Wishful Thinking Solves All Problems

A lot of attention focused yesterday on John McCain's audaciously hopeful plan to win the war in Iraq though the power of positive thinking, but if you bore down into his speech you see that vague aspirations are actually going to accomplish all sorts of wonderful stuff by 2013.

John Boonstra, for example, is confused about McCain's plan for a coalition of countries with no leverage over Sudan to successfully pressure Sudan into resolving the conflict in Darfur. What he's not considering is that McCain would really like this to happen and would like to emphasize that it'd be really great if it worked.

Comments

Looks like McCain is using 'The Secret' as the principal source for his policy initiatives.

Why not? After all Bush II used it as the principal policy manual for his administration.

Posted by PHB | May 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Kinda like "the care would be provided to anyone who wanted it at a price that everyone could afford."

I guess it all depends on whose wish is being thunk, don't it?

Posted by Wile E. Coyote | May 16, 2008 3:34 PM

Matt,

I want to know your opinion on Obama's response to Bush, McCain's response to Obama and Obama's press conference.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 3:34 PM

All us guys here at work are going to see to it the rain forest in Costa Rica is preserved. We figure on getting it under control around 2017. Really, we do. It'll happen. Because we want it to. You just wait. Calvin says he's not helping until Kevin starts contributing to the coffee fund but screw Calvin, he always eats two doughnuts even though we only buy 12, and there's 14 of us here. Lucy is dieting and doesn't care about Costa Rica. Still, I think 2017 works for now. Does it cost anything to save a rain forest? Hope not, they're talking about layoffs.

Posted by steve duncan | May 16, 2008 3:35 PM

Looks like McCain is using 'The Secret' as the principal source for his policy initiatives.

Why not? After all Bush II used it as the principal policy manual for his administration.

Posted by PHB | May 16, 2008 3:35 PM

David Gergen said that Obama will now have to come up with a similar plan with as much 'precision'. What would qualify as vague to him I wonder?

Posted by Jack H. | May 16, 2008 3:39 PM

What I don't get is all these "why doesn't China use its leverage?" arguments.

From a geopolitical point of view, do we really want China to get used to being an imperial power? Is this what we want to encourage?

Moreover, maybe China doesn't want it for itself. We have this view that China should meddle in its sphere of influence as if it were Mary Worth and Asia/Africa were Santa Royale ... or as if China were just like the US with our Monroe Doctrine and TR's corrolary (sp?).

But maybe China's thinking:

well, we see how well meddling has worked for the US and what kind of reputation the US has got in Latin America ... we already have enough of a reputation amongst our neighbors -- the last thing we need is to be called the equivalent of "gringos" in multiple languages

?

Posted by DAS | May 16, 2008 3:41 PM

In contrast, some of Obama's top advisers have a much more direct solution for Darfur: unilateral war, even without UN approval:

In a 2006 Washington Post op-ed entitled "We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?" Obama confidantes Susan E. Rice and Anthony Lake and Obama superdelegate Donald M. Payne called for the U.S. to attack Sudan. After the expiration of a one-week ultimatum:

"The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it."

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 16, 2008 3:50 PM

This "League of Democracies" concept is just so goofy. Seriously, I think McCain's brain is rotting.

Posted by Jake | May 16, 2008 4:01 PM

McCain would really like this to happen and would like to emphasize that it'd be really great if it worked.

He'll just sit them down and tell them to cut the bullshit.

Hey, if can work for Iraq, why can't it work for Sudan?

Posted by McKingford | May 16, 2008 4:22 PM

Yes, it's just silly. Unlike, say, Matt's prescription for foreign policy, which involves committing to a process of, and building institutions for, vague aspirations. It's obvious that Matt's approach is much more nuanced and sophisticated.

Posted by Thomas | May 16, 2008 5:23 PM

McBush is the reckless one

Posted by George | May 16, 2008 7:07 PM

I'd be considerably more concerned with the shortfalls in Matt's foreign policy prescriptions if he were, say, the nominee of a major party for President of the United States of America.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | May 16, 2008 7:22 PM

McCain adds another song to his repetoire. After "Bomb Iran", he will perform "In the Year 2525".

-

Posted by Danny C | May 16, 2008 8:31 PM

McCain adds another song to his repetoire. After "Bomb Iran", he will perform "In the Year 2525".

-

Posted by Danny C | May 16, 2008 8:34 PM

McCain will never make it to 2525. We're not sure he'll make it through his first four years as President.

Anyway, where's Powell? This is the sort of thinking that gets him fired up. Wow! An Iraq at peace with its neighbors, not making WMDs, reasonably stable, pro-US!

All we have to do is "stay the course"!

That these sorts of morons exist in society is the most damning indictment of the human species I could come up with. It's not so much scum like the Burmese government or whoever - they at least have pure primate emotions for their bloody motivations - it's the pure, straight, frickin' MORONS. You can find smarter chimps under any tree in Africa.

And yet, thirty percent of the US population STILL SUPPORT BUSH! And the number will jump to over fifty percent when Bush attacks Iran! Guaranteed!

What can you say to that?

Just - dispose of these assholes.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 11:18 PM

a bit off topic but DAS wrote: "From a geopolitical point of view, do we really want China to get used to being an imperial power? Is this what we want to encourage?"

they're not bothering with imperialism is south america, just good old capitalism. while bush has ignored most of latin america to focus on iraq, the chinese have been moving in...

All Things Considered, April 1, 2008 · China is emerging as an economic powerhouse throughout the world — including in the backyard of the United States.

Hungry for trade with mineral- and agriculture-rich Latin America, the Chinese are binding themselves closer with the continent, snapping up commodities such as Brazilian soy and Chilean copper in record amounts.

In Brazil, the soy bonanza is changing the fortunes of soy farmers, as well as the landscape.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89275971

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 17, 2008 12:48 PM