Obama's Advisers are Making the Decisions on Economic Policy, Reason for Thanksgiving. Obama Himself Makes the Decisions on Iran and Other Foreign Issues, No Reason for Thanksgiving at All

Rubin's article does not explain why the President is soft on all the bullies, but tough on the only democracy in that benighted region.

I think this plain speaking Israeli minister got it quite right, even though it was not diplomatic of her to do so:

"Livnat, who was addressing Likud activists in Beersheva, explained the prime minister is under enormous pressure from the White House, explaining she does not feel comfortable with the unilateral declaration of a construction freeze throughout Yehuda and Shomron, emphasizing the move will not earn the appreciation of those involved. At the end of the day she explains, Israel will be the bad guy once again, questioning the validity of the move.

She went on to state the American administration is tormenting Israel, and the situation is not an easy one.

The Prime Minister’s Office did not waste time distancing itself from the MK’s statements, stating Livnat in no way represent’s government policy, going as far to thank the White House for its unwavering commitment to Israel’s continued security.

Responding to media quotes of her remarks, she stated she did not recall using the word “awful” in relation to the Obama administration, explaining she spoke of the immense pressure and the rigidity of the current American administration."

Obama's marshmallow treatment of Muslim dictatorships defies comprehension. I mean, it's not as if anyone for a moment suspects that there is an iron will under that velvet glove. It's as if he considers these regimes as inevitable and unreformable as a force of nature.

I think he is just the right president to navigate the US away from its leading role of promoting democracy and human rights in the world. In three years he can all but accomplish this and truth be told, I am not sure many Americans do not aspire to arrive at the post-American era, enough to vote him into office a second time.

While many Spinesters (thanks bl) get livid when they read some of Marty's comments on foreign policy some other liberal bloggers seem to credit Marty and his magazine for bringing important issues up for discussion. An example:

"The things we think and do not say
Somewhere in the field of American foreign policy there is room for a paper with the title of that document with which Tom Cruise's character Jerry MacGuire began a major career transition. The subject of the paper would be human rights catastrophes in what used to be known as the Third World, particularly the genocide in Darfur.

What do we think but do not say? Well, for starters, we think that Arabs do not care very much about human rights. To be more precise, and more accurate, Arabs feel deep and genuine outrage when an Arab male is treated with something less than respect by a non-Arab and especially by a Jew; Arabs mistreated by other Arabs are of less concern. Non-Arabs being shot, blown-up, gang-raped or starved by Arabs are no problem at all, whether they are Muslim or not and perhaps especially if they are black Africans....."

Reas it all:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002255.html

See also,

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/

and scoll down to this post:

"Darfur, the Arab world, and the alleged international community - Some things we think but do not say (Joseph Britt)

Back in August 2005 Joseph Britt, who was guest-posting for a while on Dan Drezner's old blog, wrote a penetrating piece that cut right through a lot of prevailing bullshit, evasiveness, and pseudo-sophisticated doubletalk. What he had to say was important and on-target then ... and I am reminded it of because it remains important and on-target now....."

...Not even on Afghanistan, where the president has made a politically pragmatic decision that will satisfy no one. I don't believe, despite his sloganeering during the campaign, that he I don't believe, despite his sloganeering during the campaign, that he ever believed that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. He was stuck with this war, and the least of it the better. That's about 30,000 troops,...

This is about as bad an indictment as can be brought against your President: playing politics with the lives of your military. I'm not ready to convict on the indictment, but it is a terrible, terrible indictment.

basman, I think that is horsepucky. General Eikenberry was the former Commander Afghanistan and is now Ambassador, his advice was opposite than McChrystals. Who is to say who is right? You? Marty? Funny how it is people would have agreed with McChrystal when it is what they would likely have believed if there had been no McChrystal at all. As to me, I haven't gotten a frigging clue who is right. So Marty calls it a politically pragmatic decision that will satisfy no one.... provided that no one is Marty. As to myself, it satisfies me for now because I at least will wait to see the fruits of this. I supported the surge in Iraq while every Democrat was losing their head about it, not because I was sure it would work, but because it made sense to try. This solution of Obama's fits that category, not throwing an unlimited amount of lives and money, but incrementally increasing troop levels to find the results.

And it is funny how Marty is completely ignoring the recent pronouncement out of China, as a result of the trip that Marty said was a complete failure, that they would set a target to reduce emissions. Before, need I remind anyone, China always insisted that as a developing nation they should be exempt from emissions standards until they reach a significant point of development. Believe you me, they are not saying they have reached that point, and I am not saying I trust the Chinese (the government can't even control the emissions in the countryside) what I am saying is that Marty just sees what he wants to see.

By the way, the Obama administration negotiated a compromise in Honduras, imperfect though it is, it seems likely that the country will not devolve into any civil war, so that was also another accomplishment.

As to Iran, thank God Marty ain't President, because we would now be involved in a huge war in Iran as well. Yes, I know he thinks a few bombs would cause the regime to fall, the nuclear program to disintegrate, and Iran will become the garden of eden with american troops welcomed with flowers.

When the the usually supportive N.Y. Times in an editorial and Roger Cohen (of all people) in an op ed piece

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24iht-edcohen.html?pagewanted=...

start criticizing Obama's foreign policy his supporters should start worrying.

Blackton, you may be misreading me or I may be misreading you.

But my small point and post went only to the nature of the indictment: the jury in my head is still deliberating over the charge.

basman, I think that Obama is playing politics is horsepucky. My problem was in my next sentence when I asked who is right? The you was meant to be a generalized you but I probably should not have added it since it implied I thought you thought you the same as Marty.

I honestly can't say I am disappointed in Obama's foreign policy is because I never had an "appointment" with him in the first place. What I see is pretty much a continuation of the last two years of the Bush foreign policy with more mushy rhetoric. The only thing different is I think Bush would probably have come to the same decision as Obama on Afghanistan, only quicker (remember Bush was the one who didn't commit more troops to Iraq for years and years, and probably learned his own lesson from that)

Best line from Cohen's piece:

"Before coming up to Canada’s Atlantic provinces, where the nicest people in this nice country are said to live..."

I'd myself remove "are said to" and leave it at that.

Why do otherwise -- I'm making an assumption here -- otherwise intelligent individuals believe that being a supporter of the Obama presidency necessarily involves uncritical endorsement of every single decision or non-decision?

I think most TNR posters who supported Obama (and probably the majority did) are adults who (a) have their own hopes and visions but also (b) understand the nature of political decision-making in the real world. It's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed in/critical of/uncertain about various paths the White House has taken while being pretty relieved that this is the president and VP we have instead of the alternative that was on offer.

And could I point out that the situation we have in Afghanistan today is the direct result of years of policy confusion, deliberate inattention, and unforgiveable complacency on the part of the U.S., for which the current administration -- not yet 12 months in office -- cannot be held culpable.

ironyroad
"Why do otherwise -- I'm making an assumption here -- otherwise intelligent individuals believe that being a supporter of the Obama presidency necessarily involves uncritical endorsement of every single decision or non-decision?"

It doesn't. His critics are concerned about a style of decision-making as well as a tendency to not to confront tyrannical regimes.

Do you support his policies on Iran or the Sudan?

Concerns are legitimate, JD, but if they shade into wrongheaded assumptions they lose their own credibility.

Iran? Broadly yes, but I'd like a little more fire in support of the democratic opposition (although I also recognize the danger of tarring them with an overly U.S.-friendly brush and enabling the regime to play the national paranoia card yet again).

Sudan? I think no, but to be honest I haven't been following that question with a lot of attention. One things seems to be sure: Scott Graton is an embarrassment.

Now you -- do you believe that the Afghanistan problem should have been solved by Obama in ten months after the Bush administration let it drift for six years?

News flash: Obama has failed to resolve several long-term, intractable problems. Seriously, leaving aside fantasy world options like invading Iran, saturating Afghanistan with a few hundred thousand American troops and exterminating the Taliban, a bloodless invasion and occupation of Sudan, or whatever else, did any of you really think these problems could be solved in less than a year?

Here's a link to an article in the current Economist on the efficacy of Obama's foreign policy forays.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14961345&sour...

Blackton, more seriously, here from Cohen’s op ed is the beginning of a formulation of part of the argument that supports the charge that Obam is or was playing politics with the Afghani war.

The clarity of March yielded to the cloudiness of fall and the long think has, in the words here of John McCain, “sounded an uncertain trumpet.” Peter MacKay, the Canadian defense minister, said the hesitation was “not helpful” because “everyone has hit the pause button until the U.S. decision.”

The argument is why did Obama in March 2009 implement his campaign commitment to Afghanistan by appointing his new general and deploying 20,000 troops and then reaffirm that commitment in his August 2009 speech? What changed so quickly after that that has has him not having made a decision until now? How do we see what he did in March and rhetorically re affirmed in August in light of all the time he has taken? What did he so suddenly learn different from what he just so previously understood? To put the argument in the form of a question parallel to the question with which witnesses are confronted on a cross examination when they testify differently under oath than they previously have: Is Obama playing politics now or was he playing politics before with the lives of American troops.

As I say, I have an open mind because I cannot imagine a bigger act of presidential betrayal than sacrificing the lives of troops for political advantage. But I have never heard or read yet a convincing resolution of the conundrum between March/August 2009 and the last few months starting with the leak of his general’s assessment of the situation.

p.s It will be interesting to see how Obama explains his splitting the difference between sending 20,000 troops and 40,000 troops, if the reports of that splitting are true. The cynics will say that that is typical him: giving something to everyone.

irony, "...And could I point out that the situation we have in Afghanistan today is the direct result of years of policy confusion, deliberate inattention, and unforgiveable complacency on the part of the U.S., for which the current administration -- not yet 12 months in office -- cannot be held culpable."

Policy confusion, deliberate inattention, and unforgiveable complacency... seems to me that Obama's foreign policy performance to date represents continuity between administrations.

basman, ""Before coming up to Canada’s Atlantic provinces, where the nicest people in this nice country are said to live..."

I'd myself remove "are said to" and leave it at that."

I agree about the Maritimers...especially the folks on The Rock...the other nexus of national niceness is on the Prairies.

I strongly dispute the accusation of deliberate inattention, b. The big difference, indeed, is that this administration has some focus. They aren't just putting AfPak on the back burner because they have bigger fish to fry, e.g. invading Iraq.

Agree about The Rock. I loved my few days in St Johns last year. Sad to leave.

Irony, Fair nuff on inattention.. I think "temporizing" would be more accurate.

That's a fair question, jacksondyer.

Iran -- yes. Not because I think it will lead to a result we want, but because I think the alternatives are worse. The alternatives as I see them are either to make threats that will be revealed to be empty, or to invade Iran to topple the regime.

Sudan -- no, in theory. In practice, I think our plate is full and the alternatives are actually not much more numerous than those I listed for Iran, above.

Israel (bonus answer) -- Israel's settlement policy is a blot on its record. It amounts to Israel taking the land it wants while forcing out the people who lived there. Israel should not expect that there will be no consequences for this, even when the people they are expelling have an odious record. It really has to stop, whether or not that will "solve" Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. But Israel has been confronted by intractable problems not of its own making since 1948. It's just that supporting Israel overall does not mean uncritical support for everything Israel does.

bl1462, irony:

I was actually thinking about some of the people, and one in particular, who live/lives in a certain house on a certain street in Toronto.

Kidding aside, Maritimers are the salt of the earth, more down home and genuine than can be imagined.

There is the issue of the nutritional WMD known as cod scruncheons, of course . . .

"...I was actually thinking about some of the people, and one in particular, who live/lives in a certain house on a certain street in Toronto."

Don Cherry?

There is the issue of the nutritional WMD known as cod scruncheons, of course . . .

Ah, cod scruncheons. I can actually feel my arteries hardening even thinking about them!

Hey, basman, in my view Bush's entire Iraq adventure was at least as bad as your worst case of Presidential betrayal. I'm speaking here of the original decision to invade and its justification (and its use for electoral advantage), not of any later conduct once we were in.

Also, given that Obama already increased troop levels, and the question is how much more to increase them, I'm really not sure that the evidence supports even bringing the indictment. The fact that Obama has not done what some hawks would like is not, by itself, an indication that he is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. Nor is taking his time to make the (always ultimately political) decision of what our long-term strategy should be in a conflict that everyone agrees is not remotely a matter of national survival. As with many past conflicts, our involvement is a matter of national interest but not one in which unlimited military action and expenditure is automatically justified.

..."...I was actually thinking about some of the people, and one in particular, who live/lives in a certain house on a certain street in Toronto."

Don Cherry?..

Well I dress and talk as loudly as he does.

There's only one basman... hazeh!

"Sudan? I think no, but to be honest I haven't been following that question with a lot of attention."

That's a big help, Irony.

JEFF FREY

"Iran -- yes. Not because I think it will lead to a result we want, but because I think the alternatives are worse. The alternatives as I see them are either to make threats that will be revealed to be empty, or to invade Iran to topple the regime."

These are not the only alternatives.

"Sudan -- no, in theory. In practice, I think our plate is full and the alternatives are actually not much more numerous than those I listed for Iran, above."

In the meantime hudreds of thousands of people are being murdered there.

"Israel (bonus answer) -- Israel's settlement policy is a blot on its record. "

Yes, we know you hate Israel.

Still, the PM of that country has said that it would suspend all settlement acitivity for ten months in order to resume the peace process in the meantime the PA has responded by saying that it wasn't enough and threatened to launch another intifada which you will no doubt support.

As for Afghanistan ( and Pakistan which is a bigger problem) no one is asking Obama to solve the problems there in a few months.

"That's a big help, Irony."

JD, I don't see the point in pretending I'm totally familiar with the details of an issue when I'm not, just in order to provide a crisp answer.

I also asked you a question, btw, that you haven't responded to.

"Now you -- do you believe that the Afghanistan problem should have been solved by Obama in ten months after the Bush administration let it drift for six years?"

Irony, I did answer it in the post above.

Here is what I said:

As for Afghanistan ( and Pakistan which is a bigger problem) no one is asking Obama to solve the problems there in a few months.

Basman "What did he so suddenly learn different from what he just so previously understood?" How about fraudulent elections and the aforementioned advice given by General Eikenberry, the former Commander for 18 months of the combined forces, and now presently Ambassador. Say what you want, the guy is smart and arguably has the most experience on the ground of pretty much anybody, his advice shouldn't be dismissed.
Where is the reasoning against incrementally increasing troop levels (which, by the way given our stretched forces has also to be taken into consideration)? All I hear is Obama is playing politics, or splitting the difference, yada yada, but nowhere a point by point takedown of why this new policy is incorrect. And the reason why there isn't is because we simply don't have a crystal ball to predict if this approach will work. One thing I can predict is that if it does the present day detractors will claim it is all due to....everyone but Obama. I have publicly given credit to Bush for the success of the surge, that doesn't absolve him of previous mistakes, but people are faulting Obama for failures that haven't even happened yet (if they do in fact happen).

And I want to second Irony's statement about Obama's supporters. Criticize, sure, but break it down into how and why it is wrong.

Jeff Frey, please cite references where Israel is taking the homes and land of Palestinians and building on it. Seriously, this is no recrimination, because as far as I know the building is occurring on empty lots on hillsides, etc. I have seen the pictures of a lot of the places but I have not seen anything to indicate forcible evictions, etc.

As to the settlements themselves, I have zero problems with them if one day, however unlikely, there is peace between the two countries they have to learn to live amongst each other. Where is it written that only Arabs have the right to own land in Israel, but Jews have no such right to own land in the West Bank? The only thing Israelis have to accept is in the event of a peace treaty not unlike the 2000 one that some may one day be living in Palestinian territory.

JD: "As for Afghanistan ( and Pakistan which is a bigger problem) no one is asking Obama to solve the problems there in a few months."

Ok, a reasonable pov. I think "no one" is somewhat exaggerated, however, as there are folks who suddenly see lack of focus and letting things slide who never saw them between 2001 and 2008.

I certainly hold the view that Obama may end up, with justification, being judged on what happens in Af/Pak more than he would ever like, but he knew that when he took on this job. There are so many moving parts and so many pitfalls. But the prospect of finally neutralizing the Taliban and denying a new summer camp to Al Qaeda is tempting and would be to most presidents.

"Ok, a reasonable pov. I think "no one" is somewhat exaggerated, however, as there are folks who suddenly see lack of focus and letting things slide who never saw them between 2001 and 2008."

Please, Irony, the larger point is Obama's foreign policy in toto and not just towards one country.

irony, "...But the prospect of finally neutralizing the Taliban and denying a new summer camp to Al Qaeda is tempting and would be to most presidents."

Plus que ca change, plus que ca reste la meme chose... That prospect was indeed tempting to the previous president. I think iis a pretty succinct summation of the initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, per Bush's September 20, 2001 Speech to the Joint Session of Congress in which he laid out the following ultimatum to the then-Taliban government of Afghanistan:

"... - deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States authorities;

- release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens

- protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan

- close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"

- give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%...

PS to basman - The Hanukkah pun is intended as the highest compliment..

Blackton, your question is a fair one to ask. As far as I know the actual Israeli settlements are all on land not occupied by people's houses (I don't know if they have ever built on fields, orchards, etc, or not). I have two problems with the policy. (1) it is not actually Israel's land they are building on. (2) When Israel builds a wall around chosen settlements, or installs checkpoints and roadblocks, it has deprived Palestinians of access to their own fields, orchards, etc. This is undeniable whether or not they have explicitly taken over anyone's house. They are taking land that by internationally agreed borders belongs to someone else, settling their own citizens there, and isolating and marginalizing people who previously lived there.

I don't think Israel should stop the settlements because the Palestinans will respond positively to it, but because I think the policy is wrong (and was from the start).

Nevertheless, despite what JacksonDyer may think, I do not hate Israel, and I think it is not inconsistent to both support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and favor the US policy to support Israel in many ways, and yet also criticize Israel for a particular policy. There is actually a lot of space between uncritical support of everything Israel does, and hating Israel. There really is.

Jacksondyer, your comment about Sudan is correct. Millions have also died in the Congo (mostly from ordinary war, not genocide). I would prefer that the US did something about it, but I have not expected us to do anything about it (make of that what you will).

Please list what you think are realistic options against Iran that do not involve military attack, and do not depend on the cooperation of other powers that is not likely to come. (Serious request). I see a lot of indignation from various quarters that Obama is not doing anything about Iran, but I have not heard much in the way of realistic options that do not involve attacking Iran.

As for Israel, see my previous post. You are welcome to any opinion you like, but criticism does not equal hatred.

One more point, Blackton. Many Arabs own property in Israel -- for example, Israeli citizens who happen to be Arabs. Perhaps others who are not citizens also own property in Israel, which would be fine. Any business dealings between equals should be allowed (and encouraged), regardless of religion, background, etc. If a Palestinian sells property to an Israeli and there is no duress of any kind and the two parties are acting as equals with the same rights, there is nothing wrong with that at all. If I thought that was a fair description of the decades-long settlement process, and if I thought Israel conveyed equal rights and protections on all residents of the regions it is de facto annexing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

JEFF FREY “Please list what you think are realistic options against Iran that do not involve military attack, and do not depend on the cooperation of other powers that is not likely to come. (Serious request). I see a lot of indignation from various quarters that Obama is not doing anything about Iran, but I have not heard much in the way of realistic options that do not involve attacking Iran.”

Your list of options is too restrictive.

The US has many policy options in dealing with Iran but none of them will work if there isn’t the threat of sanctions and ultimately force behind them.

I also don’t agree that no other country will join the US in the use of force. The atomic energy commission just voted to sanction Iran:

“UN nuclear agency chastises Iran and paves way for sanctions” By Daniel Dombey in Washington

“The United Nations nuclear watchdog voted to censure Iran over its nuclear programme in a move that could pave the way for UN sanctions against Tehran in the new year….”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/966b1c5e-dbbd-11de-9424-00144feabdc0.html

It all depends on how it’s done.

In any case, the first thing Obama needs to do is reassure in strong and vivid language that the US supports their cause for democratization and will stand with them in their struggles against the theocratic regime.

"Nevertheless, despite what JacksonDyer may think, I do not hate Israel, and I think it is not inconsistent to both support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and favor the US policy to support Israel in many ways, and yet also criticize Israel for a particular policy. There is actually a lot of space between uncritical support of everything Israel does, and hating Israel. There really is."

Golly gosh, this is enlightning, Jeff Frey.

As if anyone here supports everything the Israeli government does.

Back to the real world. It doesn't matter why Israel has decided to stop settlement activity, they did so and it's up the PA to decide if they want a negotiated settlement or if their real aim is the destruction of Israel.

The only road to peace is a two State solution and the sooner all partied agree to negotiate a peace treaty the sooner the Palestinians will have their own State.

"In any case, the first thing Obama needs to do is reassure in strong and vivid language that the US supports their cause for democratization and will stand with them in their struggles against the theocratic regime."

I have no problem with that at all, JD, and I have been disappointed that the administration hasn't seen even the tactical use of a strong declaration of support for basic democratic principles, let alone the political and ethical grounds for standing with the democratic forces in Iran.

However, I believe that Obama wanted to keep channels open to the people who actually have power in Teheran on the issue that is ultimately more urgent, that of military nuclear development. Maybe he has to pay a price for this in the future, but I thought and still think it was the right set of priorities on several levels, and in any case it's not true that he let the election fraud pass without comment.

We are at a somewhat different place now. Now, the surly and recalcitrant party is the Iranian leadership, and that is a strategic advantage for us. It may be the case that both solving the nuclear issue and dismantling the theocratic regime will come about, dancing harmoniously together, on the other hand life is full of nasty surprises. We should not encourage the opposition to believe in large-scale American support just around the corner, as that is not the case. We have a responsibility to do things with a wider frame of reference than our own desire to feel good, as we are not the ones who suffer when it goes wrong.

Jackson, you are the one who jumped to the conclusion that I hate Israel because I dared to criticize an Israeli policy, so I will stand by my response to you, golly gosh or not. But I agree with you about the only road to peace and I hope the PA decides to take it at some point, soon I hope. I don't think either of us is going to hold our breath waiting for it.

I agree with much of your response about Iran, and you raise a fair objection to my scenario. A credible threat of force may be needed, and may or may not be enough so we should not threaten anything we are not really willing to do, or anything we would have to do alone without allies. I think a lot of patience will be required -- people remember the last time we were hot to attack someone. I recall the recent IAEC sanctions. and they are indeed very good news. However, it's not like Obama is trying to obstruct these sanctions. In fact, I think the overall cause of pressuring Iran is better served by these sanctions coming from a UN agency without being accompanied by loud US pressure. Russia might even lose patience with Iran (another don't hold your breath) as recent statements might indicate, but I think if a more active US role could be a negative on that front.

Bottom line -- patience is required, which is counter to Marty's implication here, and Obama's actions to date on Iran may prove to have been useful, not because the Iranians respond to them but because in time they help bring (enough of) the rest of the world to putting enough pressure on Iran. This is consistent what Obama said during the campaign about talking to Iran. Some people are upset because he has not bombed Iran yet or drawn a line in the sand and issued explicit threats -- I think such actions would be more likely to lead to violence and less likely to lead to success than what Obama has done so far.

In any case, he can and should be judged on long-term problems like this in the long term. Like Afghanistan, Iran will not be solved overnight.

irony: "Now, the surly and recalcitrant party is the Iranian leadership, and that is a strategic advantage for us."

Agreed. And the nuclear issue is more important than eliminating the theocratic regime. The regime might collapse, but I do not think it will collapse because of anything we do to it. If we set regime change as the goal, I think we will not get it, nor will we win on the nuclear issue (at least not peacefully).

PS. Anyone have a clue what triggers random CAPTCHA prompts? They seem to come and go randomly.

Ironyroad: "Now, the surly and recalcitrant party is the Iranian leadership, and that is a strategic advantage for us."

What is that "strategic advantage" that you keep imagining? In what way is the as yet unacknowledged realization of Iranian recalcitrance a "strategic" advantage?

I wonder how long and what exactly it takes to disabuse certain people of their interminable and expansive scepticism.

I would also say that those who are least likely to be targeted and harmed by a malevolent entity are those whose scepticisn lasts longest and maybe even indefinitely.

Can't help remembering that the anti-fascist propaganda in the US during the early forties was strangely devoid of any mention of what was being done to the Jews of Europe. It took the irrefutable evidence of the death camps coming to people's awareness in 1945 to finally be convinced that Hitler meant business. What will it take this time around?

Blackton, the elections were one thing; the advice by Eikenberry another. The argument against citing the former is that for years Americans have known the cut of Karzai’s jib and the elections taught the Administration nothing new and nothing unexpected. Rather, the argument goes the problems with the elections, became a pretext for second guessing—on which, second guessing, more in a moment.

One argument against citing Eikenberry as an example of something new is that, at least as I understand it, his advices postdates the second-guessing/procrastination/deliberating—choose your poison. A second problem with him as an example of something new is that his advice in a nutshell was not to send more troops, a variant of position advanced by Biden and rejected quite while ago.”

I began to wonder in my own head whether the answer to me is exactly what you say—“Where is the reasoning against incrementally increasing troop levels...?”

But I wonder: why all the deliberation now; what apparently contrasting decision making process informed the virtually right-out-of-the- presidential-box March 2009 strategy? Why not such agonizing deliberation--that even has supportes scratching thier heds-- before 20,000 soldiers were sent into harm’s way? (Please note that for the purposes of this analysis, I’m not characterizing these deliberations, though what species of potion or poison they are needs answering, I think.)

The approach to Afghanistan *seems* to have been approached ass backwards: all the deliberation and strategy resolution and exit strategy theorizing, should have done at the outset I’d think, not after a new strategy—counter insurgency— has been announced, a new general appointed and 20,000 troops deployed.

Blackton when you say,

... All I hear is Obama is playing politics, or splitting the difference, yada yada, but nowhere a point by point takedown of why this new policy is incorrect. And the reason why there isn't is because we simply don't have a crystal ball to predict if this approach will work...

you are, in my view, respectfully, beside the point and mixing up different issues, at least for my purposes. My issue, I repeat, is not how to characterize the present process of decision making for as much as I have some doubts about it; nor is the issue whether what gets announced is a good plan, which time will bear out. Rather the issue is the contrast between the quick certainty displayed in March 2009, as reaffirmed in August, and the months long present process finally coming to an end.

One last point: I’m no military analyst, the furthest thing from, but if Obama, as is anticipated, re-reaffirms his Afghanistan approach going back to, and essentially consistent with, the campaign, it will be interesting, at least for me, to understand how he rationalizes the difference between 30,000 troops and 40,000 troops without seeming to be micromanaging military recommendations once the strategy and goals have been set. The issue on this point is not how it all turns out: the issue is a justifiable basis for in fact splitting the difference that is not rooted in politics.

Jeff sorry I missed your post addressed to me . I may venture a response anon.

Jeff sorry I missed your post addressed to me . I may venture a response anon.

Jeff sorry I missed your post addressed to me . I may venture a response anon.

Noga, the strategic advantage is to have dismantled, at least in part, the perception of the Iran-U.S. standoff as being one in which neither party wanted serious engagement with the other and, even worse, one in which we had some kind of vested interest (ideological or tactical) in keeping the status quo. The OA has worked hard at dismantling that perception -- one that enabled various countries to either sit on the fence or cheerfully do business as usual -- and replacing it with a history of serious attempts by the U.S. to talk to the Iranian regime and find a door out of the impasse. Those attempts are now the most recent history that people refer to. The NYT today, concidentally, has a lead story on the shifts in Russian and Chinese attitudes toward our conflict with Teheran.

I would also see the documented confusions and internal hostilities in the Iranian establishment as a welcome by-product of that change in policy.

I wanted to say something about skepticism, but I have the feeling I don't understand you below:

"I would also say that those who are least likely to be targeted and harmed by a malevolent entity are those whose scepticisn lasts longest and maybe even indefinitely."

Who's being skeptical here, and about what?

Your comment about the absence in anti-fascist propaganda and information is well taken, but it might be even more to the point to say that we entered the war because Pearl Harbor was attacked, not because we had to help the European Jews. Indeed, uncomfortably enough, I think FDR is on record as saying something on the lines of, "that wouldn't be accepted as a sufficient justification by the American people."