One observation is that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are giving foreign policy issues extremely short shrift in their campaign. Instead of discussing them, both are making reference to the idea that the Bush administration hasn't done enough in terms of providing services for veterans. It's true, I think they haven't done enough, but I also think it's a dangerous trap for Democrats to think that talking about this issue is a substitute for talking about the substance of national security policy.
« Narrow Wins | Main | The Other Race »
National Security as Social Policy
06 May 2008 10:43 pm
Comments (20)
You should be watching Celts-Cavs, not this primary bullshit.
Sounds like someone's been reading a certain book....
I think Obama will be able to hammer McCain on foreign policy, but of course this year "it's the economy, stupid". With Clinton there's less distinction he can make (note, not necessarily less to be made, but not everyone thinks it's OK to throw that much feces in a Democratic primary). And they've already played through the "Clinton voted for the Iraq war" point.
It isn't enough to just choose which subjects to discuss, these issues have to be debated in an honest way (unlike all the other recent debates) so we can find out the flaws in their policies. Perhaps MattY should first concentrate on how we discuss issues, then move on to which issues to discuss first. Oh, who am I kidding? A few centuries ago he'd be bowing to Louis XIV's bedpan as it passed him in the halls.
"short shrift to national security"
Excellent
The exits in this round had a little over 50% of voters saying 'the economy' is the most important issue, with 'Iraq' at #2 with roughly 30%. And it's 'iraq' specifically not 'foreign policy'
So the voters themselves (at least democratic primary voters, but I don't think Republicans would be any different) also give a short shrift to the substance of nat'l security policy.
Plus the differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy are minuscule compared to either of them and McCain.
Kolohe,
Yes, excellent, no one cares about national security policy.
Excellent
TLB" "A few centuries ago he'd be bowing to Louis XIV's bedpan as it passed him in the halls."
That WAS good.
Matt: "I also think it's a dangerous trap for Democrats to think that talking about this issue is a substitute for talking about the substance of national security policy."
Really? What's your substitute - politics? Sports?
Is that why you won't answer my two questions (and Dan Kervick's three) on Iran? Or make any substantive post on Iran?
Talking about why we should get out of Iraq is also not a substitute for substantive analysis of national security. And that seems to be your sole contribution to the issue - except when you recommend sending all the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and turning Afghanistan into Iraq.
Brilliant, Matt.
Are you people all this rude in person?
Hey there K-Ro.
I would think that a focus on the economy and domestic affairs in general would actually be *not* to your, i.e. McCain's, benefit, but I'm just an engineer, not an architect.
I'm even ruder in person. I just didn't feel like driving 10 hours to Orange County.
As for the bedpan bit, I stole that from some book or something. MattY probably knows, he went to Hahvahd.
Neither of them knows the difference between the two, so why bother?
Read Obama's speech "The World Beyond Iraq." It's on the campaign website. I think it is the most coherent and sensible foreign policy vision I've seen in a decade, but no one reported on it because he gave it the day after the famous race speech.
With all due respect to "The World Beyond Iraq" (and Liz, of course), what's to talk about? We will have the same foreign policy we've had for the last century no matter who gets elected.
It's been an on-going tug of war between the Isolationists, who in the past wanted to let the Europeans stew in their own juice, and today want to "end the war" by running out on our allies, interests, and honor; and the interventionists, who then as now thought it was a good idea to oppose aggressive tyranny when necessary and/or practicable.
Powell, the only ally you're worried about "running out on" is Israel.
Europe doesn't give a shit about Iraq. Even the Brits would be gone today if it weren't for the US nagging them.
You're a moron.
It's been an on-going tug of war between the Isolationists, who in the past wanted to let the Europeans stew in their own juice, and today want to "end the war" by running out on our allies, interests, and honor; and the interventionists, who then as now thought it was a good idea to oppose aggressive tyranny when necessary and/or practicable.
Posted by Robert Powell
Really? That's it? There are just two strains of U.S. foreign policy, between the cowardly Isolationists and the Heroic Interventionists, the one wanting to run away and let people die and the others the grumpy, yet nobly wizened fire-fighters of the planet?
Wow, it's so much simpler now. No more looking at the empirical record of history, or perusing archives to try to make something out of the complex mix of actions, statements, etc.
Nope, it's just Pat Buchannan / Quislings VS Fire Chief Joe.
Does that explain things like Central America of the 1980s? Really? Or is that all just Soviet machinations?
Gosh, thanks Robert Powell! Your analysis is the deepest EVAR!
More hilarity from The Incredible Hack.
Here in Europe, lots of people care quite a bit about Iraq--they get most of their oil from the region, and a lot of the refugees. And of course, Israel is hardly the only ally we have in the region, including in Iraq's freely-elected government.
But then the Nostradamus of the Work Release Program doesn't think we have any interests outside North America either. Moron?
If it's complexity you want El Cid, just keep focusing on gimmicks designed for domestic political consumption like Reagan's Central America charade, or the current "end the war" laugh riot. You'll get material for all the wise-cracks you want, and you won't even have to learn any more history.
Obama, like Hillary or McCain, will simply do what every other president has done--react to some inevitable but unexpected foreign policy crisis in a manner largely determined by the politics of the moment, and missing entirely from their campaign "national security policy."
The Europeans also get a lot of gas from Iran, which is why they don't want to start another war there, either, numb nuts.
Which your "heroes" in the White House and General Betray-Us are itching to start.
And Iraq is NOT "the region", moron. Neither does Iraq have any significant impact on the region - unless, like the neocons - and nitwit Clinton - you think Iraq oil can be used to break OPEC. The oil companies told Bush where to stick that idea.
And I'm telling you where to stick your propaganda bullshit.
Comments closed May 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I agree. Veterans benefits /= foreign policy. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Posted by Korha | May 6, 2008 10:49 PM