by Eric Martin
Fareed Zakaria (whose GPS program on CNN is must-watch TV) tries to talk sense to those members of the foreign policy establishment that are rushing to pass premature – and shallow – judgment on Obama's initial foreign policy measures:
The problem with American foreign policy goes beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement. Other countries can have no legitimate interests of their own—Russian demands are by definition unacceptable. The only way to deal with countries is by issuing a series of maximalist demands. This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world.
This is a deeply embedded and pervasive pathology that will require much effort to force into remission. As Zakaria points out in his piece, many of the same voices that were critiquing Bush's hidebound posture are now chiding Obama for being too willing to talk. Makes perfect sense.
Meanwhile, Daniel Larison is busy trying to swat down other ill-reasoned foreign policy critiques percolating up through some right-leaning outlets:
There is a non-story making the rounds that the Russian military might base bombers in Venezuela and Cuba, provided that the Kremlin wanted to do this. In the same story that is being circulated, the Kremlin ruled out the idea as hypothetical speculation. Naturally, this had no effect whatever on wild accusations of Obama’s foreign policy failure. I give you Ed Morrissey:
It took John Kennedy more than a year to precipitate a military standoff with the Soviet Union over Cuba in the 1962 missile crisis. It’s taken the Obama Amateur Hour less than two months.
Mind you, there is no military standoff, Russia isn’t doing what Morrissey fears it will do, and Obama had nothing to do with this, but other than that Morrissey is on fire. Oh, wait, that’s not right. He continues to make a fool of himself:
Can you imagine Russia trying this with George Bush? For that matter, can you imagine Bush losing Kyrgyzstan — and a vital military route — to Putin?
Well, since Russia went to war with Georgia, resumed long-range bomber flights and sent a warship to Venezuela during the years of the mighty Bush, yes, I can imagine it. Since the lease for Manas airbase was set to expire anyway, had Bush somehow still been in office during the last two months he would have “lost Kyrgyzstan” just the same, so I can imagine this, too. This is because the decision not to renew the lease was made by the Kyrgyz government in response to public discontent over the U.S. presence that had been building up throughout the Bush administration’s tenure. As with so many other things in foreign policy, Bush “lost Kyrgyzstan,” if we must speak of things this way, and Obama is stuck with the consequences. I don’t say this particularly to defend Obama, whose handling of foreign policy (particularly with respect to India and Britain) has been mixed at best, but to correct painfully ignorant statements on matters that are of great importance to the United States.
For the real-time revisionists, it's not just that the economy was created, ex nihilo, by the Obama administration on the day he was sworn in won the election, so too did our foreign policy options, foreign policy commitments and the prerogatives of foreign nations usher forth from the void on that fateful Tuesday in November.
Maybe these are the historians Bush is putting his faith in?
(links via John Cole)
Ed Morrisey is a shameless shill ?
oh noes. what will we tell the children ?
what will we tell the children ?
That he was a Very Serious Person.
From Eric’s Hot Air link:
“A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.
“The chief of staff of Russia’s long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.
“Zhikharev said Chavez had offered ‘a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers,’ the agency reported. ‘If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island … by the Russian Air Force is possible.’
“Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could.”
E: I first read this yesterday morning in Sunday’s NYT. If I remember correctly, it was buried in the front news section. I read it as Russia flexing its new-found military might, even if just verbally.
Anyhow, I was wondering why you think it is a “non-story.”
Anyhow, I was wondering why you think it is a “non-story.”
Because the Kremlin said these were mere hypothetical scenarios in the same article. That there was no decision to do anything like what is described. So they’re just hollow statements at this point. If and when it becomes an actual story then it should be treated as such.
But Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press that “the military is speaking about technical possibilities, that’s all. If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment,” he said.
Further, even if acted upon, there doesn’t seem to be much of a story. From the same article:
Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia.
Russia recently conducted some joint naval operations in Venezuelan waters, and I didn’t think it was much of a story then. Under Bush.
“Anyhow, I was wondering why you think it is a ‘non-story.'”
Because Chavez offering doesn’t mean the Kremlin accepting. And it helps to read more than one source on a story:
If a U.S. general spouts off about a political issue, and the White House says he was just speaking hypothetically, who are you going to believe will be correct about the policy?
It’s a non-story for several reasons.
One, the Russians temporarily based several bombers in Venezuela a short time back during the admin of Cap’n Ed’s heroic GWB.
Two, Russia has been doing North American bomber flights for several years now.
Third, Chavez seems to have backed away from Zhikharev’s comments.
I read it as Russia flexing its new-found military might, even if just verbally.
What strategic capabilities would basing bombers in Venezuela offer Russia that Russia doesn’t already have? If Russia wants to bomb us, it already has ICBMs on land and in submarines. There is no muscle here; this is just Chavez posturing hoping that he can get some free press when stupid western journalists take this seriously.
Russia does not have new-found military might.
Plus, Venezuala has denied making such an offer, only saying that, if needed, bombers could land in Venezuala, but they could not be based there.
Besides, I thought when Putin wanted to rear his head in American Airspace, he peered through Sarah Palin’s windows. Or something.
Hey, where’d my comment go?
Stupid Typepad.
From the Venezuelan daily El Universal, a newspaper which absolutely detests Hugo Chavez, via its English section:
Good title, but “Fareed Your Mind and U.S. Will Follow” would have been better.
I think you might be right Ben.
Because the Kremlin said…
Oh, okay. Wow, of course! The Kremlin said it. It must be true!
“Oh, okay. Wow, of course! The Kremlin said it. It must be true!”
Sure, what a Russian general said must be even truer. That makes sense.
Gary, excuse my ignorance for not getting your sarcasm, if that’s what it is, but are you also saying this is a non-story?
Just wondering.
Maybe because even when Bush was president, it was a non-story according to Admiral Mullen:
Why would it be a “story” now?
WTF!?
My second comment also vanished?!
WTF!?!
In fact that’s three comments that appeared to post, and then vanished.
My first long response to BTFB, my wtf post about that post vanishing, and my later second long response to BTFB.
WTF?
Okay, this is insane. The fourth attempt vanished, too.
Five times.
Ok, short version, for the third frakking time.
It helps to read more than one source:
Italics mine.
We have mouthy generals, too, and what they say is of less account than what their bosses say. Russia has a lot more mouthy generals, and one of them gets in the international news on average of at least once every two months with some bit of nonsense.
When there’s more to something than some general making big claims, like an actual event, that’ll be a real story.
Now let’s see if this reconstruction doesn’t vanish like the other two times.
Six times. I give up.
Gary — earlier today there was a time period when all the comments on the “And another thing…” thread were gone. (That is, if I went to that thread, no comments appeared, where there had been a bunch before. Other threads seemed fine. Or as fine as usual.)
Then the comments to that thread were back. Something even more screwy than usual seems to be going on.
Wait: my attempt to post Gary’s comment vanished too. It was here — I checked — and then it wasn’t.
OK: it’s flagging all of them as spam. Here goes Gary’s comment, in bits:
Ok, short version, for the third frakking time.
It helps to read more than one source:
More of Gary. This is still from the source he’s quoting:
Chavez — a fierce critic of Washington with close ties to Russia and Cuba — said his government did not raise the possibility, as Russian media had reported.
“It’s not like that,” the president said, responding to a report by Interfax news agency quoting the chief of staff of Russia’s long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, as saying some strategic bombers could be based on an island offered by Venezuela.
Zhikharev reportedly said Saturday that Chavez had offered “a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers.”
Speaking during his weekly television and radio program, Chavez said he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that his nation’s bombers would be allowed to land in Venezuela if necessary, but no such plans have been made.
[…]
Interfax also reported that Zhikharev said Russian bombers could be based in communist-led Cuba, but a Kremlin official said Zhikharev had been speaking hypothetically.
Kremlin official Alexei Pavlov responded to the report on Saturday, saying that “the military is speaking about technical possibilities, that’s all.”
“If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment,” Pavlov said. Italics mine.
End of Gary’s comment”
We have mouthy generals, too, and what they say is of less account than what their bosses say. Russia has a lot more mouthy generals, and one of them gets in the international news on average of at least once every two months with some bit of nonsense.
When there’s more to something than some general making big claims, like an actual event, that’ll be a real story.
Now let’s see if this reconstruction doesn’t vanish like the other two [now six] times.
Hah. It didn’t seem to be giving me the option of un-flagging Gary’s comment as spam, but I figured out how to get around it. (So there, TypePad!) So now one iteration of his comment, plus my bits, will appear….
Anyhow, I was wondering why you think it is a “non-story.”
Even if it is a “story”, it’s rather surreal that the US does not think twice about missile strikes in countries like Pakistan, but Russia maybe possibly basing bombers in Venezuela would be an affront…
Thanks, Hilzoy.
So Gary can’t post pertinent links, but s*p*a*m comments like Sarah at 10:35 AM slip through. Hooray for TypePad!
Really though. I’m going to delete the spam though.