Inexperience and Cluelessness
In this post I take a closer look at the reactions of the presidential candidates to Bhutto’s death and I wonder in how far her death is a blow to democracy.
Benazir Bhutto’s killer delivered an incredible blow to Pakistan’s democracy movement. He blew himself up and, by doing so, killed one of the strongest proponents of Democracy in Pakistan (and a dozen others). Although this is most certainly horrible, I am of the opinion that her death won’t cause as much chaos as some seem to think, nor do I think that without her the democratization process is doomed. In other words: it’s a blow to democracy because Bhutto was such an important figure and because she was killed because of her political views; it’s not, however, a blow to democracy in the sense that her death has to result in chaos, disorder and a more oppressive regime.
As long as her supporters don’t ignite a civil war and play it cool that is.
The reason is simple: although the West was very fond of Bhutto, the reality of the situation was - and is - that not Bhutto but Musharraf decides what happens in Pakistan. If Musharraf didn’t support slowly democratizing Pakistan, it would not have happened, no matter what Bhutto said and no matter how many political rallies she organized and attended. If, on the other hand, Musharraf did (and does) want to change Pakistan for the better, he didn’t need Bhutto to help him. Aside from that it seems to me that Bhutto isn’t per definition irreplaceable (yes, this is sounding cold). If she was wise she would’ve prepared someone to succeed her (especially considering the fact that she knew that her life was in danger).
As is it, the main ally of the West is and remains Pervez Musharraf. If the West believes that Pakistan should change, we should talk to him, reward him when he pushes through pro-democracy reforms, and we should try to persuade him to fight against Muslim extremists in a more efficient manner. Other than that, though, I think that the attack on Bhutto’s life shows that if there’s one thing Musharraf has to focus on, it’s not democracy but order.
Anyway, those thoughts aside, it’s interesting to take a look at the reactions of the presidential candidates. As I’ve argued many times in the past, if there’s one thing the US doesn’t need right now it’s someone with little foreign policy experience. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons why I would not vote for Barack Obama if I were American, no matter who’s the Republican nominee.
Yesterday, all the candidates reacted and the ones who are lacking in foreign policy experience showed off just how little they know and how clueless they are about these matters. Governor Mike Huckabee, for instance, apologized to Pakistan for Bhutto’s death (as if somehow the US ordered the assassination) and he said that Musharraf had to lift martial law.
One problem, martial law was ended weeks ago.
Now, the Huckabee campaign made clear that he didn’t meant to say “apologies” but “sympathies” which is very well possible. In fact, I’ve got no problem believing that this is indeed what he meant to say. However, the point about martial law still stands and a president should say the right thing at the right time and not leave people wondering “um, what exactly did he try to say there?” (as an aside, imagine this: social conservative Huckabee as VP, moderate conservative McCain - with the experience - as president. not a bad ticket imo)
But Huckabee wasn’t the only one who didn’t react all too well: Barack Obama didn’t handle it well either.
Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan both rightfully say that Obama sounded cold, and came across as if he really didn’t care that much about Bhutto’s death or… if he does, that he simply has great trouble dealing with a sudden crisis like this.
Buchanan is also exactly right - which shows that he has more experience than Obama and Huckabee in this regard - when he says that it’s not about democracy in Pakistan right now but about order.
The reason that Obama and Edwards as well seem to have trouble dealing with this crisis is, according to the experts that they are agents of change, while Bhutto’s death doesn’t inspire people to call for change but for stability.
Taylor Marsh isn’t the only liberal blogger who has blasted Obama for his reaction: my friend Pamela Leavey - who doesn’t endorse any one of the candidates as far as I know - writes that “if this is the best Obama can offer, I’m not impressed and sadly would agree with Chris Matthews ‘cold’ assertion.”
And if that’s not enough, Obama spokesman Axelrod joined the fun:
Did Hillary Clinton kill Benazir Bhutto? Not quite, though Barack Obama’s right hand man thinks she may have had something to do with it.
“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq,” David Axelrod said, speaking of Hillary “which we would submit, is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today. So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.”
They’re botching this one tremendously, aren’t they?
Aside from these two, however, a third person responded in a ridiculous way to the assassination: Congressman Ron Paul seemed to blame America.
If you don’t believe me, you can watch the video by clicking here. His view? The American support for Musharraf “annoys” fundamentalists, who then go on and kill their opponents (via Charles Johnson).
That’s just sad.
Anyway, this post is long enough as it is, therefore one question to my American friends: please, please, elect someone with foreign policy experience this time or at the very least someone who isn’t clueless about these matters.
David wrote:
The big problem with the Paul disengagement from the world scenario is that world history has usually involved the rise and fall of empires. When the US troops go home it is not likely that they will be replaced by locals. The more likely scenario is that they will be replaced by the troops of whichever empire is going to supercede the US. An embargo on foreign intervention could mean hostile foreigners on your borders. Imagine how safe the US would be if Canada or Mexico were hostile states. This is really a policy of suicide by installments. I wonder if Paul supports unilateral nuclear disarmament as the logic is quite similar…."
You are correct, the world is full of empires that have risen and fallen. We currently have a world empire which we can’t afford. We are bogged down in the Middle East and it is bankrupting us. We will fall if we continue our world expansion - it is a fact. Every empire in history has ended in financial ruin.
As for what would happen if we pulled our troops home. Let China or whoever take our place in the Middle East - they will face the same struggles militarily and economically that we do now. It happened to the Soviet Union and they fell. It’s happening to us. China’s economy is booming right now - we borrow 3 Billion per day from them. We need to take care of our country and stop policing the world. We have no moral authority or economic means to do it.
I never said it was evil that the jihadists use propaganda and scapegoat tactics. In fact I do think this is human nature- the leaders of movements often do use it in sinister ways though, and I think there probably are dual motivations within our own leadership (some actually formulating policy based on actual belief about threats and some overplaying the threat in order to gain and keep power.)
Now, why no jihad against Switzerland or Canada? Because there is no logic in that. But the problem is that it’s not just because those countries don’t interfere, it’s because they also don’t influence cultures around the globe. Read about Qutb for example, and you’ll see that the threat that is perceived among Islamic fundamentalist leaders isn’t just that the West interferes politically, it’s also that our culture is incompatible with their desire for a religious caliphate. When Muslim youth are exposed to the attractions of Western freedoms, the fear is that they will no longer hold to fundamentalist beliefs which are incompatible with freedom.
That’s where the logic of the US pulling back falls apart; even if we never again interfere politically or militarily, we still have a culture which is incompatible with the type of culture that fundamentalists want to enforce in their own lands.
Its the direction the party is moving, but it is by no means representative or explanatory of the coalition that historically puts Republicans in power. We will have to see how things go, but the turn toward statist & organic change over American idealism is indicating a huge popularity loss for the Republican party…
I’m not saying that the Burkean camp doesn’t exist in a few forms, I’m just saying that it won’t win very many elections over here.
USSR attempted it when it was already nearly bankrupt, and nothing that any of you have said has convinced me that we’re in a similar position of weakness. USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire, not just to remove dictators and then attempt to manipulate the populations toward democracies that would be friendly trading partners and allies.
Robert E: Interesting example, the Cuban missile crisis. Do you really think that that example of negotiation can be removed from the backdrop of other Cold War policies? Negotiations can only succeed toward protecting our interests if we negotiate from a position of strength.
libertarian: the statism has been adopted largely by the former fiscal conservatives, who sold their soul to compete with the big government promises of the Democrats. Hopefully they’ve learned that this was a mistake, but they’ll also need to realize that they’re going to have to regain the ‘highground’ in that regard, and blaming it all on the resurgence of social conservatives (who’ve mainly been used by the party, not really given anything in return for their support of GOP candidates) is not going to help the fiscal conservatives regain credibility. The two factions need to make peace and find their common ground again rather than one trying to scapegoat the other or force each other out of the party.
C Stanley wrote:
"That’s where the logic of the US pulling back falls apart; even if we never again interfere politically or militarily, we still have a culture which is incompatible with the type of culture that fundamentalists want to enforce in their own lands."
I’m sorry, but if that is the logic that you have on why terrorism exists then you and I will never see eye to eye on this. They don’t hate us because of the music we listen to, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear… those countries you listed, Canada and Switzerland, they have very similar cultures as us. We’re not the only country in the world that is "Westernized" so if they really want to overtake the world why do they not attack other countries? Seems they would be easier since the security is likely less…
Britian, our biggest ally and supporter in the war in Iraq, has had suicide bombings recently. Why do you think that is? Is it because of their "influence" on the world with their way of life, or do you think it might be because they’re also heavily involved in the affairs of the Middle East?
Please, go read the writings of Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s unit for tracking and capturing Bin Laden. He has a book out now called Imperial Hubris, and an earlier one called Through Our Enemies Eyes: Osama Bin Laden…. that talks about terrorism and why it exists and why we will never defeat it until we understand the root cause.
Go read the 9/11 Commission Report - please. All of these writings detail how our occupation leads to terrorism.
C Stanley wrote:
"USSR attempted it when it was already nearly bankrupt, and nothing that any of you have said has convinced me that we’re in a similar position of weakness. USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire, not just to remove dictators and then attempt to manipulate the populations toward democracies that would be friendly trading partners and allies."
"USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire…" What exactly do you think we’re doing? We have 700 military bases overseas in over 130 countries. We’re building 14 military bases right now in Iraq and an embassy bigger than the Vatican. We have a world empire. It will collapse. They always do. We’re no different than any other society througout history.
Our dollar is falling everyday, we are over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt and growing, inflation is causing prices to go up faster than the cost of living raises, the housing market is critical… how much further do you want it to go before you say wait a minute, maybe we are in trouble? I guess when we have to carry a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread like they did in Germany, maybe then we’ll realize something is wrong and we should’ve stopped our spending.
We can ignore it all we want, it’s not going to stop it from happening. No empire ever thinks they’re going to crumble, but pick up a history book, they always do.
J Bradford: I have read all of the sources you suggest and I’ve come to very different conclusions. Again, I think you are just as much cherrypicking on the root causes as are people who completely ignore the effects of US policy. You see it completely as though the whole problem wouldn’t exist if not for our policies, while I see a more balanced view that includes the motivations of other players who’d choose to dominate the middle east if we weren’t thwarting their plans to do so.
You only have to look at Afghanistan as an example. When the USSR was defeated, we walked away. How’d that work out? Did those who ‘hated the USSR for it’s intervention’ then remain content to sit back and let Afghanistan become a peaceful and prosperous nation? No, they took the opportunity to establish a brutal theocracy and to use it as a safe haven to train terrorists and plan attacks against their other perceived enemy, the US. I suppose your belief is that if the US wasn’t perceived as the enemy, they wouldn’t have done this, but you’re still left explaining how it’s morally acceptable to allow thugs like the Taliban to take control of a country and how the US pulling back from it’s involvement there wasn’t viewed in a benevolent fashion but instead was used against us. You’ve already admitted that there would be a time period during which we wouldn’t be trusted; how is it that you’d expect any different reaction during that time than what we’ve already experienced in Afghanistan? Just because Ron Paul says that America is changing its tune doesn’t mean that our enemies will believe this, and he (and you) still have to explain how it is that we’ll deal with those who’ll take advantage during that time period.
<< Negotiations can only succeed toward protecting our interests if we negotiate from a position of strength. >>
If you can think of anything stronger than the US military with all its troops and weapons capability at home instead of spread all over hell’s acre and a well armed general population to boot, I’d sure like to hear about it.
I think there’s quite a few options in between the polar opposite positions of all of our troops being deployed and spread thin as we now have and the other extreme of having all troops at home with no bases around the world. It’s that kind of black and white thinking that I object to from Paulites- it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
Oh and lest I forget, the money, the constitutional authority and the will to issue letters of marque, when needed to go after someone like Osama Bin Laden swiftly and mercylessly.
<< I think there’s quite a few options in between the polar opposite positions of all of our troops being deployed and spread thin as we now have and the other extreme of having all troops at home with no bases around the world. >>
Nobody, certainly not Ron Paul has said anything about refusing to have a few small, strategically useful bases around the world, as long as it is purely by invitation, for benign defensive purposes and never in order to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs.
What we are about is closing the bases which are maintained for bellicose nation building or other lofty "world police" purposes at unbelievable cost to the US public with little more to show for it than one form of negative blow-back or another.
C,
So you’ve read Michael Scheurer, who flat out states that they hate us for our occupation, and came away with a different conclusion? There’s nothing to conclude there - the head guy in the CIA responsible for Bin Laden states that he hates us for our intervention and you concluded something different than that?
Your example of Afghanistan is full of inaccuracies. Afghanistan could have become a peaceful nation if we had left the entire Middle East. The Taliban grew there because we remained in Saudia Arabia and other countries. Why are we responsible for "thugs" in another country? We are not the police of Afghanistan. We have our own "thugs" here at home to take care of. Talk about moral responsibility - our government does not have the moral authority to take from you and I to intervene in Afghanistan. We create the thugs you talk about in these countries anyway - we arm and fund them and then fight them 20 years later. Look at Pakistan - our involvement there has done nothing but escalate the tensions.
There are more terrorists in the Middle East now than before the Iraq war started. How do you explain that? Do you think they all jumped on board because our western way of life suddenly became more popular, making them all want to kill us all that much more, or could it be that our bombing and occupation of 2 of their countries allows the hatred for us to grow and allows them to recruit members so much easily?
America’s tune isn’t chaning because Ron Paul says it is - it’s changing because people like me are tired of the BS that our government and media try and feed us into believing that we need them to protect us from "terrorists." It’s propoganda just like you say the Islamists are using in their country and people need to wake up and realize what’s really going on in the world.
The rest of the world won’t believe anything we say, we have to prove it to them. Will there be terrorism after we leave? Yes, but we will be much safer with the incentive for them to do it gone, and our troops home PROTECTING our country instead of 130 others around the world.
After all this discussion of our world empire - if you truly believe we should be asserting force and influence like we do today, please tell me how you propose we keep funding it? Whether you agree with a non-interventionist foreign policy or not, there is no denying we can’t afford it, so I want to know what you propose we do? People who like our intervening in other’s internal affairs can argue until they’re blue in the face at how we have to fight the terrorists, but I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me how we can afford it. Can you?
One other point about Michael Scheuer. I hate to keep bringing him up, but since he was in the CIA for 22 years and responsible for Bin Laden, I think he is a pretty accurate source for all of this.
His book, Imperial Hubris, is told from Bin Laden’s perspective. In it, he states why 9/11 happened and why we will continue to be attacked… some of those reasons are our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, our support of Israel, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and our support of Russia, China, and India - all countries who oppress Muslims.
Back in September of this year, Bin Laden put out a videotape that stated that if anyone wanted to understand why the United States is losing the war on terror they should read Imperial Hubris.
"We are under attack by Islamic militants for what we do in the world - not for who we are or what we believe in." - Michael Scheuer
How can we fail to ignore this? Bin Laden is spelling it out for us and we turn a blind eye.
Oh! Now you’ve done it, J Bradford.
You’ve given them an opportunity to pass over your earlier question. So I’m going to repeat it, just to make sure that doesn’t happen:
"People who like our intervening in other’s internal affairs can argue until they’re blue in the face at how we have to fight the terrorists, but I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me how we can afford it. Can you?"
Well, where are the answers? The silence is absolutely deafening so far on this one.
Haha… sorry Robert, I guess I should’ve waited for a reply but it seems everyone got "busy" and couldn’t write anymore. Too funny…
Christine at 61- you mean there may be some truth in the middle???? :) I’m shocked. Of course you’re right. It just takes someone who’s more interested in listening than talking.
"Russia, China, and India - all countries who oppress Muslims."
I can see India being less than fair (although isn’t that more like a sad cycle of revenge and mutual hostility) and Russia have Chechnya on their conscience. But China? Isn’t China just rasist at most? And what degree of support can be said to be justified as a source of anger in fair-minded or at least justice-seeking muslims?
"We are under attack by Islamic militants for what we do in the world - not for who we are or what we believe in." - Michael Scheuer
In my eyes we are seeing a mixture of blowback and pure evilness that wants to undo toleration, secularism, modernity and diversity.
Kreiz and Christine - the only black and white thinking I see going on here is labeling Paulites as extremists by wanting our troops home. Sure there is middle ground for having all our troops abroad versus having them here at home, but you have to look at the reasoning for wanting to bring them home. It’s economic reasons more than anything.
Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy for several reasons. The first being that it creates hatred towards us - like in the Middle East. The other part, and bigger part, of it are our bases in such places like Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Why are we there? We are not "meddling" in their internal affairs per se like we are in the Middle East, but it is costing us billions of dollars to be there. We are going bankrupt funding a world-wide army. Why does my money go to have our military in Europe? They have a good economy, let them have their own military there. It makes no sense.
So, back to my earlier question, those of you who support our world-wide empire, or those of you opposed to Paul’s views, how do you propose we continue to pay for it?
The stock answer for that one is something like this:
-Deficits don’t matter
-You’re imagining that inflation (CPI says you need to substitute cheaper products)
-Social Security & Medicare are fine
-Lower interest rates again
-More tax cuts
-Borrow more money
-Subsidize those driven to poverty
-Repeat infinitely, because this cycle is sustainable (haha /s)
<chirp, chirp>
Wow, you talk about money around here and everyone up and leaves. I feel like I’m in a Baptist church…
So does this mean that everyone wants to conquer the world but no one has a clue how to pay for it? Or do you have such an elaborate plan that you’ve been typing for 4 hours now? I can’t wait to read it…
<chirp, chirp>
Oh, geez. I went offline to actually live a real life and came back to check to see how the conversation was going. I see that instead of realizing that people not responding might mean that they have other things to do than have blog discussions all day, some folks have assumed that I chose not to respond. I’m not interested in playing those games, folks. I think most regular readers here know that I will generally return to answer questions or continue discussions, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment and I’ve lost my interest in this one anyway.
Ding, ding…. looks like we have a new "stock" answer, libertarian. Now it’s that they "don’t have time" and "lost their interest."
I guess that clears it up for us folks who thought you "chose not to respond."
Ok, so now that we’ve got our plan on how to fund an American empire - which is apparenlty by avoiding the question totally - we can all move along. Nothing to see here folks. Somehow our foreign policy will pay for itself.
Whew… and I was worried for a second we might go bankrupt. Good to know those in such favor of wars of agression have a sound plan to pay for them. I can sleep peacefully tonight…
LOL, unbelievable. I’ve heard Paulites say it’s not true that most of them are young kids, but when I see discussions like this one I have to believe that’s who I’m dealing with (do any of the Paul supporters here actually have any family obligations, for example, or do you stay at your computer 24-7? And have you no idea that blog etiquette requires you to assume that the people you’re conversing with might have to leave their computer, so you don’t accuse them of having no response to your questions if they aren’t there to respond ?)
I shouldn’t dignify this with a response, but I will nonetheless:
First, I need to know whether you actually make a distinction, or do you really believe that it’s a choice between Paul’s policy of bringing all troops home or else we’re supporting a world-wide empire? Because it’s important to know if you understand that there’s a difference between maintaining an empire and maintaining bases around the world in countries that actually want us there and want us to help provide their own defense. If you don’t believe that, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
However, assuming you can grasp the difference, I’d say that funding issues need to be handled by cutting out the massive fraud and waste in military spending (by banning earmarks and creating much stricter ethical guidelines for Congress, to prevent them from having family members benefit from military contracts, for example.) Add to that cuts in domestic spending (which is where most of our spending excess has been; despite large amounts of spending on current wars, we’re still just making up for the cuts that took place in the 90s and much of that would be necessary to restore our military anyway.)
And since you’re so insistent on me answering your questions, how about you guys actually answer mine about proving that our economy is really on the verge of collapse as you seem to believe. I’ve already stated that one reason I don’t buy into Paul’s philosophy is that I simply don’t believe that our GDP is a false creation. Once again, you guys seem to make a black and white picture where people either believe what you believe (that we’re about to collapse) or we ignore real problems. Once again, there is a world of grey in between the black and white, and many of us see real problems with our economy but we don’t believe the sky is falling. If you think people should view the world the way you do, then you have to provide evidence, not just make accusations that everything we’ve been told about the economy is a fabrication of our government.
Sorry to inform you C Stanley, but I’m not a kid, and most of the Ron Paul supporters I know aren’t either. They’re actually some of the most educated, informed voters our there. My joking response to your post that you were too busy to comment on the post was because you acted like a child taking his ball and going home when he didn’t get his way. You were quick to respond all day long yesterday until you get posed a tough question. Then you come back and say you’ve "grown tired" of the discussion. Umm, ok.
To your statement about it being between being a world-wide empire or doing as Paul wants and bring our troops home - in this case it is black and white. He is the only one talking about bringing our troops home, every other candidate wants the status quo, and some even want a further expansion.
Further than that, it’s really Paul’s belief that we need a change in our foreign policy altogether. I get the feeling you think Paul wants to up and bring all our troops home the first week he’s in office. He wants to change our policy towards intervention immediately, bring the troops out of Iraq, and work to bring troops home from over 130 countries. Will all of them be removed? Of course not. There are places in the world where our military is wanted - but OUR tax dollars shouldn’t be paying for it. If a country wants our military presence in their country, I feel they should pay for it to be there, not me.
As far as our economy, we have over a 9 trillion dollar deficit that is growing everyday. Our dollar has declined to the point that it is worth less than the Canadian dollar - it is worth 4 cents compared to when the Fed was created in 1913. We borrow 3 billion dollars per day to fund our foreign affairs. Inflation is rising about 5 times faster than the cost of living raises.
At what point do we say enough is enough? Our economy may not collapse today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now - but if we do not change our course it will collapse. I care about my kids and do not want to burden them and their children for our foolishness. We print money out of thin air to pay for our extravagant foreign and domestic policies and it is ruining our country. The only reason our money today has any value is due to the amount of it in circulation, it is backed by nothing. The Fed creates ups and downs by adding and removing money from circulation. It is an insane system. Inflation is a hidden tax that robs the middle class. The middle class gets smaller and smaller every day. There are more rich people and more poor people than every before. The same events happened in Germany and it will happen here. You can choose to ignore it all you want but it won’t stop it from happening.
You also say you want to cut spending domestically? How do you propose we do that? It’s easy to say "cut spending" but you have to elaborate, you sound like some of the candidates running for president. All talk and no substance.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree we should cut spending domestically, but foreign expenditures are the place we can begin cutting immediately. Our society has become so dependent on some of our social programs that it will take a long time to ween people off of them.
Nonsense, C Stanley. Your comment below about earmarks is complete poppycock.
<< … funding issues need to be handled by cutting out the massive fraud and waste in military spending (by banning earmarks and creating much stricter ethical guidelines for Congress … >>
Banning earmarks would only shift the authority for distribution of already approved spending from Congress to (executive branch) bureaucrats. A fat lot of good that would do.
Earmarks are actually the only way for local communities - through the efforts of their elected representatives - to ensure that some of the money taken from them in the form of taxation is returned for their benefit.
Better by far, to have the money spent on some community boondoggle, if that’s what it is, than to have it got to some Mandarin’s pet project.
Excellent point Robert E - “banning earmarks” does nothing to the budget, the money is already approved. It only “EARMARKS” it for a specific purpose.