Gordon Brown Channels Richard Nixon

In a speech only Richard Nixon could love, Gordon Brown outlined Britain’s (and apparently the U.S.’s) new policy toward the war in Afghanistan. The PM conjures the term “Afghanisation”. The policy's relation to Richard Nixon? For those of us old enough to remember, Nixon tried the same thing with a regime that the U.S. had installed (President Thieu), by questionable election, and the result was Nixon’s policy of Vietnamization, which was the replacement of foreign with native troops which we had trained, and the result? The collapse of the Thieu regime a scant 18 months after the last Americans were pulled out. Does the PM, and by extension Mr. Obama, seriously believe that this is a viable policy? I very much doubt it. Like Nixon, we find ourselves in a war that we have lost politically, and we will not pay the cost required in terms of lives to make good on the promises the U.S. had made.

It is nice to know that the change we voted for can be summed up on the words of an old Who song:

“Here is the new boss, same as the old boss”

When will we learn?

Rhetorical Hypnosis?

The announcement of the Nobel Committee of President Obama’s name was created with stunned looks and jaws dropped. International reaction has been, to say the least, muted, to say the most, astounded. I had two words to my wife this morning: “For what!?”

Indeed the past U.S. Presidents who have won the prize, both sitting: T. Roosevelt for the Treaty of Portsmouth, 1906, and Woodrow Wilson for the Treaty of Versailles in 1920; and non sitting, Jimmy Carter for his long term peace efforts and the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty of 1978. These were for tangible endings to terrible conflicts.

Now we have President Obama, and it is telling some of what was in the Nobel Committee’s announcement. This is a piece of the press release:

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

It is an expression of the hope engendered by Mr. Obama, and not the reality. I cannot help but be reminded of Wilson’s entry into Paris in January 1919 in which he was greeted with delirious delight by the war weary French and English. Once he got down to the hard task of winning the peace, he found that the men he was dealing with were men who were not swayed by Rhetoric, but by the political and security realities of near bankruptcy, and material devastation brought on by four years of World War.

Mr. Obama now finds himself in a similar situation, he has soared on the wings of rhetoric, raised the expectation that there has been a change in U.S. policy, and the World awaits to see, and perhaps cash in on either the achievement or the disappointment which will come in time. The peril of Mr. Obama’s position should be clear to anyone who wishes for a successful U.S. foreign policy. For the first time since 9/11, a U.S. President has been granted the precious commodity of moral authority. Mr. Obama can squander it like his predecessor, or he can be dazzled by it like Mr. Wilson, or he profit by it, as did Theodore Roosevelt.

What are required here are a tempered and pragmatic response, statesmanship and not vision. Win the peace by asserting U.S. interest. Do not squander the peace by being hypnotized by prestige. Mr. Obama, for once, be a pragmatist and treat this as an opportunity. An opportunity like this may never come again.

If you do not believe me . . . ask the Ghost of Woodrow Wilson, or call up Mr. Carter. For heaven’s sake, do not use the term “Axis” in your Nobel speech.

Obama the Cheerleader. . . .

So now we have gone to Copenhagen and for what?, a European Summit?, to meet the Russians?, nope, to lobby for the old hometown to get the Olympics. The result?, Chicago comes in dead last, and rightly so. While I am supportive of the ideals of the Olympic movement, I do not see how this is a useful expenditure of Presidential time. Not with Afghanistan, the European Union, and the German Elections, and well, you get the picture. . . . The German election which has gotten almost no time in the U.S. Press was the subject of live coverage on BBC America's morning broadcast. While Merkel's vote totals declined 3% from the 2005 election the implosion of the Left opposition SPD, coupled with the rise of the FDP on the right shows the beginnings of a deteriorating Center in German Politics. The FDP has been a factor in West German and German politics since the 1960's. However, the decline of the SPD is far more worrisome, and the rise of a party consisting of the former communists of East Germany who support withdrawal from NATO, among other things, should give the U.S. pause. The Daily Telegraph has a decent write up on this phenomenon. Yet the U.S. reaction has been curiously muted, neither Republicans nor Democrats seem much interested in the doings of Europe, even though developments there should warrant greater attention in the U.S. Press. The last significant U.S. press comment appears to be about the U.S. bagging its commitment to a missile shield in Eastern Europe. This is not a bad idea, however, the political handling of the situation with the nations of Eastern Europe leaves much to be desired. The New York Times analysis is a case in point. The Times shows the technological limitations of such contraption, however, it soft peddles the political fall out. To wit:

"For Mr. Obama it is a step fraught with some risk. With hours of his announcement, charges were flying that in his first major confrontation with the Russians, he had back down, giving Moscow's opposition to the Bush plan to place missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic."

The in suing discussions in the press, and the reactions occurring in the various European capitals indicate that there was a lack of political preparation, and may have damaged U.S. standing in a part of the world which has backed U.S. interests. Yet, it appears that the Obama Administration has placed Europe on the back burner, and in the process, is frittering away the large store of good will that Obama came into office with.

Britain will now be clamouring for Mr. Obama's attention, now that Ireland has approved the Lisbon Treaty, and places Britain in a ticklish position politically with the newly empowered European Union. How will the U.S. deal with this? No one really knows, because the U.S. State Department has not commented, nor does there appear to be any ongoing consultations.

This is just the tip of the series of foreign policy conundrums faced by any U.S. administration at this time. Neither Republicans or Democrats seem the least bit interested in this. The lack of a domestic constituency keenly interested in foreign policy continues to hamper the United States in the post cold war era. We are still looking for an enemy to keep us awake at night, and we do not have one. Coherent foreign policy starts with an inventory of U.S. resources, and a serious discussion of our interests and priorities. We in the U.S. have been treated to a reactive foreign policy lacking in clear vision since the end of the cold war. While the Cold War vision was lacking for many things, at least, it had the virtue of setting the parameters for debate. Currently we do not even have that. We have the threat of the moment, the war of the moment, but no one seems to be able to tell the American people where they are going, and where they belong.

What about the U.N? Mr. Obama gave a nice speech, done in the middle of the U.S. working day, and most people got the 30 second summary on the national news. In listening to the speech it was full of subtle rhetorical flourishes, and some grounds for discussion. However, I heard exactly one comment about in the office. The comment was: "Obama wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons". If that is all that got through from the speech, then the nation, still has a problem.

Common sense foreign policy does not exist in the U.S. The policy making establishment has yet to create a common vision that will win broad support. It need to happen, it needs to happen now.