tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post809814107948717070..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Sunday Question for LiberalsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-50408754632056759412011-11-17T08:13:13.503-06:002011-11-17T08:13:13.503-06:00Scott: Thank you for elaborating, but we're j...Scott: Thank you for elaborating, but we're just going to have to disagree on this. The President is not a dictator, but he is Commander-in-Chief. He has complete responsibility for national defense and I expect him to use it wisely. This is especially the case when it comes to actual military combat. Would he possibly have received some blowback for a speedy withdrawal? Perhaps. But if it's in the national interest, I expect him to make the tough call. I don't expect him to finesse every detail of our defense deployments, but on the major ones -- and Afghanistan is surely top of the list -- I expect him to pursue only that policy which best serves the national interest. That's what leadership is all about.<br /><br />And even if you're right about the nature of Presidential leadership, that doesn't change the fact that the policy is still a bad one, and many Americans will pay for the mistake with their lives.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5323965552693459922011-11-16T10:21:58.080-06:002011-11-16T10:21:58.080-06:00Very nicely stated, Mr. Monje. Kind of a shame th...Very nicely stated, Mr. Monje. Kind of a shame that it's appended at the end of a near-dead thread, but them's the internets, I guess. The perspective your describe eventually brings us to the point where the leadership dialectic turns on its head, and phrases like "leading from behind" enter into the political vernacular. It also helps explain the familiar contradiction, endlessly frustrating to every kind of partisan and other representative of merely particular interests (even particular moral interests asserted as universals), between the president's constitutional role and the needs and aims of mere politics. <br /><br />In regard to your conclusion, however, it may be doubtful that such a process can ever avoid dishonesty, corruption, (and/) or deception. How a politician or theorist can, should, or will cope with that issue is such a universal problem of politics that it tends to define politics. I suspect you're already familiar with the discussion, which is about exactly as old as its subject.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38873246829084059812011-11-16T08:19:59.330-06:002011-11-16T08:19:59.330-06:00Couves,
In case you're still out there.
This...Couves,<br /><br />In case you're still out there.<br /><br />This is how I see the process from a fundamental point of view.<br /><br />For any fundamental policy decision, foreign or domestic, there are a host of rational proposals. There will also be some that are irrational or counterproductive, but we can leave those aside for the moment. The rational proposals will differ in their definition of what the problem really is, in their focus on specific aspects of the problem, in their assumptions as to how causes lead to consequences, in the precise array of costs and benefits, and in the distribution of those costs and benefits, with different people being hit by different proportions of cost or benefit. Each of these proposals will have advocates who will portray their proposals as the only acceptable choice and denounce all others as idiotic, self-destructive, or corrupt. Some of those advocates will be sincere, and some will be looking to funnel the benefits to their constituents and the costs to others. Lawmakers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists can afford to take a narrow view that focuses on the interests of their constituents, departments, or clients, and they are expected to do so. The president has to--ought to--take a broader perspective. We know that politics and human psychology militate against the president taking a truly comprehensive view, but he must take a broader view than the advocates. His own ideas, preferences, and priorities will count--he's the president--but he must also consider the views of others. He must maintain a political coalition, soothe allies, fend off or appease adversaries, prevent bureaucracies from trying to undermine him, keep doors open to people whose cooperation he will need later on other issues; he must fit the policy on this issue into a broader array of all policies affecting all issues, so that they don't conflict with each other too much, and somehow keep it within some sort of budgetary constraints. All of this will involve compromises. The compromises will be affected by the clash of interests and visions on this particular policy and also by the demands of other policies and issue areas that fight for priority. All of that, in itself, is not dishonest, corrupt, or deceptive. It's how things work when you're not a dictator, and--more than people think--even when you are.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-170038386721027262011-11-15T16:44:46.999-06:002011-11-15T16:44:46.999-06:00Sorry if in the context of a blog-conversation, my...Sorry if in the context of a blog-conversation, my summary characterization of your position looked like a "fabricated quotation." Didn't mean to blacken your name for all eternity. I thought it was a fair rendering of the position you took, as it came across.<br /><br />Also, you're not president either. Nor likely to win my vote at this rate.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77137150332662962622011-11-15T13:20:11.490-06:002011-11-15T13:20:11.490-06:00CK: I was responding to Scott's contention th...CK: I was responding to Scott's contention that Obama's Afghanistan surge should be understood as political cover for withdrawal. I only meant to show how this paints the President in a very bad light. If I misunderstood Scott, he never corrected me...<br /><br />In any case, my previous comment clarified my position regarding Obama. Yet you immediately followed that up by misrepresenting my position yet again, complete with a fabricated quotation. I'm done with this conversation.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9974370033510561542011-11-15T13:12:39.970-06:002011-11-15T13:12:39.970-06:00...the Washington Consensus. Who claimed anything ...<i>...the Washington Consensus. Who claimed anything else?</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Um... you claimed anything else, my man, that your guy Obama was doing wonderful and truly unique work, for which he deserved much credit. And when I pressed you to describe it all, you delivered the useless list I dismantled for you, following which you decided to whine about said dismantlement, before agreeing with it. <br /><br />You'll have to sorta stick with a position, if you want to have a good argument, my man. Does neither of us any good for you to flit about like a butterfly. <br /><br />There is one thing that isn't of the Washington Consensus, however, and that is the "Obama Doctrine" that's been developed, although here again you appear off, in describing it as historically unremarkable. It is quite remarkable historically, in fact, as demonstrated by the Left not 1/4 century ago shrieking hysterically at even the hint of a president exercising an independent foreign policy, and now suddenly the Left advocates not just independent foreign policy, but independent initiation of foreign wars.<br /><br />So again, the biggest thing we all have to fear, no matter who wins the WH in 2012, is that they exercise the newly invented Obama Doctrine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36382050566897096622011-11-15T12:29:06.650-06:002011-11-15T12:29:06.650-06:00"I'm not sure why you think I disagree wi..."I'm not sure why you think I disagree with any of those rather obvious points."<br /><br />Because you began by asserting that he "fully supported the war," and then switched to "if he didn't and doesn't, then he's playing with lives and the defense of the nation for merely political reasons." <br /><br />Necessitating a defense of pragmatic compromise in this context as possibly something other than an expression of craven self-interest.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36588068091910800012011-11-15T12:23:26.271-06:002011-11-15T12:23:26.271-06:00"You're not making your point here, my ma..."You're not making your point here, my man. You're making mine."<br /><br />Sorry, amidst the assorted doubly reactionary reactions and half-evidenced half-truths asserted as undeniable facts, I don't see how you're making any point at all other than, perhaps, that Obama is more or less a mainstream politician, who may differ on specifics with the likes of Bush and Rice, but is still one of "them" - that is, a party to what your counterparts on the far left like to call the Washington Consensus. Who claimed anything else? Could be that if and when a real revolution in such matters is ready to occur, whoever happens to be president is more likely to sign off on it, or resist it impotently, than lead it.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-6634709409558643622011-11-15T12:22:35.525-06:002011-11-15T12:22:35.525-06:00CK, I never said that Obama's policy was a &qu...CK, I never said that Obama's policy was a "crime against humanity and the nation." You're putting words in my mouth -- I don't believe anything like that. I fully accept that Obama is trying to enhance the security of our nation, I just disagree with the methods he is employing. If you're made uncomfortable by the fact that Americans are dying for a policy that you yourself seem unsure about, then I count that as a good thing. <br /><br />Also, I fully accept that any withdrawal would need to be worked out in detail, coordinated with allies, etc. I'm not sure why you think I disagree with any of those rather obvious points.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8503005096886129842011-11-15T11:39:05.182-06:002011-11-15T11:39:05.182-06:00Couves: "But that's going to exist whene...Couves: "But that's going to exist whenever we pull out -- we're going to have to eventually deal with the situation without boots on the ground. Look, the bottom line is the defense of this nation. I'm not convinced that the President's policy enhances that defense, and so I'd prefer not to spend the money and lives necessary to achieve it. "<br /><br />All well and good. Your preferred course of action - which I'll continue to insist would have to be realized in detail, in contact with the enemy or enemies and in coordination with allies and others, with varying degrees of support and risk, and so on - might be superior, and it goes without saying that some options will turn out to be more costly in lives and treasure than others. All differences in political opinion, not just over military strategy and tactics, eventually turn into matters of life and death, but you can't have a democracy if every difference of opinion is immediately converted into "my considered preference vs. your crime against humanity and the nation."<br /><br />As for the Biden counterfactual, eventually it breaks down along the same lines that all of them do. I can tell myself that if Biden were Prez and Obama VP, their roles might well have been reversed, except I don't know that, and the truth is that Biden not only didn't win, but didn't ever garner significant support anywhere. Also, I'm not sure that the Biden option as argued in 2009 would have led to a much superior result by late 2011 in any respect other than that we probably would have fewer troops there by now.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40718106889161402402011-11-15T11:31:23.396-06:002011-11-15T11:31:23.396-06:00Neither you nor anyone can say that his approach c...<i>Neither you nor anyone can say that his approach cost more lives, in A-stan or beyond, than attempting an accelerated withdrawal would have.</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />It is sad, that the arguments in favor of Obama's quadrupling our troop counts in Afghanistan come down to the above. Just sad. <br /><br />One helpful thing for our politics, something we've learned, is that the Left's anti-war shrieking was just a pure sham. I'd say it was clear from the gitgo, especially after the 2004 presidential election, but today we can put that sham to rest. Our politics is more productive, without shams.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5383782432268874022011-11-15T11:16:18.338-06:002011-11-15T11:16:18.338-06:00I'd point to Libya as a good example of the co...<i>I'd point to Libya as a good example of the course correction within general continuity that I mentioned.</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Huh? This is the one thing that the Obamabots HAVE done differently, and not for the better. Khadaffi's entire nuke program has been sitting down in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a number of years now... fully inventoried and intelligenced. Additionally, Khadaffi worked to put down islamofascist murderers in his own lands, even as he spared those who went along with the program. And you think spinning on a dime, dumping this guy and killing him does anything to talk the mullahs and the Dear Leader out of their unhelpful directions? What incentive have you given them to do so? And why is it you think presidents should unilaterally intervene in others' civil wars? And let's not forget the colonialism aspects of this. Nobody anywhere is unmindful of the real reasons for this war. I dearly hope you're not a shiny eyed leftist thinking otherwise. Few in the rest of the world look at it this way. The one thing that firmly changed here is China's and Russia's tentative support for this action, but I suspect after we pick through the rubble we'll find they've made out economically in this transaction, and thus gave their support, colonialism uber alles, once again. <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i>As far as I can tell, the "legality" of our support for military operations in Libya falls into a gray area that presidents have somewhat frequently exploited, for good and ill, going back to the Founding. </i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Not that I can see. A 1/4 century ago, the Left in Congress shrieked like stuck pigs over a couple dollars to the Contras. Today, the Congress isn't even part of the discussion, as wars are initiated, directly involving US forces, by presidents alone. Presidents are to just start wars on their whim, and by your leave, it appears. I think you're fantasizing this "back to the Founding" business. I don't see it anywhere, "back to the Founding". We see it right now, extra-constitutional wars being authorized by one man. And that action against the French in late 18th century came with congressional authorization, fyi to whoever mischaracterized it above. <br /><br /><br /><br />Again, to answer the original question the blogger posed, the real worry is that the next president, whoever it is, will follow the misguided "Obama Doctrine" in which the president unilaterally initiates war. This is a perversion, and a threat to this republic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27757164361715282322011-11-15T11:15:53.364-06:002011-11-15T11:15:53.364-06:00The comment implies that you're unaware of any...<i>The comment implies that you're unaware of any differences between what Obama has done, or sought to do, and the ideal American-conservative foreign policy as you see it.</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />No, my comment implies no such thing. My comment has few implications beyond those explicitly stated. However difficult it is for you to put aside your ever wary vigilance for your evil Faux News enemies, cartoon caricaturish and hungering for hypocrisy accusations as those evildoers are wont to be, that's what you should try to do. <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i>In addition to undertaking the Afghanistan adventure within an explicit framework for withdrawal</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />There is always an "explicit framework for withdrawal". Spare us the fluff. Obama quadrupled our troop counts in Afghanistan, a most egregious escalation, but completely in line with the Beltway consensus, as most all Obama's foreign war actions seem to be. <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i>declining to invest in a re-negotiation of the Iraqi SOFA</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Again, in full alignment with past and existing Beltway arrangements. <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i> trading useless missile defense installations for a "re-start" with the Ruskis</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />I'm failing to see much of anything different here. Recall that Bush famously looked into Putin's beautiful soul. And Bush declined to interfere with the Russians mucking about in Georgia, especially the foolish talk of NATOhood for those Georgian dopes, and he left missile defense hanging as an open issue. All in line with contemporary Beltway mindsets, clearly. Nothing new here, either. Same old, same old, pipeline routing and energy market squabbling with the Kremlin. <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i>supporting the Arab Spring</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Bush and Rice were on Mubarak's back for some many years, and wanted him to stop jailing journalists and Muslim Brotherhood types, and open the electoral process, which he ignored. Again, this is all in full alignment with Beltway party aims, then and now. The current Egyptian military junta is quite Mubarakian, if you notice, but don't hold your breath waiting for the Obamabots to criticize it. And I'd submit that the "arab spring" began with the Iraq invasion in 2003, not that I favored that action, but we can draw a direct line from it to today's state of affairs. Little difference here either, no matter Obama's blather (and I hope you're not persuaded by his blather). <br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><i>refraining from bellicose escalation against Iran</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Bush's intelligence report of a few years ago said the Iranian nuke program had been suspended for quite some time, and called off the dogs. But it seems it's the Obama wing of the Beltway war party that's firing up the bombs away talk re Iran. You're not making your point here, my man. You're making mine. The Obamabots are even more bellicose than the Bushbots, if anything. All in line with the Beltway party, of course. <br /><br /> <br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><i>very marginally testing the limits of the American effective Greater Israel consensus</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />Nobody believes that. Not even you, I'm guessing, and you don't seem to have much trouble believing stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65235928312597844792011-11-15T11:07:53.102-06:002011-11-15T11:07:53.102-06:00Scott: So Biden is just saying things that make h...Scott: So Biden is just saying things that make him "feel good"? Do you really not think that there's a rational argument for leaving Afghanistan immediately?Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39027035493354194822011-11-15T11:05:21.179-06:002011-11-15T11:05:21.179-06:00CK: I don't know why you assume that I'd ...CK: I don't know why you assume that I'd be unaware of or insensitive to the "very long chain of contingencies and uncertainties." But that's going to exist whenever we pull out -- we're going to have to eventually deal with the situation without boots on the ground. Look, the bottom line is the defense of this nation. I'm not convinced that the President's policy enhances that defense, and so I'd prefer not to spend the money and lives necessary to achieve it. <br /><br />As to actual "covering fire" there has been no point at which our troops couldn't have provided their own cover and safely redeployed out of that country.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28025762643168813902011-11-15T10:47:30.420-06:002011-11-15T10:47:30.420-06:00Just two quick points.
First, tripling troop stre...Just two quick points.<br /><br />First, tripling troop strength wasn't my idea, but I believe it was intended to suppress the violence long enough for us to get out and hopefully longer.<br /><br />Second, I never said Biden's advice was given in bad faith, just that when you're president you don't necessarily get to decide based on what makes you feel good.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27330546965798325712011-11-15T10:28:08.811-06:002011-11-15T10:28:08.811-06:00Scott,
Yes, the war aims changed. My contention ...Scott,<br /><br />Yes, the war aims changed. My contention is that the current war aims are not worth another American life or limb. And your idea that we have to triple our troop strength as "an instrument for getting the troops out" is an absurd rationalization.<br /><br />As to Biden, we don't have any reason to believe that his views were not offered in good faith.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-86554496747450081302011-11-15T10:24:13.319-06:002011-11-15T10:24:13.319-06:00"I feel totally confident in saying that we s..."I feel totally confident in saying that we should have left Afghanistan a long time ago."<br /><br />I wish I could disagree with you. The only problem is that, once you're there and have decided you wish you weren't, there's a broad spectrum from "run away! run away!" through "framework for withdrawal with least damage to larger interests" to "aw, let's stick around and see if things look different" to "we made our bed we'll have to lie in it." <br /><br />It's not a moral evil to accept that "run away!" might lead to lots of problems and unnecessary harms, and that some forces might provide not just "political cover" but real, honest-to-God "cover," as in covering fire. If you can appreciate that, then you can just begin to appreciate the very, very long chain of contingencies and uncertainties, not all of them confined to the particular theater of operations, that shape an actually implementable strategy as opposed to a wish. <br /><br />There's no dishonor to taking multiple contexts into account and unsentimentally balancing risks. If you can't do that, then maybe I don't want you for Prez after all (though I might like having you as a candidate!).CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89540861522347065882011-11-15T09:09:19.214-06:002011-11-15T09:09:19.214-06:00Couves,
One of the consequences of going to war i...Couves,<br /><br />One of the consequences of going to war is that it creates new realities and new obligations apart from the war aims that sent you into it. That's part of the reason I complain more about Bush starting wars than about Obama not ending them sooner. "Political cover" in this case is not an aim, it's an instrument for getting the troops out. <br /><br />By balancing views, I didn't mean any sort of mechanistic "cutting the difference," but, as CK says, a consideration of the various options, and their consequences, being pushed by the different advisers, departments, and so on. If Biden hadn't pushed for a reduced strategy, all Obama would have heard would have been advice to go in big and stay there. That doesn't mean Biden, as president, would have followed the advice he gave here, just as Obama, as president, didn't do what he advised regarding Iraq in 2006.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65551786063856540652011-11-15T06:21:35.532-06:002011-11-15T06:21:35.532-06:00Scott: I couldn't disagree more. It's ti...Scott: I couldn't disagree more. It's time to bring the troops home when there are no war aims left worthy of their lives. Political cover is certainly not one of those.<br /><br />CK: I see, so if I only knew what the President knew, I'd see it his way? Do you forget that this is what people said about Bush when we went into Iraq? I feel totally confident in saying that we should have left Afghanistan a long time ago.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64636152881671192432011-11-14T22:40:36.436-06:002011-11-14T22:40:36.436-06:00(that was for Prez C, of course)(that was for Prez C, of course)CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29439031361210495192011-11-14T22:39:25.168-06:002011-11-14T22:39:25.168-06:00Now, I was going to let this fine thread disappear...Now, I was going to let this fine thread disappear into the void, my only regret being that I failed to associate myself with and minimally expand upon Mr. Monje's statement about Biden's "freedom to speak." I'd put it more as freedom to pull left against the right, but setting all that aside.<br /><br />"If Obama is sending people to die just to give himself political cover or to "balance the various views," then he's unfit to hold office. I can't believe that he's capable of such a thing. "<br /><br />Who made that argument? (You're giving in too easily, Monje!) It's not a question of "balancing views" as an intellectual exercise, but of taking into account both the conflicting views and the real risks and objectives they represent. A C-in-C ought to be able to determine that a precipitous retreat would risk a military disaster there, a political disaster here, with significant follow-on effects all over the place. Neither you nor anyone can say that his approach cost more lives, in A-stan or beyond, than attempting an accelerated withdrawal would have.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19940241416607091592011-11-14T20:47:23.896-06:002011-11-14T20:47:23.896-06:00I'm most concerned about Republican interactio...I'm most concerned about Republican interaction with Europe. I think any candidate other than maybe Romney would try and score domestic political points beating up on Europe as they try and spark a recovery after what is looking to be another recession. Taking punches against European socialism and trying to tie the Democrats to failed stimulus that created another recession in Europe could really do damage with most countries. Between the need for European support at the G-8, the climate change negotiations, and as an eventual buffer against Chinese foreign policy, alienating Europe could have terrible consequences.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486850218213446594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30424079599659748302011-11-14T20:37:06.788-06:002011-11-14T20:37:06.788-06:00Well, as the French say, that's war. It's ...Well, as the French say, that's war. It's a big part of the reason you shouldn't get involved in the business in the first place, and certainly not for frivolous reasons. In this case, political cover isn't some sort of ego trip, it's the way to get them out at all.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-75438047011965687712011-11-14T19:57:21.411-06:002011-11-14T19:57:21.411-06:00If Obama is sending people to die just to give him...If Obama is sending people to die just to give himself political cover or to "balance the various views," then he's unfit to hold office. I can't believe that he's capable of such a thing.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.com