not fall in the wake of his first defeat," but rather two days after the bombing of Iraq for the alleged Iraqi attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. in Kuwait. (Non-fucking-morons also know there's zero evidence this assassination plot ever existed.)

Posted by 23456 | May 8, 2008 4:50 AM

robert powell writes: "According to Gallup from big-sample, good-methodology polls done about twice a year from 1991 to 2003 always a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging nearly 2:1 for the whole period answered "yes" to the unambiguous question, "Would you support invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
------------------------------------

i also can't find any numbers from most of the 90's.

here's some info [not gallup, though] from 2001/2002 that asked the same question.

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/mil_action.cfm

in these numbers, those in favor of invading iraq never reach a ratio of 2 to 1 let alone 3 to 1.

obviously a link to the wsj article would be helpful here.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 8, 2008 10:36 AM

first i wrote: "count me as one who believes that that our war in Iraq has everything to do with "democracy promotion by force." the neocons,with their Utopian visions, were hell bent on bringing American values to the world at the point of a gun just to prove they could.

Robert Powell responded: "After all, the war in Iraq has been supported by a majority of the public and Congress for most of the last seventeen years. I don't think Neocons had been invented yet in 1991."

i just wanted to make it clear that i was referring to 2003 and not 1991.

in fact, the neocons weren't in very good shape in 1991 and didn't figure in the debate over pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. they were still smarting over being wrong around which tactics would bring the cold war to an end. Reagan's accommodation and Gorbachev cooperation had prevailed without having to resort to the neocons bellicosity.

as for the gulf war, the neocons were happy until bush failed to push on to Baghdad, topple the government and occupy the country.

when bush betrayed the Shites and the Kurds, the neocons were incensed.

in fact, their reaction to those events were part of the reason they wanted for the u.s. to go back to Iraq after 9/11.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 8, 2008 3:38 PM

dj-
Clear. I know there was technically a "neocon" group since at least the Cold War days, but was really being flip about the way they have been tagged as scapegoats for the invasion. Sure, they pushed, but the evidence shows that the idea of eliminating Saddam Hussein was hardly a minority one at any point after 1991, and with good reason. The war he started then was very much unresolved to the detriment of Iraqi, regional, and broader world interests. It wasn't only neocons who were unhappy that Bush I didn't finish the job in 1991. I had the opportunity to cover the first Perot campaign (the one that put Clinton in the White House), and after the budget deficit, this seemed to be the biggest complaint of Perot supporters.

Senators, Congressmen, and former Bush I officials who had been dealing with this problem unsatisfactorily for over a decade voted for invasion, and most of them weren't "neocons".

Posted by Robert Powell | May 9, 2008 2:00 AM

the evidence shows that the idea of eliminating Saddam Hussein was hardly a minority one at any point after 1991

Interesting. I wonder if they are any big-sample, good-methodology Gallup polls done about twice a year from 1994 to 2000 on the question "Would you support invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

If there aren't, maybe the stupidest fucking person on earth could just say there were. Ideally he would do so while talking with hilarious pomposity about "basic facts."

Posted by 23456 | May 9, 2008 5:45 AM