Sunday, September 27, 2009

A Loyal Opposition   [Victor Davis Hanson]

1) It is false to suggest that Obama is a multilateralist, while Bush and his supporters were preemptive unilateralists. Bush worked well with allies, especially in the second term, and had close relations with Merkel, Sarkozy, and Blair, as well with India and China. Most of these unilateralist charges were exaggerated, and based on elite anger in the West over the Iraq War and the European street over his Texanisms and skepticism of cap-and-trade. In contrast, Obama has lurched to the left of France (as we saw in Sarkozy’s Iran worries), left the Eastern Europeans bewildered, tried to dump Gitmo detainees on allies, slapped a tariff on China, and is stimulating/inflating the U.S. economy in ways that make our debtors very nervous. So we should get beyond the notion that anyone who doubts the Obama outreach approach is de facto not desirous of working with allies or prefers military action. 

2) Obama will buck public opinion if it is for a liberal-base issue, such as health care and cap-and-trade. But his problem on Afghanistan is that it is both unpopular with the public and an anathema to his base. Moderates and conservatives will support him on Afghanistan, since they think stabilizing the country is necessary, humane, and doable, but they are those whom he has so far ostracized and caricatured on other issues, and may not wish to reach out to. So his options and time are limited. For all the acrimony and hysteria, the truth is that Afghanistan has endured for eight years, American casualties have been by historical standards kept to a minimum, and we have attrited al-Qaeda to a great degree. We are in a lot better shape than we were during December 1950 or right before the surge in Iraq, crises when most wanted out, but persistence saved the theater. 

3) To doubt Obama’s tactics on Iran, with Russia, or concerning radical Islam and terrorism is not to suggest there are easy answers in these bad/worse choices or that when he was inaugurated he was in any way responsible for the problems. The issue instead is whether he mitigates crises or worsens them by a) blaming them on his predecessor with the monotonous “reset” refrain; b) suggesting that his own novel presidency is a way of unlocking preexisting suspicions in a way that seems to allow some very bad actors to excuse their past and present behavior; c) employing moral equivalence in such a fashion that blends the existential differences between, say, a Syria and an Israel, a Honduras/Colombia and a Venezuela, or a Poland and a Russia.

There are alternatives to reaching out to talk with Iran without bombing them, alternatives to constantly pressuring the Israelis without giving them a green light on more new settlements, and alternatives to enticing Putin without going back to the Cold War.

4) Listening to the three lunatic speeches at the U.N., we are reminded that oil or cash reserves or both allow Ahmadinejad, Chávez, and Gaddafi to be what they are, and Russia and China to snub efforts to stop proliferation. Recent oil discoveries in Alaska, California, the Gulf, and the Dakotas remind us we can do a lot to help lower the world oil price, and save money by using our own resources to augment much needed conservation and alternative energy. Saving money, balancing our budget, and curbing borrowing from abroad would help as well, and give us far more leverage with those who intend us no good.

09/27 08:15 PMShare