by Eric Martin
Robert Manning says much of what needs to be said about the inanity of Michael Gerson's attempt to define the "Obama Doctrine" - and much of what he says bears repeating:
It is a reminder of how far discourse on foreign policy had been distorted that former Bush speechwriter and now-Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has declared the basic act of diplomacy the "Obama Doctrine."
This is unfortunate, as Gerson makes some valid points on the difficulties and dilemmas of negotiating with authoritarian regimes. Few would argue that the ticking time bombs of North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation inherited by Obama six months ago have been defused or even headed in that direction.
But to argue that, "the defining principle of President Obama's foreign policy is engagement with America's adversaries," is both silly and wrong. Talking to governments we don't like is not only not a doctrine, it is not even a policy. "Engagement" is simply an act of statecraft, a tactic and basic tool of foreign policy. It is only if measured against the notion that negotiating is not a tool, but necessarily a moral act, that engagement even becomes an issue…
But is it fair to argue that President Obama's willingness to talk to countries of concern is a "doctrine." Such inclinations have been the stuff of foreign policy for hundreds of years. Diplomacy is a means, not an end. That appeared to be Obama's point during campaign 2008, though he often was chastised by his opponents for purportedly being "naïve." Assuming benign intentions of regimes like those in North Korea, Iran or Burma would be naïve. Simply offering to talk to them, however, is, short of sanctions or war, one of the few choices available. The issue is the context and what you say and how judiciously you deal with them. No matter how much you may disdain Pyongyang, mere scorn, no matter how intense, is an attitude, not a policy.
Dialogue does not necessarily lead to the resolution of differences. In fact, it could be the opposite: negotiations might lead you to conclude that differences are so deep that no deal is worth pursuing. But can you really know that without probing the government in question? [emphasis added]
But aside from dismantling Gerson's misguided hypothesis, the two bolded portions highlight basic concepts that inform, generally speaking, the thinking of groups that have developed a knee-jerk hostility to engagement. For neoconservatives, sanctions and war are, as a matter of course, the preferred means to achieve American objectives. To their thinking, there is a value, in itself, in flexing our muscle – the better to show the world that we mean business.
Further, according to this line of thought, in a unipolar world the United States should not be expected to compromise at all, and yet compromise and concession are a key component of settlements reached through engagement/negotiation. Thus, any possible track short of war and sanctions is suspect or, to use their favorite phrase, "appeasement." In fact, the neoconservatives – who have grown to dominate GOP foreign policy thinking - were vehement critics of Ronald Reagan for his decision to engage the USSR – deeming him "naive," "reckless" and, you guessed it, an appeaser akin to…Neville Chamberlain.
In reference to the first bolded part, the dominant neocon/modern GOP foreign policy school views the mere act of meeting with foreign leaders as an event loaded with moral significance. In fact, it is often suggested that the mere chance for a photo op with an American leader is a massive boost for the lucky regime/leader. Take, for example, the reaction to former President Clinton's successful effort to secure the release from North Korea of two American journalists:
John Bolton still called the move a mistake. “[T]his is a classic case of rewarding bad behavior,” he complained.
Many right-wing commentators later piled on. “John Bolton is right,” declared the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes. “This is a lifeline to a regime that is a terrorist regime that has proliferated nuclear technology,” he said. […]
Charles Krauthammer complained that North Korea “got a lot” out of the deal and that “it does help the North Koreans in their legitimacy.”
Amazing: for a country whose population has been trained – with great success – to harbor extreme anti-American views, simply meeting with an ex-President of the United States is enough to give a lifeline to the regime. Because…that's how special ex-US Presidents are to the people of North Korea? How this is supposed to work, Hayes and his cohorts never really say, but it would be interesting to probe that explanation further.
The same is true in other nations/regions where local leaders struggle to avoid the appearance of closeness to the United States (which can be the political kiss of death) and yet, when potential negotiations are suggested, such a prospect is treated as a gift bestowed on the leader in question. Similarly, there is the argument that such high level meetings, alone, act as an endorsement of the regime in question and all its practices – regardless of the purposes of the meetings, objectives pursued and positions taken. And regardless of the fact that the United States has met with several regimes and leaders that it was quite hostile to throughout its history. It's not as if meetings with China or the USSR were taken as signals of support.
It's unclear to what extent the putative proponents of the "engagement as endorsement" and "legitimacy via engagement with the US" arguments actually believe them, and to what extent they are merely useful devices to be employed in the pursuit of the "sanctions and war" exclusivity. Either way, these arguments and attitudes are ready for the scrap heap.
a “doctrine” is their script. without a script, the pointy-headed foreign policy types won’t know how to correctly frame all the confusing things that happen around them!
pity the intellectuals who can’t report events without knowing in advance how to think about them!
I don’t understand how all these Churchill-loving, Neville-Chamberlin-hating NeoCons can somehow never seem to remember one of the most important things that a man noted for his pithy statements ever said:
For context, he said that at a White House dinner in late June 1954, during his second time as Prime Minister, nearly at the height of the cold war (shortly after the famous Army-McCarthy hearings, mostly in May 1954, which really punctured the Red Scare).
How can anyone ever think that it is better or more effective to noisily refuse to talk than to appear at least superficially reasonable? And, of course, once you’ve failed to achieve progress despite being so eminently reasonable your moral authority both at home and abroad will necessarily be increased. Heck, even George W Bush, in the run-up to the Iraq War, made a very public (if fraudulent) claims that he’d tried everything and had run out of options short of invasion.
“But to argue that, ‘the defining principle of President Obama’s foreign policy is engagement with America’s adversaries,’ is both silly and wrong.”
Translation: “the defining principle of President Obama’s foreign policy is to have one.”
Gerson:
And how did we get to “this point”?
By way of comparison, the Bush Administration, in eight years of their preferred methods of dealing with North Korea, accomplished… what?
By way of comparison, the Bush Administration, in eight years of their preferred methods of dealing with Iran, accomplished… what?
Gerson:
Therefore we should… give them more reason to feel threatened?
Gerson:
And this would be a bad thing?
And here’s where I love it even more: Gerson continues:
So the whole “problem,” as Gerson defines it, of the Obama approach is that there’s insufficient confrontation, which is bad, because confrontation is good, therefore the lack of confrontation will… build the case for confrontation! Oh noes!
Is Gerson on drugs?
I’m also reminded of the fact that this is a guy whose life has been spent as a speechwriter, and now has a job as a former speechwriter. His experience of forming policy as regards, or negotating with, other nations?
Zero.
He did, to be sure, come up with the term “Axis Of Evil,” and also “Gerson proposed the use of a ‘smoking gun/mushroom cloud’ metaphor during a September 5, 2002 meeting of the White House Iraq Group, in an effort to sell the American public on the nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.”
So we should all be sure to give him the credit due to a person with those credentials.
“The same is true in other nations/regions where local leaders struggle to avoid the appearance of closeness to the United States”
Broken link there.
There is no doubt that those who proport a “unipolar” world with the US as the singular “polar” would quickly change their tune if say, China, was the big dog on the world stage.
But if you are so ahistorical and so short sighted as to believe that, like Rome, 3 or 4 centuries is just dandy, then there is little I have to say beyond extending a little (very little) pity.
As Jon Stewart observed, these neocons defended Reagan when he illegally traded arms for hostages with Iran.
the term “Axis Of Evil,”
by David Frum, not Gerson, I think.
The credit for this phrase (if “credit” it merits) was disputed, because more than one speechwriter claimed authorship in the press. Frum was the first to claim credit publically (a transgression against the normal code for presidential speechwriters), albeit he claimed that he came up with the “axis” concept for the speech rather than penning the final version of the phrase (I believe his version was “axis of hatred”).
But Gerson also claimed authorship, including when he acted as a source for Bob Woodward. I get this from a very enjoyable article in the Atlantic a couple of years back deflating some of Gerson’s self-promotion, written by yet another ex-speechwriter for Dubya.
The following is a very appropriate section from the article:
Lucky Obama – I wouldn’t mind having the ‘thou shalt talk to rather than mindlessly berate and/or kill your enemies’ doctrine tagged with my name.
Actually I had thought that one of the many names that might be plausibly attached to this is ‘the Christian doctrine’. Oddly enough Gerson’s famously faith-based point of view seems to have deserted him when he started thinking about those mean foreigners
Sanctions? Am I remembering correctly that the conservatives opposed the sanctions against S. Africa as unworkable and ineffective? I remember some group did.
It seems pretty easy to see where these people are coming from. First, they start with the assumption that there are only two groups in the world: those that agree with them (almost) all the time, and those who are evil and will never agree to anything that might be in your interests. Then there is no point in talking to any of the evil ones, unless they have already been forced to do what you want. [Note that this applies to domestic affairs too, not just foreign policy.]
On the other hand, you can recognize that the world is full of people who are acting in their own self-interest, and from motivations that have nothing to do with you personally. Then it is always in your interest to talk to most of them. Not to say that there are not a (tiny) few people in the world who simply are evil. But even they may be persuaded to do what you wish, since their evil is not focused strictly on being evil to you.
And that is where the neocons’ defining characteristic shows up. They not only care only about their own side, they act as thought they believe that everyone else in the world only acts based on how it impacts their side. America undoubtedly has enormous influence in the world, but it is hardly the primary influence on everybody else’s decisions, let alone the only one.
JC: “by David Frum, not Gerson, I think.”
WT: “The credit for this phrase (if ‘credit’ it merits) was disputed,”
Does, like, no one ever read linked material?
It’s awfully discouraging to bother making links if everyone responds as if they’d never bothered to read the material and see that they’re repeating issues already covered.
The whole point of linking is so one doesn’t have to paste in all the additional relevant material.
Does, like, no one ever read linked material?
Yes, sometime but not always. Limitations of time, perceived relevance, etc etc
Your writing style was too subtle for my simplistic mind.
If rather than writing:
He did, to be sure, come up with the term “Axis Of Evil,”
you had said: He did, in his own mind, come up with the term Axis of Evil
or, he did, at least when he tells the story, come up with the term Axis of Evil
then i would have got the point
PS
I’ve never been able to figure out how to link anything, when I follow the directions nothing happens.
I’ve refrained from responding to plaintive queries like this before, but let me have a go at it this time.
Somewhat as Johnny Canuck said: I don’t have time — by a long shot — even to read everything on ObWi, much less to follow links and read what’s there. (More links, often, which tend to lead to more links, potentially ad infinitum.)
In all honesty, though, “I don’t have time” translates into several things. One is: I need to spend more time away from the computer. I don’t go into the woods nearly enough any more as it is. Another is: I’m not always interested enough to follow links even when I might (by some measure) have time.
My greatest delight at ObWi is seeing (and occasionally contributing to) the interplay of different viewpoints, from intelligent and thoughtful people. I don’t need to read links to do that.
Your (speaking more directly to Gary now) notion of “the whole point of linking” might be your whole point, but it wouldn’t be mine, either in making links or in following them.
If I make a link, it’s either to something entertaining or to some further exploration of a point I’m trying to make here, or to back up an assertion. If I link (which is rare) I do it for the sake of anyone who might have enough interest to follow the link, and who might share my pleasure in whatever the link leads to. But I never assume anyone will follow a link I offer, and I would never assume that the discussion here can’t proceed without everyone reading all the links everyone else presents.
I hasten to add that this isn’t meant to suggest that you should paste in “all the additional relevant material.” If people wanted to read all the additional relevant material, they could buy the book. 😉
“Another is: I’m not always interested enough to follow links even when I might (by some measure) have time.”
Yes, of course; my question wasn’t “doesn’t everyone read every link ever given in every thread on every topic?,” my question was, if you’re specifically interested to write back at length about a question brought up with a link, why not at least glance at the linked material?
That’s a vastly more limited question than the one you’re answering.
JC: “He did, to be sure, come up with the term ‘Axis Of Evil,'”
What I linked to, pasted in, instead of linked to (sublinks and italics not included, and not including the footnotes to further expand on the noted points):
I thought that took care of what folks then went on to discuss as if I’d not specifically pointed out the entire controversy.
Gary: “if you’re specifically interested to write back at length”
10 words is your definition of at length?
Wouldn’t it be easier to admit that your wit is too subtle for the dullards in the audience?
Your argument assumes that you and the neo-conservatives have the same goals. Reading this piece, I assume you want peace in the world and prosperity at home. But looking at the actions of neo-cons, I think some of them want something else. I think at least some, perhaps many, neo-cons see international relations as the working out of a morality play, a morality play that ends in triumph with their foot on the necks of their adversaries. Of course, you can’t negotiate that; even in the unlikely event that you did negotiate a surrender from your opponents, it would mean nothing because you would not have defeated them.
This impulse to dominate has a long history in politics.