Okay, that's enough inside the beltway, who were the big winners and losers around the world?

First, the losers:

  • Israelis and Palestinians: Sadly, these folks have ended up on this list so often (or they would have had I ever done this list before) that they should be retired from future consideration. Once again hope and hype has been followed by a chilling dose of reality, an opaque "peace process," and in the end by the fact that you can't cut a deal between two groups when one of them isn't quite organized to either represent their views effectively or implement any deals that actually get done. While the world wants to blame it on the Israelis, the thing that slammed the break on this process toward the end of 2009 was the fact that the Palestinians couldn't get their act together.
  • Hamid Karzai: The Taliban once banned the use of paper bags because theoretically the bags could be made out of recycled pages from old editions of the Koran. Oh, and they brutalized their citizenry and offered a safe haven to those craven characters from al Qaeda. And they're still more popular than the current Afghan government. They were our enemy and we're still flirting with the idea of how we can work with them because Karzai is THAT BAD.
  • The G8: It seems like years since this particular talking club has been truly relevant but 2009 will be the year that gets carved on their gravestone. Oh, they'll meet from time to time, but it'll be an exercise. The world has learned you can't throw an economic party without the economies that are actually driving global growth, home to the world's largest banks and the world's largest bank accounts.
  • Yemen and Somalia: While these two would almost certainly be finalists in any global Shithole of the Year competition -- building a Denny's in either of them would be a cultural transformation roughly akin to the onset of the Renaissance in Europe -- things got worse this year. These two blighted corners of the globe became the designated new havens for the world's worst bad guys which means that they will soon be receiving some of that extra special attention from the Untied States that has done so much the other countries on which we paint big red "X.
  • American Capitalism: Oh sure, we're recovering now. At least that's what helps me sleep at night (after I tuck all my earthly possessions into the hidden compartment in my mattress). But that's the problem, dontcha see? The biggest problem with the recent financial crisis was that it was not severe enough. The United States will continue to practice its form of lightly regulated, inequality boosting, corporate giant driven capitalism ... but now with all its flaws more exposed and, for the first time, while other approaches to capitalism producing greater growth. Not only is the world's economic center of gravity shifting ... so inevitably will be its philosophical center of gravity.
  • Steve Walt and the Realists: No, this is not another boy group put together by disgraced impresario Lou Pearlman. Instead it is a group of political scientists who conjured up one of those self-congratulatory labels for themselves (like "smart power" only even more insidious in how automatically dispatches anyone who opposes it) -- "realism." They thought Obama would see them as the alternative to the "idealism" of the Bush administration (how ironic can a label be?) But instead they discovered -- despite support from big names in the punditocracy-that Obama would defy labels (he rejected both "idealism" and "realism" in his Oslo speech) as he defined new ground as the ur pragmatist. And then on top of that, the core objective of realists -- ditching Israel -- didn't turn out to work so well as the new administration discovered what all before them have, we are allied with the Israelis not because they are perfect but because all the other alternatives are so lousy.
  • The EU: President who? A foreign minister with no experience with foreign affairs? When a faltering institution picks leaders whose only distinctions are that they are the least objectionable characters in the room, they are casting a big vote for irrelevance. We hear you, Europe ... adieu, auf wiedersehen, ciao. You'll be around for a while but just listen to your voice being drowned out in Copenhagen if you want to know what's actually happening on the global stage.
  • The dollar: Got a pair of pliers? I think I still have a gold filling in there somewhere that I can get to...
  • Entertainment Idiots and Golf Journalists (tie): Kanye disses Taylor Swift which is a little bit like stomping on a kitten at a PETA convention. And in the year he becomes the first athlete to break the billion dollar barrier thanks to his extraordinarily well-crafted public persona, Tiger Woods crashes his Escalade into a fire hydrant and causes, I don't know, probably a few hundred million dollars in damage. And the only ones more red-faced than Tiger with the revelations that he seemed to be playing more than just 72 holes every weekend have to be the media who cover golf who have apparently known about the story for years but just neglected to write it.

And, the winners:

(Read on)
  • Barack Obama: Did I mention that he also has a lovely wife and family? A cute dog? Clearly, Barry O is the big winner of the year and the single individual who made the biggest difference on the global stage during 2009. We can tear him down in years to come but face it, the guy's a phenomenon and all things considered, the entire planet is better off at the end of the year thanks to the choices he has made as president.
  • Chimerica: I hate this cute hybrid name. Probably because I didn't come up with it. But look at the scoreboard folks, in 2009 there wasn't a major challenge on the global stage that wasn't in large part defined by how these two powers chose to act. It's a watershed for weltanschaungs everywhere.
  • The Taliban: See above. Nine years ago we went to Afghanistan to bomb these guys into the Stone Age only to discover the only political infrastructure in the country belonged to these women-hating living fossils of dark ages gone by. Now, the search for Bin Laden has effectively been replaced by the search for a "moderate Taliban." Why? Because one was the reason we went in and the other is our ticket to get out.
  • Asif Ali Zardari: I'll admit it, I'm no fan. He's a lousy president. He's totally unreliable. His government is a feeble joke and barely keeps a lid on the most dangerous country in the world. But he's still alive at the end of 2009 and still in office and frankly, both defy the odds in a big way. Everything's relative.
  • The G20: See the G8 above. (But face it; the G20 is really just a beard for getting China, India and Brazil seats at the head table. Everybody else there is just a speech the real decision-makers have to sit through before they tell the rest of the members what decision the big guys have agreed to.)
  • The Superclass: This is just my way of sending a note of thanks to Lloyd Blankfein for defending the premise of my last book (Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making) by turning the biggest failure of the ruling class into yet another obscene payday. If you ever doubted their power, just look at how they shrugged off government interference in markets until they needed it, then profited on it and excused the government from further involvement. Oh sure, there will be some financial reform ... but the big inequality driving, financial system jeopardizing flaws in the system these guys have created to serve their self-interests will remain ... and so will they. And I will remain violently opposed to them until they co-opt me with a big stinkin' check.
  • The IMF: For sure they were a dead institution walking. The Asif Ali Zardari of the global financial system. And like the Superclass, they emerge as a big winner of the financial crisis. They have more influence and people are even lusting after their SDRs. Which just goes to show: it kinda helps to be the only game in town.
  • Bibi: Admit it; you thought he would be disaster.But here's the reality, he engineered the most remarkable bit of political kung fu in Israeli history. All he did was turn Obama's initial realist-induced skepticism into the first time ever that an Israeli government benefited by having the United States seemingly turn against it. This in turn gave the Israelis much more leverage in the on-going peace discussions. (That and the problems with the Palestinians cited earlier.) Every time Obama or his team would lecture against a Netanyahu position, it would inadvertently help the sly Israeli PM.
  • Pragmatism: When the economy is circling the drain and existential threats are everywhere around you, posturing and slogans are seen for the window-dressing they are. Isn't it interesting that a U.S. president primarily known for his rhetorical gifts is crafting a presidency in which words are really secondary and everything is about the deal. (Arguably, in some cases, to a fault.)
  • Gold: Damn, I got the filling but now I am going to have use it to pay the dentist. Maybe I'll just wait until they extend Medicare down to my age group.
  • Avatar: Early reviews this week from London say this $500 million movie may change the industry. Given how lousy reality is, being able to conjure up entirely new ones (in 3-D even) seems like a great idea.

PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL/AFP/Getty Images

 

ERIC C

10:03 PM ET

December 15, 2009

FP labels/ Blog Roll

I've always thought that the label "realist" was unfair. If you disagree with them, does that mean you are being "unrealistic" Technically yes. I also disagree with their positions...

Also wanted to say, at my website, www.onviolence.com, my co-blogger and I included you and a bunch of other FPers on our blogroll. I love you writing like today's post and keep up the good work. (I'd have emailed you but I don't think it is online)

 

PAUL81

6:13 AM ET

December 16, 2009

I disagree....

"Ditching Israel" is not really the CENTRAL objective of ALL realists. I would say some realists do not completely agree with the Israel Lobby thesis (i.e. that it has overridden a realist view of U.S. foreign policy), and also, even those that do agree like Walt and Mearsheimer would say that it's merely one objective in a much more broad strategy of pulling back to being off-shore balancer and letting people take care of some of their own problems.

If Obama is the "ur pragmatist," and has rejected realists as well as idealists, that means everyone wins or everyone loses. I'd say so far the realists are doing pretty well, especially when you compare his actions/statements with Clinton and Bush 43.

And on another note, who are these high-powered people in the "punditocracy" that have been backing realists so hard? I track commentary on a daily basis for my job, so I know for a fact that the most oft-quoted analysts are still neo-cons and Liberal hawks (think o'hanlon and max boot) followed by "pragmatists" like Leslie Gelb, Richard Haas, Stephen Biddle, and the guys at CNAS.

 

BRETT

9:35 AM ET

December 16, 2009

Once again hope and hype has

Once again hope and hype has been followed by a chilling dose of reality, an opaque "peace process," and in the end by the fact that you can't cut a deal between two groups when one of them isn't quite organized to either represent their views effectively or implement any deals that actually get done. While the world wants to blame it on the Israelis, the thing that slammed the break on this process toward the end of 2009 was the fact that the Palestinians couldn't get their act together.

I don't know whether you can consider the Israelis "losers", seeing as how they just stayed in the same bad position throughout the year. The Palestinians definitely lost ground, though - even after a war, the humanitarian issues surrounding the Gaza blockade remain in place, land dispossession continues, etc.

And then on top of that, the core objective of realists -- ditching Israel -- didn't turn out to work so well as the new administration discovered what all before them have, we are allied with the Israelis not because they are perfect but because all the other alternatives are so lousy.

That doesn't affect whether or not they are right - and I challenge you to find one instance, one, where Walt or his ilk actually expected Obama to change the US-Israeli relationship. Walt in particular has been rather pessimistic.

As for the "core objective", thin-skinned much? I've seen this petty type of comment from you on Israel a couple of times before, and it's rather pathetic every time.

I'll admit it, I'm no fan. He's a lousy president. He's totally unreliable. His government is a feeble joke and barely keeps a lid on the most dangerous country in the world. But he's still alive at the end of 2009 and still in office and frankly, both defy the odds in a big way. Everything's relative.

The problem with this is that his position actually has declined. Whereas he started out with relatively wider support due to the anti-Musharraf reaction, a supportive US, and the like, he's now having to cede powers, the US is skeptical of him, and he's widely disliked in Pakistan and seen as a US lap-dog. He's "lost" ground by any definition.

 

DAVID IN DC

1:15 PM ET

December 16, 2009

I challenge you to find one

I challenge you to find one instance, one, where Walt or his ilk actually expected Obama to change the US-Israeli relationship. Walt in particular has been rather pessimistic.

It doesn't change the fact that Walt was a loser. His obsessional attempt to sway public opinion about his "Lobby" actually was successful in one aspect - I think he is getting the word out. He got this blog gig, I would imagine had a lot of speaking engagements, and even got space on the Washington Post op-ed page. It seems that more and more people are aware of and amplifying his theories (or perhaps I am reading his blogroll too much :-)).

He is a loser because, despite getting the word out, his ideas aren't getting traction. He will, of course, point to that as yet more evidence that he was right about "the Lobby". However, a simpler explanation is that Americans just don't agree with him**. People reject Walt and his ideas because he is so over the top with his Israel obsession, his original "scholarship" was shoddy work, and a look at his blog shows that he is not presenting thoughtful analysis but rather tendentious snarking in an attempt to further his Lefty agenda. He is preaching to the choir, as one can tell from his comments and his blog roll, but not convincing too many others as far as I can tell.

**Ultimately, Walt really wants people to agree with him about policy decisions. "The Lobby" is simply a tool/foil/rationalization with which to manipulate public opinion/push his agenda/explain why his ideas aren't winning the day.

 

BRETT

3:24 PM ET

December 16, 2009

his original "scholarship"

his original "scholarship" was shoddy work,

Have you actually read any of Walt's academic work? He was and is a serious political scientist, and was so before publishing The Israel Lobby.

 

DAVID IN DC

4:27 PM ET

December 16, 2009

Have you actually read any of

Have you actually read any of Walt's academic work?

Clearly I was only referring to his writings on "the Lobby" with that statement, which I did read. (And did you mean to imply that you don't consider Walt's Israel obsession "academic work"? Because that is how it reads.)

Of his other works, no, I haven't really read into them in depth, only abstracts. Given Walt's position, I assumed they contained excellent scholarship. Ironically, Walt uses this as a defense of his "Israel Lobby" work, but I think it works in the reverse - why would he produce such subpar work on this subject only? IMO, the main reason is because if he presented an academically rigorous and balanced work, he wouldn't have been able to make his case as convincingly, if at all. So, for the most part, he chose to only present the evidence that supported his position and conspicuously leave out evidence which could be taken as contradictory to it. This criticism didn't just come from "the Lobby" itself, but also from many people who are otherwise sympathetic to Walt's views.

A secondary reason for producing the work he did is notoriety/publicity. You aren't going to get the same level of interest by producing a balanced, academically rigorous tome which would be seen as, if not banal, mostly uninteresting by most people. Now, Walt has achieved rock star status among the "anti-Lobby", and is making a ton of money selling his book and speaking and maybe even parlayed it into this blogging gig. In his posts on transparency (apparently "for thee, but not for me") I have asked him to break down his funding/income by percent of total for the years before and after writing The Israel Lobby, but he declined, unsurprisingly, only providing current numbers.

 

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