Comments on: The U.S. leads with carrots-and-sticks

By: jcolelaw

jcolelaw — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:33:09 +0000

Regarding your political opinions, Ted, in my opinion the Republican party’s strength in the modern era has been its utilization of age old political techniques like 1) attacking the credibility of anyone who questions you, legitimately or otherwise (I love when blatantly conservative members IN the media accuse the media of being liberally biased…especially when vigorously conservative news sources and Rupert Murdock are so dominate in today’s media market and so unabashed in their own biased communication of specifically identified conservative “talking points”); 2) appealing to core human emotions such as hate/anger, fear, selfishness, and lust for power; and 3) using religion to create a disturbingly large base of highly motivated “foot solders” who aggressively and loyally fuel the party’s power on issues completely unrelated to religion.

These techniques are disturbingly effective in the short run and have been so for thousands of years, and as recently as 2005ish I thought the Democratic party was rightfully dead and gone because of their failure to effectively respond to these techniques. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your political affiliation) the extremism of the neoconservative foreign policy (“might makes right and rule by power and intimidation”) and extreme allegiance to supply-side, deregulation conservative economics was shown to be unsustainable and American democracy and freedom proved its strength and endurance by swinging the pendulum back to check this excessive swing of ideology.

In short (I know, I know this post is anything but short) until the Republicans find a way to champion conservative ideals without having to rely on the appeal to and support of extremists, they are going to have problems sustaining a hold on
power. True, they may gain power in the short run by unrelentingly and inflexibly criticizing democrats who try to enact productive policy, but even if the Republicans displace the Democrats they will once again find that the very extremists who fueled their rise will seal their downfall by undermining the party’s ability to compromise and enact productive policy with wide-spread, sustainable appeal.

Note: this comment is not to say that Republicans do not have many objectively desirable policy positions. I am simply trying to make the point that their heavy reliance on propaganda-like rhetorical techniques (which by their nature rely on inflexible extremist positions) inherently conflicts with attempts to productively implement conservative policies in the more moderate/compromise fashion that is necessary in a healthy democracy.

There are only three possible results from this dilemma: 1) to continue the cycle of rise and fall to power based on extremist criticism; 2) to moderate and build a stronger sustainable base that does not rely so heavily on extremists; or 3) to find a charismatic leader with broad appeal that can win the votes of extremists but be strong enough and wise enough to rule with more moderation (basically a Republican Obama or a new Reagan).

By: foleymo

foleymo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:30:13 +0000

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

-Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), 6/19/2009

By: David G.

David G. — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:26:34 +0000

Some thoughts on Iran & the ME)

It might seem like a good thing that the Ayatollah be ousted and the government toppled, but in terms of ME regional stability, I’m not so sure.

If a revolution succeeds in Iran, there’s a good chance the resulting government will be just as corrupt as the current regime. Even if a sincerely democratic leadership is empowered, strength and sovereignty are far from guaranteed - to generalize, the ousted radicals will likely resort to terrorism. Throughout the entire Iraq & Afghanistan occupation, radical resistance against democracy has been sustained. I would anticipate a similar scenario for Iran.

Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan (not to mention the entire world) have destabilized in the past months (not that they were ever truly stable in recent history). While the US might be insulated from nuclear materials in the hands of organized criminals (referring to the terrorists & radicals), Europe and Asia certainly are not. Even so, all nations involved have been fatigued by perpetual security detail in the ME. Everyone has had enough. Note how US forces are withdrawing despite a surge in Iraq bombings and I think the BBC’s heightened coverage of British casualties lately is a valid litmus for European popular opinion against interventionist policy in the Middle East. Not coincidentally, we are seeing a rise in protectionist attitudes from the US, China and members of the EU.

Things in the Middle East are bad and getting worse. It’s clear (at least to me) that there’s really nothing America (or the West) can do to truly mend the situation; all we can do is suppress the symptoms. If the Middle East ever finds peace, it will be because of the Muslims who live there.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:36 +0000

The North Korean situation is quickly coming to a head and President Obama might find himself forced to take action when he might prefer to talk in vague idealistic terminology for several days about the issue until the public outcry finally demands action.
The UN has proven time and time again it’s total inability to act in such a way to enforce the resolutions it passes and these power-hungry countries fully recognize the UN’s impotence in this area. While it is good for the UN to pass resolutions decrying such provactive action, the UN fails to realize that simply passing such statements without quick, decisive action merely emboldens nations like North Korea to continue to give the UN (and the world) the finger and continue on their present course without fear of immediate or significant intervention.

North Korea has set the groundwork by declaring any act against the ship and declaration of war and has promised retaliation. I don’t see the UN doing anything about it. The question remains then, will the USA do something about it? If so, how far is the President willing to go to ensure that North Korea does not distribute prohibited materials? Is he willing to put the USA in a position that we could be looking at something much greater than a single incident with a single ship. Let us not be naive here; North Korea is preparing for something more.

This week will force President Obama to decide how best to approach North Korea’s growing disregard for international policies and what steps should be taken to ensure that these resolutions are properly enforced. We can be sure that the rest of the world is watching and other power-hungry nations are taking note of our actions or lack of response.

By: Rob M

Rob M — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:21:10 +0000

That which has fallen should usually be pushed. The price is only too high until the demand becomes great enough to make it worth the payment. I was moved by Senator McCain’s statement about living with eyes closed although I realize it was just that; another heartfelt, poignant statement that he’s probably been waiting for years to use and it means nothing whatsoever. In essence, he turned it into yet another round of go-nowhere donkey vs elephant slap fest. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter what the U.S. thinks… we’re all to busy hating one another (in the name of that which we love)… and we’re not really happy when somebody goes pointing that out, are we? After all, if we can perpetuate journalistic integrity as a safe cathartic ritual that goes nowhere AND makes money, what’s not to love?
You will never speak to me until you stop talking at me, and from your lies come all the truth I need.
Maybe the U.S. should be taking more notes, you know, in the name of prevention.
If we don’t keep our eyes open, (different analogy) this could happen to us.
I do not fear death. What I fear is humanity causing its own plight to become increasingly futile… especially after I learned all those Debussy pieces on the piano!

By: Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:40:32 +0000

Sean, you make a good point. However, I think what many people feel at this point is that there is a possibility that if “moderates” take power in Iran, there might be a reduction of tensions in the region. At least for a while. And it’d give us and especially our friend Israel a real breather. Bad thing, of course, is that Potus Obama would probably get full credit. When in fact the full credit should go to the U.S. Military and George W. Bush for creating an “enviable situation” in Iraq. We all know in our gut that Iranian youth were looking hard at the new democracy in Iraq, digging it and wanting some of the same for their nation. Democracy is infectious. DD

By: Meredith

Meredith — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:51:16 +0000

What Obama said isn’t that much different than what Merkel said. Both the US and Germany have declared that they want what the Iranian people want. On 6/19 Obama said, “I want to repeat … that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.”
The citizens of Iran, by and large, have conducted peaceful protests while the government and its henchmen have used violence. Obama is citing the contrast and sides with the people.
Moreover, Obama is absolutely correct in noting that the rulers of Iran use the West as their personal whipping boy. The rhetoric used to work in the past, but it’s possible now only a minority believe Khameni and Ahmadi anymore. Still, whatever happens in Iran, we will have to deal diplomatically with whoever are the people in power and diplomacy has nothing to do with ticking them off so they won’t speak to us. When that happens, we lose.
The fact is also that Iran is already nuclear. The country went there partly because of Bush’s “axis of evil” remarks, and partly because of the invasion of Iraq. also, not only do some of their neighbors and enemies have or share nuclear weapons (i.e., Turkey Pakistan, Syria, Israel), they’re not on friendly terms with Arab states that don’t have nuclear weapons so aside from their alliance with Russia they feel threatened and all alone. Yes, Khameni and Amedi are paranoid, yet they’re not nearly as far gone as North Korea’s Kim Jong-il. They’re also way more nuanced in their language and policies when it comes to nuclear weapons, so when they say they have no intention of going forward with arming, they mean it. But they also are speaking in a particular tense and mood, which has the basic connotation of not doing it at this moment. Relations with such a government require nuance and delicacy as well as strength. But we have to engage Iran first. Without engagement there is no diplomacy.
How should the U.S. lead the world when the security of nations is threatened by the rogue regimes of both Iran and North Korea?
We are not threatened by Iran right now. They have no weapons and they’re not in a position of military strength comensurate with the United States. Korea, on the other hand, has threatened us and they have nuclear arms and missiles. Whether their missiles are capable of going anywhere without failing remains to be seen, though. The last time they tested their missiles–unless I missed anything lately–they didn’t go anywhere.
Obama must also address the North Korean nuclear crisis…

I believe the US intends to intercept and block, but not board North Korean vessels. Kim Jong-il talks a good game, but it’s not clear how far he’ll go. There’s also an indication that China and Russia are certainly not pleased with him so they may vote for sanctions. Having their support would help a great deal.

President Obama must be deft in applying both his carrot-and-stick strategy, and if media accounts are any true indicator, then perhaps the stick is more appropriate in this situation….
Obama may be right about North Korea’s pattern of using bluster to obtain goodies. I haven’t looked up the incidents, though, so I can’t say for certain.
The Iranian rulers a bit before Ahmadi, there were two whose names I can’t remember offhand, tried to work with the United States, but Bush rebuffed them early on with the “axis of evil” bit, in addition to refusing to work with them, and they left (or were removed from) power shortly afterwards. The media is forgetting that.
Iran under Ahmadi has worked both sides of the Iraq War purely from self-interest. That’s how they work. Iranians under Khameni can have their ideological rhetoric, which they use largely against Israel and the US, but their concrete policies can be something else altogether. We really do need to see how this revolution, if it is that, plays out before we say or do anything that commits us to four or eight more years of antagonism with Iran. Mousavi may not be any better than Ahmadi, or at least his policies may not be, but there could be a run-off between Mousavi and the third place candidate, or there could be a new election. Khameni clearly sees Rafsanjani as a threat and used R’s daughter to blackmail him. R didn’t blink, which is good news, I believe, since his daughter has been released. I would really have to read more about the current situation before commenting further upon it.

By: Hubbard

Hubbard — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:53:50 +0000

This is a non issue. The United States should have no involvement with the Iranian people and the same goes for North Korea. As Americans, we need to get our own house in order and return to our Constitutional roots. And, besides, why are we worried about Iran and North Korea - they can’t even feed themselves.

By: Lyn

Lyn — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:25:33 +0000

Through Twitter I have made it clear to the Iranian students that my desire is for them to decide what kind of government they want but I want them to be safe while doing so. They have made it clear to me that they do not want the United States or NATO allies to make their domestic issue, our domestic issue. If you want to hear directly from the Iranian people please read http://tehranbureau.com/.

For far too long we have been silent on the “cultural differences” seen in some of the Middle Eastern countries. No one should be subject to stoning in the streets for small infractions or slights to laws. Women are often the brunt of these barbaric scenes. This is not a “cultural difference” to be legislated away inside the country these are human rights violations. This weekend we witnessed human rights violations on a grand scale. Even the UN took the time out of their busy schedule, taking money from the United States, to comment on the brutality we saw through the lens of citizen journalists.

The House and Senate stood with the Iranian people. It was good to see these bodies go around the President to take a stand.

We are with those who seek to protest in a peaceful manner.

By: H. Paul

H. Paul — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:38:53 +0000

Obama: It appears President Obama’s handlers have more clout than he does. His apparent timidity presents a picture of spinelessness, something most Americans don’t want to see in their President, particularly as it relates to theats from other nations. There come times when actions speak louder than words. In the cases of North Korea and Iran in which words have not been well received, the time for more persuasive communicative actions is fast approaching. Perhaps the 2010 elections will provide a congress with sufficient backbone to provide what the president seems to lack.

By: Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:32:13 +0000

Of course our hearts go out to these freedom seeking Iranians. Their courage is an inspiration. Once again the democrats have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are unfit to lead our nation. Sadly, that is who the voters of America have chosen. Even more disturbing, in my view, is that the Republicans are doing very little to win back the hearts, minds and enthusiasm of the voting public. And this with a very short 16 months until the 2010 midterms.

Leaves one scratching ones head…..DD

By: H. Paul

H. Paul — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:24:47 +0000

Iran: Nothing unites a squabbling people quite like a perceived outside threat. Brothers and sisters may fight with one another, but quickly join forces when an outsider threa0ens either one. Accordingly, the US must take care not to unite Iranians by OVERTLY providing a threat which the supreme leader can use to rally the populace. His rhetoric/ poor judgements are being challenged because the Iranian people have access to facts that enable them to perceive the supreme leader’s ulterior motives and see through his politically motivated statements.
   COVERTLY, however, the US may play an important role by providing information to the world’s masses which highlights, and therefore, undermines the supreme leader’s quest for dictatorial powers used to the detriment of the people.

North Korea: The US might publicly state that any firing by North Korea of a missle in the direction of the US will be interpreted as an ACT OF WAR, even as North Korea has used such rhetoric in response to UN sanctions against it. Such a declaration would justify US interception and boarding of North Korean ships in spite of UN resolution restrictions against forceable boarding.
   Another option is to shoot down the missle on the launch pad before it ascends, declaring it a preceived threat to world peace. China might be presuaded that the best way to prevent refugees from fleeing North Korea to China would be to remove the current North Korean regime and replace it with a democratically elected authority more responsive to the needs of the populace. China could be seen as a helping hand in such a scenario, thus encouraging future trade relations. A more clear communication might be made by simoultaneously bombing all North Korean missle launch facilities. Such an action wouild clearly communicate that the world is fed up with North Korea’s failure to meet its obligations under past treaty agreements, would strike military tagets, and when accompanied by dropped leaflets, inform the populace how peace may be restored and their lives improved.

By: jcolelaw

jcolelaw — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:21:57 +0000

Lawhaw - Excellent insight on the dangers of public interference with the Iranian election results and the need for more subtle means of applying political pressure. I think Obama’s concern about public US support for the Iranian opposition backfiring is a valid concern, and while many US politicians are using this as an opportunity to score self-serving political points by complaining or making meaningless public comments, I genuinely believe Obama is more interested in taking an intelligent approach to the problem of a nuclear Iran. You may disagree with his strategy of engagement, which I suspect will change now that Ahmadinejad’s leadership has been significantly delegitimized, but the Obama administration has been very clear and consistent about the importance of preventing a nuclear Iran, and I think it is unfair to say otherwise.

Regarding North Korea, I think everyone agrees we do no want them to have nuclear weapons. The reality is that they know we are overextended militarily and the crazy leadership there has little to lose, a combination that makes them very dangerous. I seriously question whether they are bluffing about us intercepting their ships being an act of war, and I am not sure the lives of South Korean citizens and American solders should be waged so lightly in betting they are bluffing.
cgoodvba - it is easy to criticize others when one offers no serious counter proposals. If you were president exactly what would you do?