Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:49 PM
One message that seems to have been sent by the Obama administration thus far: If you challenge us, we will reward you. If you abuse us, we will reward you a lot. But don't think we're going soft. Beware: If you are a friend or a needed ally, we will punish you. (Or is that three messages?)
It is of course, my hope that this is all inadvertent or better yet, part of some grand plan that can't be understood without the proper security clearances. Or maybe it is just "learning curve behavior." But in any case, the facts to date are unsettling.
Russia undercuts our efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program. Our response: dismantle the missile shield we had contemplated for Eastern Europe.
Hamid Karzai diddles the elections, abuses his people, and is openly corrupt. Our response: let's discuss how many more troops we want to send in to Afghanistan to help strengthen his power base and while we're at it, let's spend billions on doing work building his nation.
Pakistan limits our ability to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda within their borders, limits our ability to gain credit for aid flows to the country while promoting the interests of radical muslim donors and we open the spigots wider.
North Korea pushes forward with weapons programs and rattles its saber regularly and we seek new channels to discuss ways we can deepen our relationship after each calculated taunt.
Myanmar extends the prison term of Aung San Suu Kyi on trumped up charges and we send a high level emissary.
Iran crushes legitimate opposition, the regime steals and election, it lies for decades about its nuclear program, it strengthens its military capability and calls for destruction of Israel and we announce further talks despite their insistence none of the issues most important for us to discuss are open to discussion. Push us harder through arms collaboration with Russia and we remove the threat of that missile defense.
Meanwhile, our one dependable ally in the Middle East, Israel, faces an unprecedented squeeze, our most dependable ally on Venezuela's border, Colombia, can't get even a modest trade deal finalized, the Poles and the Czechs get the rug pulled out from under them, and so on. We need China more than ever to help with Iran after Russia has gone on the record as seeking a divergent outcome ... not to mention needing movement from them on issues like climate and global economic cooperation ... and what do we do? Slap them with unnecessary, hard-to-defend duties on imported tires.
It's the same here at home. No one fears crossing the Obama administration because the two most likely outcomes are either no retaliation or rewards. (Ask Senator Grassley, who gets concessions by the boatload but still refuses to play along, to name just one.)
I'm just sayin'...
Engagement is a worthy goal. The missile shield was probably of dubious value at best (especially when we started to define it in terms of our own sham cover story that it was all about Iran and not about the real longer term threat, Russia). Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda and seeking greater stability in Pakistan or Afghanistan ... or Israel and neighboring regions. Indeed, I am a pretty enthusiastic supporter of what I understand the outlines and objectives of the Obama administration's foreign policy to be.
But after a while, independent or uncoordinated actions become patterns and patterns send messages. Are we so isolated from Russia today that we have pushed from memory Pavlov and all that smart stuff he and his dog taught us about conditioned response? Even if that's the case, I thought this team was close to Oprah. Couldn't she or her house shrink Dr. Phil point out what happens when abusive behavior is rewarded?
I know it's still early in the administration. And I remain resolutely hopeful. But as a general rule, I take it as a warning sign when Dr. Phil is in any position to offer useful insights regarding U.S. foreign policy. Worse still, we know what happens to people who fail to heed his advice. They end up on the Maury show. That's no place for a U.S. foreign policy ... all toothless and disoriented, throwing chairs and being accused of fathering outcomes we don't want any part of.
Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, MILITARY, NORTH KOREA, NUKES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Looking ahead it will also be interesting to see just how quickly America's relationship with the UK goes pear shaped after/assuming David Cameron boots Gordon Brown from office.
Somehow I doubt there will be any love between the Obama administration and a Conservative government based off Cameron's rhetoric to date.
In law school we used to joke about what a mess things would be if our professors ever achieved the power to put their utopian schemes in place. Looks like the joke was on us...
U.S. foreign policy ... all toothless and disoriented, throwing chairs and being accused of fathering outcomes we don't want any part of.
maybe our toothlessness and disorientation is the reason we're fathering bastard outcomes.
but nobody can bring themselves to acknowledge the causes of our toothlessness and disorientation, can they?
.
meanwhile, our esteemed allies in columbia (supported, no doubt, by your wife, some kind poohbah of western hemisphere relations for the US chamber of commerce), are our most reliable suppliers of cocaine.
and israel is hands down our most reliable source of trouble in the middle east.
the list of idiocies goes on and on, and the explanation for all that idiocy lies in the fact that about the only thing america's good for anymore is looting.
i hope you're getting a big enough cut that you can retire to paraguay or wherever in comfort.
how come oil production peaked...
...year on year, in 2005, despite a doubling of drills and a seven-fold increase in the price of oil (from january 2002)?
Because Venezuela and Russia can't pour urine out of a boot when it comes to oil production without Western technical assistance.
Their ongoing spree of nationalization has resulted in their production levels dropping through the floor since no company with half a brain wants to roll a few billion dollars into a field or facility just to have the local caudillo nationalize it out from under them.
Russia is particularly bad since the Soviet production methods resulted in extensive field damage. Combine that with Soviet era infrastructure in decline and the writing has been on the wall for them for over a decade.
Iran also has a half assed scheme where they want foreign companies to fully fund field development and production and then have the Iranian state "buy back" said developments leaving the original company with nothing but promises from the Mullahs.
They're also facing the same issues with infrastructure as the Russians as they've been too busy propping up their social system using oil revenue rather than investing in maintaining the fields like they need to.
Nigeria and Yemen are both suffering from insurgent attacks on their production capabilities which have degraded their export quantities. As has Iraq... which should be obvious.
Really the only field out of the ones in your link that is actually declining from recovery versus idiocy is the European shared North Sea field.
In short most of the rest of the declines can be chalked up to local stupidity rather than lack of oil.
why did it become necessary to crash the economy...
...in order to disguise the fact that oil production had peaked?
is it just barely possible that peak oil...
...was the most pressing motive to get this land and oil acquisition project underway by staging 9/11?
is rothkopf now lamenting the lack of success of that oil and land acquisition project?
could it be that the failure of that project was to be expected, seeing as how the scheme was hatched by the same sort of people who hatched the israel project... which was also a bad idea?
Actually I think it's just barely possible you're someone who's probably been punted from this site previously for similar idiocy which a simple IP check by the web admins would show.
it's also just barely possible...
...that you and mr rothkopf cant deny the logic and the facts of the peak oil situation, and it's also probable that the last place in the world you'll seek refuge is israel.
costa rica might be a good bet.
This is why I don't often read the commentary on FP. Every time I do, I walk straight into a waist-high pile of conspiracy BS.
A cloud usually looks like a cloud, unless you happen to see a bunch of Zionist Jews plotting world domination. If you do, try to keep it to yourself.
No point in relaying your brilliant discoveries to sheep like me.
you're denying that bill kristol thinks...
...benevolent global hegemony is a good idea.
you're denying that our benevolence has killed maybe a million people, so far, and the project's just getting started.
you're denying the fact that israel has to be secured before its american protector expires from oil shortages.
you're denying that israel has a stranglehold on american politics and media.
.
good thing you're a sheep.
and you might explain why kristol, perle, wolfowitz, libby...
...and the rest of the israeli americans are not moving to israel.
or do you agree that any big israeli american mover would be an idiot to move to israel?
I've read a bit of David Rothkopf's blogging and had an epiphany: he isn't a real flesh and blood human being but is actually an elaborate animatronic puppet whose memory banks have been crammed full of old Weekly Standard staff editorials and random postings from Commentary's Contentions. As he is programmed to do, David recites this discredited pablum ("Israel is America's most reliable ally" "There is no Israel lobby" "Palestinians aren't a nation") but does so in such a transcendently boring and emotionless way that the bloodthirstiness and warmongering which are such defining characteristics of neoconservatism are lost in translation. The resulting prose thus appears to be "sober" and "serious" but, at its heart, is just as idiotic and pig headed as anything that appears on FrontPageMag
And other administrations didn't reward bad behavior?
The primary argument of this article fundamentally lacks historical truth for one thing, and added to that it does not take into account the fact that alternatives have been attempted and failed.
Nixon and just about every administration since has rewarded China carte blanche regardless of their human rights abuses and bad behavior with respect to their foreign policy.
Iraq was rewarded for bad behavior after they attacked their neighbor with chemical weapons via the Reagan administration.
ISRAEL has been ENDLESSLY rewarded for bad behavior through just about every presidential administration since their existence regardless of the human rights abuses they commit or the international laws they break.
Dictator led / puppet governments in South America have been rewarded regardless of the people they oppress.
One example you provided which I have issue with among the others that I will not get into now, you said:
"Russia undercuts our efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program. Our response: dismantle the missile shield we had contemplated for Eastern Europe."
Let's flip that around. The US contemplates building a missile shield in Eastern Europe; Russia"s response: build an arsenal on their borders facing towards Eastern Europe. Are you saying that's good policy?
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE