The Rise (and perhaps fall) of Pragmatism

Michael Slackman notes that across the Middle East, European countries, Israel, and even the Bush administration are looking to engagement and diplomacy to try to resolve outstanding issues, rather than counting on futile policies of "isolation" and coercion.

Which is, in my view, all to the good. But it's also a reminder of an important extent in which John McCain would not be merely an extension of the Bush administration. Bush, never one to admit an error, hasn't made a big deal about it but since at least Israel's failed invasion of Lebanon in 2006 the administration has substantially crawled back from its previous lunatic policies in favor of something more resembling a pragmatic approach to the Middle East (and of course North Korea). McCain, however, gives every indications of wanting to go back to an earlier, purer phase of Bushism when neocons were riding high and Robert Gates was nowhere to be seen in the halls of power.

Plausibly, the weird combination of McCain's traditional dislike of and contempt for Bush, combined with their objectively similar opinions on policy matters, is making things worse here. On some level, the Bush administration has gotten less crazy because they've seen the results of their earlier blunders. But McCain seems to think poorly enough of Bush as a man and as a leader to believe that Bush rather than Bush's ideas are to blame for these problems. Thus, in his view, if only we'd had John "I know how to win wars" McCain in the White House earlier, everything might have been fine. So if he's president, we might go and try the whole thing over again, reliving the policies of 2002-2005 until McCain can prove to himself that, no, even the legendary Awesomeness of John McCain can't make unworkable policies work.

Meanwhile, I'd say Sean-Paul Kelly is probably too optimistic that recent Iran-related developments mean there's really going to be a Bush-era breakthough, but I hope he's right.

Comments

The American Empire has already fallen. Those leaders who do not choose pragmatism will have it thrust upon them. There Is No Alternative.

Posted by blah | July 18, 2008 12:58 PM

This is a scary, and probably very accurate view of what the first 4 years would look like under a potential McCain administration. Both candidates want to fix what Bush has broken during his Presidency, but each of them have very different ideas of what Bush's real mistakes were.

The choice that we face as a nation couldn't be more clear.

Posted by dannity | July 18, 2008 1:02 PM

Now the Bush administration wants a "general time horizon" for troop withdrawals in Iraq. So maybe Obama's foreign policy plans aren't so radical...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 18, 2008 1:07 PM

Michael Slackman notes that across the Middle East, European countries, Israel, and even the Bush administration are looking to engagement and diplomacy to try to resolve outstanding issues, rather than counting on futile policies of "isolation" and coercion.

"The appeasers are coming! THE APPEASERS ARE COMING!"

-- John "I Know How to Win Wars" McCain

Posted by LFC | July 18, 2008 1:11 PM

A little off topic but Mr. Yglesias has yet to pick up on the scandal brewing in Alabama where the attorney general of that state, Troy King, who was McCains' choice to head his election committee in that state has been caught by his wife having sex with one of this male aides in his and her bed! Of course, Mr. King was a virulent gay basher prior to his getting caught.

http://www.sexherald.com/adult-news/anti-gay_attorney_general_caught_in_bed_with_male_aide__07,15,08.html

Posted by SLC | July 18, 2008 1:16 PM

C'mon, SLC. A gay bashing Republican politician? What are the odds?

Posted by LFC | July 18, 2008 1:27 PM

C'mon, SLC. A gay gay bashing Republican politician? What are the odds?

Posted by LFC | July 18, 2008 1:27 PM

"Thus, in his view, if only we'd had John "I know how to win wars" McCain in the White House earlier, everything might have been fine. So if he's president, we might go and try the whole thing over again"

Personally I'm of the opinion that this is the magical thinking underpinning the MSM's man-crush on McCain. They feel kind of guilty that they stood back and let Bush's smear-machine gazzump him in the 2000 GOP Primaries, but if they can just get him into the White House _this time_ they'll have made up for letting him down, and all the reality-free cheerleading they did for Bush between 2000 to 2008 be forgotten, like it never really happened.

Phew, won't they be glad no one's asking questions about _that_ anymore. Thank you Superboy Punch!

Posted by Tony J | July 18, 2008 1:30 PM

Strangely, over at TMP Josh Marshall is saying that Bush is trying to take Iraq "off the table" in the election by vaguely agreeing to some sort of poorly-defined timely, as if this would help McCain. Actually I think this clearly helps Obama, both in terms of the campaign - "Everyone, even George W. Bush, is coming around to my long-held view on Iraq" - and in terms of the state of play if/when he becomes President. It will be much, much easier for Obama to stick to his withdrawal position if the groundwork has been laid even a little bit by the previous administration.

Posted by bobbo | July 18, 2008 1:31 PM

Question - has McCain been in the loop with regards to the various foreign policy turnabout the Bush administration has done before they became generally known? If not, does is the Bush administration is sort of sabotaging some of McCain or setting him up some how?

Call me paranoid, but I don't know if I really believe the Bush administration has/is coming around to sane foreign policy.

Posted by ET | July 18, 2008 1:32 PM

I'd be quite happy if we just didn't go to war before the election. Let Obama with the foreign policy plaudits for a position he has long expounded on by getting a break through.

Posted by MNPundit | July 18, 2008 1:38 PM

Call me paranoid, but I don't know if I really believe the Bush administration has/is coming around to sane foreign policy.

One lens to look through is Bush's worry about his legacy. He's a bundle of insecurity under all that bulls*** and bravado, knowing deep inside that he's a royal f***-up who is looked down upon by a majority of this country and an even larger majority of the rest of the world. Moving toward diplomacy may be a last desperate act ("last throes", if you will) of a desperate man who does not want his name to be the byword used for incompetence in the White House for the next 100 years.

Hey, George. You shoulda' thought about that years ago. But who knows, maybe all that fear and insecurity will cause him to make a few reasonable moves.

Posted by LFC | July 18, 2008 1:48 PM

I think that the appropriate response to McCain and Bush's triumphalism about Iraq (the surge succeeded, and now we can think about some troop withdrawals) is to call it "Mission Accomplished 2 -- The Sequel."

Posted by Tom in Ma | July 18, 2008 1:51 PM

New York Times:

“We are seeing the outlines of a general thaw in the region,” said Osama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies in Beirut.

This is not necessarily good news for Washington’s traditional Arab allies, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Leaders there were content to have the United States keep pressure on Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, which threaten their own power.

But it represents a pragmatic recognition among Western nations, analysts said, that those deemed rogues in the West have often generated popular support in the region. Hamas, Hezbollah and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood have repeatedly shown nimble political instincts that have allowed them to exploit democratic openings urged by Washington to enhance their influence.

See you skeptics, Bush's democracy promotion works!

Posted by Peter K. | July 18, 2008 1:53 PM

The problem with taking Iraq off the table for McCain is...well...what else is there ON the table for McCain? His magical budget proposals and Phil Gramm's psychotherapy for the economy?

Posted by Jake H. | July 18, 2008 2:10 PM

At what point has engagement ever convinced Syria to behave in a reasonable fashion? Or Hamas, or Hezbollah?

I could understand advocating benign neglect, but if you believe that any level of diplomacy is going to make a difference, you're smoking something. I don't advocate toppling Syria, but I don't see any point in bothering to have a conversation, either

Posted by James Robertson | July 18, 2008 3:03 PM

"At what point has engagement ever convinced Syria to behave in a reasonable fashion?"

Gulf War I. Bush pére gave them Lebanon and in return they signed on to the coalition of the willing to oust Saddam from Kuwait.

Posted by Peter K. | July 18, 2008 3:23 PM

Sure, and:

1) They sent units that did not get involved in the fighting

2) The price for that diplomacy was what doomed the post-war uprising in Iraq - the one where we stood aside and let Kurds and Shiites get slaughtered.

So I'll pose the question again, adding the word "constructive". If we engage Syria, and the price for that is counter-productive (as it was in 1991) - then it's actively harmful.

Posted by James Robertson | July 18, 2008 5:21 PM

Matt: "Meanwhile, I'd say Sean-Paul Kelly is probably too optimistic that recent Iran-related developments mean there's really going to be a Bush-era breakthough, but I hope he's right."

Justin Raimondo covers that probability in his latest column:

Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War
Don't be fooled by Washington's diplomatic overtures to Tehran
by Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13156

The conventional wisdom is that the US government is taking a new tack when it comes to confronting the Iranians. As a recent piece on Breitbart.com – and dutifully posted by Matt Drudge – put it:

"The Bush administration is changing course on Iran in its final months. The hope is that engagement can jolt a stagnant effort to resolve concerns about Tehran's disputed nuclear program where war drums could not."

This is flat out wrong. The war drums are still belting out a martial ditty, albeit accompanied by a "diplomatic" chorus. To get closer to the truth about what is really happening on the front lines of our latest Middle Eastern crusade, take a look at this Washington Post report on the same "diplomatic" dog-and-pony show:

"With negotiations now a real possibility, the Bush administration, which had largely subcontracted the nuclear diplomacy with Iran to its European partners, also appears intent on making sure that Iran hears its voice directly, rather than having it filtered by other interlocutors. … U.S. officials wanted to ensure that the preliminary talks did not veer off course and lose sight of the suspension demand."

The Europeans, who tend to resent Washington's unbridled arrogance, don't want a war that would wreck the world economy. They can't be trusted to deliver our intended message to Tehran: surrender or die. This is just foreplay – if such a thing can be said of an intended rape – and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino didn't try very hard to put a good face on it:

"The substance remains the same, but this is a new tactic. What this does show is how serious we are when we say that we want to try to solve this diplomatically."

The Bush administration is interested only in appearing to be serious about resolving this peacefully, when in actuality this diplomatic "surge" is merely a new tactic aimed at their real goal, which is regime-change in Iran.

Hardline neocon John Bolton was quick to denounce the administration for what he characterized as "a complete capitulation," but Philip Zelikow, formerly with the State Department, got it right when he told the Post:

"For some time, we and our allies have been reflecting on ways to reinforce that basic approach while taking away some of the more superficial complaints about it. This move does that. But the substantive position remains unchanged."

What we are seeing is a variation on the same prelude, almost note for note, that we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. A surrogate "dissident" group funnels phony intelligence about "weapons of mass destruction" to its masters in Washington, a full-court propaganda campaign is launched, sanctions are imposed, allies are pressured to get on board, and the whole performance takes place complete with a soundtrack of constant threats.

Nothing ever changes with this administration, in spite of the best efforts of the moderate "realists," because the War Party is still in the saddle – and because both political parties uphold the principle of American hegemonism. Their differences are merely over strategy and tactics, and over matters of style and tone, but when it comes to the goal – American domination of every region and continent – "politics stops at the water's edge," as the old foreign policy adage goes.

For example, look at the "debate" that's going on between John McCain and Barack Obama: the former wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years while remaining relatively indifferent to what's going on in Afghanistan, while the latter says we should get out of Iraq so we can focus all our military resources on trying to do what the Soviets (and the Brits) could never do, and that is subdue the Afghan people.

While the partisan Punch & Judy show takes center stage, and Democratic politico and Obama surrogate Rahm Emmanuel taunts McCain and Bush that they're following the mulatto messiah's lead on Iran, the wheels and gears of the American regime-change machine are whirring and spinning, getting ready to move when the time comes. And this is where the Iranian war scenario is scripted a little differently than the Iraqi version: the timeframe is considerably telescoped, condensed into the months remaining before the end of Bush's term.

As the sand spirals down in the hourglass, the War Party knows its window of opportunity will soon close. While Obama is loath to challenge them on this issue, and has done more than his share of kowtowing to the Israel lobby – the principal proponent of military action against Tehran – he's not likely to guarantee they'll be in Tehran by the summer of '09, and they don't want to take any unnecessary chances. Yet this hardly means Obama's election will save us from the prospect of committing yet more war crimes in that part of the globe. Just as the Democratic candidate is using the Afghanistan issue to define himself as a "national security Democrat" tough enough to be Commander-in-chief, so he isn't above using the Iranians to prove the same point.

"Coercive diplomacy" is a pat phrase Obama has used more than once to describe his preferred course of action, and, when it comes to Iran, I would emphasize the coercive side of the equation over the diplomatic. The American elites are unanimous in their verdict that the US must establish and maintain an American enclave in the Middle East: the only "debate" is over where the main forward base is to be located. McCain says Iraq, and Obama prefers Afghanistan.

Obama's rise is based on a promise he isn't prepared to deliver – and never made. Whether the voters wake up to that before election day doesn't really matter, because the alternative is at least just as bad, and probably worse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 18, 2008 5:42 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Is that the best that Mr. Hack can do, cite articles by whackjobs like Justin Raimondo, a conspiracy buffs' conspiracy buff. Mr. Raimondo has about as much credibility as the inmates of Camarillo State Mental Institution which is where he belongs. Mr. Raimondo is a gay gay basher, like the AG of Alabama who I mentioned on an earlier comment, Troy King.

Posted by SLC | July 18, 2008 7:21 PM

"If we engage Syria, and the price for that is counter-productive (as it was in 1991) - then it's actively harmful."

If you're saying that Syrian participation in Gulf War I was actively harmful in that it ultimately led to certain undesired consequences, then I agree. But way back at the time, Syrian involvement was viewed as being very important as far as legitimizing the entire operation; getting an Arab country (and I believe Morocco also made some contribution) to join the allied forces was considered a big deal. We'll never know what would have happened had Syria stayed out of the war.

Posted by Michael S. | July 18, 2008 10:07 PM

While SLC is just a "basher" with no credibility or even an actual name.

In any event, Condi Rice has explicitly said that Bush isn't "flip-flopping" on Iran - and she's right. They're simply lying again. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 19, 2008 3:33 AM

Re Michael S

Actually, Egypt also supplied troops to the coalition in 1991. I can recall a report from the time of the beginning of the invasion of Iraq which showed a video clip of an Egyptian artillery unit firing rounds against targets in Iraq from just across the border in Saudi Arabia.

Re Robert Powell

One of the problems in dealing with the Assad kleptocracy in Syria is the divide over regime chance therein between the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan on the one had and the Government of Israel on the other hand. The first group favors regime change, the Government of Israel is reluctant to go along because of the concern that the replacement will be worse (i.e. the replacement regime could be an Islamic fundamentalist regime like Irans'). It's the old story, better the devil one knows then the devil one knows not.

Posted by SLC | July 19, 2008 8:05 AM