Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The longest day...

Where am I? My eyes are open and my fingers are moving across the keyboard so I know I am awake. But it feels a little like morning and the sky says night, a little like Asia and the signs say Europe, I woke up in Japan and my next meeting is in Brazil and it will be 72 hours between the last time I slept in a bed and the next time I do.
I saw G.I. Jane. I know how hard it is for Navy SEALs. But Demi Moore would be curled up in the fetal position if she had to take this trip. (By the way, for an interesting perspective on the times, watch that movie sometime. No, not for Demi's one-handed push ups or the great chemistry with Viggo. But because when they are trying to break her as she seeks to become the first woman SEAL they actually waterboard her. And when someone complains that it looks uncomfortable, Viggo responds "that's why it's such an effective interrogation technique." Who knew such a cheeseball movie could be so trenchantly topical?)
Where was I? Oh, right. The question is where I am? Somewhere between "Where's Waldo?" and "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" I think? Round about there. Actually it looks a lot like the giant human terrarium that is Heathrow's Terminal Five. But it seems oddly pleasant at the moment. It could be all that Immodium coursing through my system. Or the fact that my last stop was Narita. If I die and awake and the first thing I see is Narita Airport I will know that Higher Powers did not approve of my dissolute life. Narita is the Miami International Airport of East Asia. Just like Mumbai is the Miami International Airport of the subcontinent. And just like root canal surgery is the Miami International Airport of things you can do with your mouth.
I pick up a newspaper to orient myself. Seems like there is still upheaval and unease in Tehran. Still precious little reaction out of the Obama Administration about this. Obama's brief statement of concern said more with what was left out than what was actually said. I know that Obama will still have to deal with whatever Iranian government is left standing, but I wonder if he's being a bit too measured or and carefully calibrated for its own good? Sometimes, after all, a little righteous indignation is exactly what's called for. (And where, by the way is Hillary Clinton these days?)
I'm of two minds on all this. Which is not so bad considering at the moment I am of about four time zones. On the one hand, I am all for restraint. Particularly given that the opposition candidate, Mousavi, is not exactly a wonderful guy as far as I can tell and would soon be a big pain in our American arse (wait, I said "arse"...this must be England) even in the best moments of successful engagement. And there's a lot to be said for a foreign policy that actually involves thinking before acting, especially when the evidence about the election is, well, not really evidence yet.
On the other hand, I know in my heart that Ahmadinejad, who looks more like a ferret with every passing day, stole the election and I love the vigorous and vital nature of the opposition. Iran has a democracy in it waiting to be allowed to be free and what a great game changer that would be for almost every policy concern we have in the region, especially if a freer Iran was also not as resolutely anti-U.S. as the current crew. I also don't much like that hanging back has left it to the Euros like Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown to lead in the strong condemnation, summoning ambassadors department. But hey, that's such a novelty it's almost as exciting as the real challenge to Ahmadinejad.
I guess I would rather see the United States vigorously orchestrating a challenge to the apparently stolen election both because it's right and because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it if indeed they stole it (which of course, they did) and if indeed the Guardian Council review is a sham (which of course, it will be.) I also don't think we're building up a great track record when it comes to how we treat provocations from our enemies (North Korea or Iran) or obscene behavior from our allies (see the CNN piece on the Karzai regime's violence against journalists.) Reason and cool I like. But I worry that we are a step away from seeming paralyzed by pragmatism.
But really what I would rather see is a bed.
Getty Images







Ignore the key issue...
What about the damage American indignation, and statements of solidarity with the opposition could do to the movement in Iran?
The regime would love to pin opposition protests on American meddling - and what exactly will self-righteous rhetoric achieve? It might make America look better, but i fail to see how it helps the people out there on the streets of Tehran.
Maybe Obama could be a little more vocal about human rights, and the freedom of the press to report on the protests (as reasonably suggested on the Shadow Govt blog - a place i don't tend to agree with often), but overall he can't do much more without jeapardizing the potential for change in Iran.
Sometimes reason is pragmatism.
You're of two minds...
...and there are pretty much two competing schools of thought. Why bother writing? (Especially if you're so beat...) The arguments for each course of action are pretty clear -- if you don't have a compelling reason to offer for choosing one over the other, then you're not really advancing the discussion any, are you? You just take a hedged pot-shot at the administration for not doing something that you're not even unambiguously calling on them to do.
"Why bother writing?"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Because
I actually have a point.
Small though it may be, he has a point....
Your point being: David Rothkopf shouldn't have made this post because...MDrew has seen the information before, it criticizes Obama, and when David Rothkopf states his preferred course of action it isn't with enough unambiguity for MDrew.
By making the post, David Rothkopf makes the reverse argument, ipso facto.
Hence...Pot. Kettle. Black.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you or he shouldn't post, or that I'm doing anything different. What I am saying is that you are kidding yourself if you think you brought more or even matched what he brought to the table.
I also think you are being extraordinarily selfish in your pique, completely uncaring about those people who only come to David Rothkopf's blog for their information. ;o)
I didn't say any of that
I'm merely saying that David is engaging in cheap moral posturing while explicitly disavowing responsibility for it by not standing behind what he's calling for. Most who call for more moralistic posturing by the United States at least pretend that they're willing to be responsible for the direct consequences of those words, or for the increased expectations they engender. In this post, David can't even get over the hump of even being able to unambiguously say within the post what the course of action should be. He's in it purely for the stand-to-the-side tsk-tsking.
Maybe had he just skipped the phrase...
If he had just said "I understand the objections, but they aren't sufficient to justify not vigorously orchestrating, etc. etc..." rather than "I'm of two minds." When there's a raging debate about which of two courses of action is better, it just sounds dumb to say you're of two minds. Take the extra half-hour and figure out where you come down, if you're so committed to writing on the topic, which if you are of two minds it's not clear to me why you would be. He does come to something of a conclusion (I guess...) at the end. I just think it makes the post kind of worthless if he has to hedge, as he always seems to do, to the point of saying he is of two minds on a binary question.
And now a word from the bloggist...
I write this blog five days a week. It reflects my thoughts...some crystal clear, some coalescing. Sometimes it reflects my own internal debates. I'm afraid I can't offer absolutely certainty on everything all the time. Nonetheless, I do think that in the airing of the questions I am grappling with their may be some benefit...if only to stimulate further thinking on the part of the readers.
Without a doubt.
That became more serious than I meant for it to be. I certainly was not seriously suggesting you shouldn't have written -- I think you probably understood that even if the other David in DC didn't. My only point is that nearly everyone is similarly of two minds on it, and yet the president has to take more or less one approach or the other (and most everyone else has been able to sort through the competing ideas and come down somewhere or other). After all, does anyone doubt that part of the guy wants nothing more than to come out and cheer the protesters on with all the stirring oratory he might apply in another situation? (Now that could be quite a speech.) It seems to me it's the least we can do if we're going to critique his approach (which we obviously should if we disagree with it) is to say on balance what we think is the right course, even if we might acknowledge some good arguments going the other way. And really, that's pretty much what you did -- I was just half-seriously (probably less than that) tweaking your choice of phrase. Clearly, you were going to offer some thoughts on the situation, and I wouldn't have clicked over to the blog if i didn't want to see what they were. I would never seriously call on anyone not to write on something that is of such interest merely because they aren't operating on 100% certainty that their opinion is right. (After all, by and large those are the people we want to pay the least attention to, am I right?) In any case, I am certainly happier to have seen what you had to say about it than had I not been able to.
Thanks, Mr. Rothkopf, for continuing to offer this space for discussion of issues that you find to be important.
Revolution is Dead
If we do not mobilize in support of Moussavi, the Revolution is dead.
These things never last without external support. It is the duty of all freedom loving people in the world, to demand a condemnation of Ahmenidejad, and demand a re-vote.
The damage from inaction, is far greater than any possible damage from Ahmenidejad using this against the protesters.
These things never last
The Iranian clerical regime uses foreign interference as a means of legitimacy, building on a strong streak of distrust towards foreign interference (particularly that of the US and Great Britain) in Iran. If the US government were to condemn Ahmadinejad, he would turn around immediately and say that Moussavi was the agent of a foreign power, and Moussavi would be effectively finished.
I disagree. Without any foreign assistance at all, the Iranian movement against Ahmadinejad has already made the Guardian Council and even Khamenei balk about simply accepting the Ahmadinejad results straight-up.
Exactly.
And even prior to thinking about whether our efforts would be effective in influencing the outcome, we should consider whether seeking to influence the outcome of an election in a foreign country -- even a disputed one in which democratic will may very well be being thwarted -- would be a legitimate action on our part.