Disclosure: I have been heavily leaning Obama since the YouTube debate, and this diary offers a glimpse into my step-by-step evolution.
On July 23, Obama said, in response to a YouTube question, that he would meet with controversial world leaders.
On August 1, Obama delivered a comprehensive foreign policy speech.
On August 2, in response to an AP reporter’s question, Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in such an effort.
What has happened in this span of a little more than two weeks?
Senator Barack Obama has hammered on three fault lines of the calcified US foreign policy presumptions, cracked them open, and has already changed the course of history in the process.
Lots more at the jump…
Part I: On Obama’s Willingness to Engage All World Leaders
Former NY Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, who has authored five books and reported from fifty countries on four continents, weighs in on the foreign policy issues that have rocked the presidential campaign in recent weeks. In a column for The Guardian of London, Kinzer argues: The debate between Clinton and Obama about diplomacy is one Americans desperately need to hear.
Kinzer begins with an account of how the Vietnam War could have been avoided in 1954 if only then-US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had met with China’s Zhou Enlai, when both were in the city of Geneva, Switzerland:
Dulles however, fiercely opposed the idea of negotiating with communists. He was against summit meetings and even cultural exchanges. Any gesture of conciliation from behind the iron curtain, he believed, was simply a ruse intended to lull the west into passivity so it would be vulnerable to a communist attack or takeover. When he arrived in Geneva for the 1954 peace talks, a reporter asked him if he might take this chance to meet with Zhou Enlai.
"Not unless our automobiles collide," he replied.
On the dispute over whether to meet with US-shunned world leaders, Kinzer’s unique and long experience in foreign affairs leads him to conclude:
Obama is right, Clinton is wrong. In the modern world, stakes are too high to refuse to listen to what hostile foreign leaders have to say. Negotiation can help keep crises manageable. It can also reveal unexpected areas of agreement, or at least areas of possible cooperation, that can be nurtured even within the framework of a hostile relationship.
Add to Kinzer's another voice of experience: Senior White House correspondent Helen Thomas:
Clinton is wrong and Obama is right. Both should be emphasizing the need for a more peaceful world and an end to the daily slaughter in Iraq that has shamed this country's world image. The first order of business for the new president in 2009 should be to repair the damage inflicted by President Bush's disastrous unilateralism.
And Al Hunt borrows from the Pew Research Center’s survey of 45,000 citizens of the world to explain how ‘Rock Star’ Obama in Harmony with US Allies:
``The biggest complaint is that we conduct foreign policy unilaterally,'' says Andy Kohut, who directs the survey. ``Iraq is the poster child for those views.''
"This is part of the generic complaint that American leaders simply don't care what others think."
Obama’s bold statement that he will meet with world leaders and the “spat” that ensued was followed by a statistically significant spike in Obama’s poll numbers in Iowa (Obama up 12 points, virtual tie for the lead), New Hampshire (Obama up 6 points, virtual tie for the lead), and South Carolina (Obama up 12, now four points ahead of nearest rival). NO subsequent poll has appeared in any of these states to dispute these numbers.
And yes, these numbers are at odds with “national polls” precisely because voters in those early caucus and primary states are paying attention; look for the national numbers to shift early next year when voters nationwide begin to tune in.
But as significantly, Obama’s foreign policy statements have served as a kind of “message in a bottle” to the rest of the world to signal that America is not George W. Bush, nor is the only alternative to him another Democratic President that stubbornly clings to a “conventional wisdom” that much of the world, including most US allies, rejects.
Part II: Taking the Lead on Pakistan
One week later, on August 1, when Obama spoke again on foreign policy (in the major speech – click to read the whole thing or watch the video - to the Woodrow Wilson Center that was scheduled months in advance), the world was paying attention as never before to one challenger to the Bush regime.
Part II and III of the narrative demonstrate that even as a mere candidate for president, Obama is engaging in a style of leadership that forces those that want to remain stuck in the status quo to get off their rear ends and move. After all, how much was Pakistan discussed prior to August 1, not just in the presidential campaign, but as a major policy issue at all?
Obama’s rivals – Democrat, Republican, MSM and right-wing pundits, the Bush administration and the Pakistani military dictatorship – screamed in unison at “Obama the Heretic.” How dare he! Their first move was to misstate what Obama said, in particular these few words from a lengthy and comprehensive speech:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
In that speech, Obama also reiterated his call to end the Iraq war (among Democratic candidates, only Kucinich and he have been consistent in that position all along), said again that he’ll shut down Guantanamo and restore Habeus Corpus, and stood firm with his pledge to engage all world leaders. It was a proud liberal statement reframing US foreign policy more boldly than any other candidate has done.
The adherents to “Obamaphobia” went into full freak-out: The unholy alliance between the Republican and Democratic establishments reared its head once again with the help of the establishment media. They attempted to paint Obama, now, as a warmonger who would “invade” Pakistan. More on that lower down in this narrative, but first the third controversy, over nukes, now tied together with the second over Pakistan…
Part III: Willingness to Rule Out First Use of Nuclear Weapons
Then, on August 2, the Associated Press played a “gotcha game” asking Obama whether he would use nuclear weapons to get Al Qaida’s leaders.
The first AP story offered only a partial disclosure of the interview, quoting Obama out of context:
''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,'' Obama said, with a pause, ''involving civilians.'' Then he quickly added, ''Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.''
Among those that went ballistic was a frequent MyDD and DKos user that posted, here: Breaking: Another Major Gaffe by Obama on Nukes, just moments after the AP report.
But moments later, the AP had to publish a first paragraph correction (which then had to be repeated as Politico.com and others had to publish corrections of their own):
"Eds: SUBS 1st graf and RAISES three grafs to CLARIFY that Obama was responding to a question about using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
The correction didn’t stop some of Obama’s rivals from trying to pile on.
Senator Clinton went into automatic drive, repeating her “I’m more experienced” meme:
"Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.”
And Senator Chris Dodd jumped in:
"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Del.) said in a statement. "He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options."
Note the rushed confusion in the Washington Post story. The author lists Dodd, of Connecticut, as being from Delaware. Must have confused him with Senator Joe Biden, who was also quick to punch:
"In order to look tough, he's undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you're going to go into Pakistan, which is already our policy, by the way, if there's actionable intelligence, you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you," Biden said on NPR's 'Diane Rehm Show.' "It's a well intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy."
Governor Bill Richardson also joined in the Obama-slap:
"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.
The Democratic establishment was soon joined by a gaggle of right-wingers: Giuliani advisor John Podhoretz, National Review’s Jim Geraghty, Byron York and Kathryn Jean Lopez, Bill O’Reilly protégée Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs, A.J. Strata, and Rush Limbaugh, among them. You may read their compiled attacks here.
Also joining Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and the right-wingnuts voicing agreement with them, in the pile-on were most of the Republican presidential candidates: More on them in a moment.
It is so very, very telling that by Saturday’s YKos Presidential Forum, Senators Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Richardson were already backing down from their attacks on Obama over foreign policy. They sat silent as church mice about what they or their supporters had called “gaffes” by Obama, even as Obama continued to push his bold foreign policy initiatives with them right there on stage, practically inviting them to take a swing at him.
Richardson, during the YKos debate, gave an almost verbatim endorsement of the very Obama position he had criticized days earlier:
Richardson: “We’ve got to push Musharraf. He’s not exactly a democrat. He doesn’t like elections… (he) violates human rights. I would tell him, ‘You go after those safe havens. If you don’t, we will.’”
Just as with former President Bill Clinton’s official white flag of surrender on the “meeting with world leaders” spat, just a few days of scuffle (and everybody’s careful reading of internal polling numbers) demonstrated that what they called “gaffes” by Obama were in fact political home runs, driving up his numbers in those states, and among those voters, that were paying attention.
Not so with the Republicans, who during their Sunday morning debate in Iowa, seemed obsessed with Obama.
Giuliani’s obsession is understandable, now that the world knows that his 17-year-old daughter supports Obama for President. Note, in this video, how even as Giuliani hits Obama, he is forced to essentially agree with the substance of his statement:
Romney played it similarly (and showed a special nostalgia for 1960s motion pictures and one of their actresses; what is that guy, a hippie? Ha!):
But parse Romney’s statements and even he was forced to accept Obama's position on the merits:
When Stephanopoulos asked Romney his position on the issue, Romney stated:
ROMNEY: It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say "we're going to go into your country unilaterally." Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don't go out and say: "Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn't think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out." We don't say those things. We keep our options quiet.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post went so far as to declare Barack Obama to be one of the “winners” of the Republican Presidential debate in Iowa on Sunday:
Obama was all over this debate and was even the basis of one of the questions. That's great news for the Illinois Senator. It shows he has become a major center of gravity in this race although he has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) It also allowed him to put out a statement of his own that drew a bright line between him and the GOP candidates on the war. "The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy," Obama said.
The common theme and repeated narrative of all these subplots is that Obama leads with his use of speech and logic, the others try to discredit him, they fail, then they come around to his position.
Not content to merely be driving the Democratic and Republican primary debates for the past two weeks, Obama, by making bold statements, correct on substance, stylishly delivered, packed with authentic new approaches and vision, and by sticking with his message on each and refusing to buckle under the pressure of the pack-journalists and pack-candidates, has also driven US policy through a kind of remote control of speaking the common sense that nobody else is willing to say aloud.
From Politics to Policy
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is among those haunted by Obama. On Sunday’s Face The Nation program, she tried to deflect the essential correctness of Obama’s position on Pakistan, but even when prodded she could not say that Obama was wrong:
Sec/State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Sec. Robert Gates made the Sunday show rounds to talk foreign affairs but found in an almost election year, it's WH politics that take center stage as both got asked about Barack Obama's comments on Pakistan:
Rice: "Of course, we are going to go after targets and after extremists, but so are the Pakistanis, because they have a lot at risk, too."
CBS' Schieffer: "But let me just go back here. You would not leave it to Pakistan to take care of this?"
Rice: "I think that we and Pakistan have a very strong interest together in capturing or killing high-value targets. Let me remind again. Pakistan itself is at risk from extremists. Musharraf himself is at risk from extremists. That gives us a joint interest in making sure that high-value targets are captured or killed" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 8/5).
Wait, it gets even better! Then President George W. Bush also flipped, forced into a corner by Obama's statements to get tougher on the Pakistan military regime:
President George Bush insisted yesterday that the US would kill Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders believed to be hiding in Pakistan if it had "actionable intelligence". He refused to say whether he would first seek permission for an attack from Pakistan's president.
Then came the cherry on the cake. Pakistan’s government, after decrying Obama’s push, gave in to it, first in word:
‘Pakistan will act against Al Qaeda if given actionable intelligence’
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Ambassador to United States Mahmood Ali Durrani said on Monday Pakistan would not even hesitate for a moment if actionable and timely intelligence is provided about the presence of Al Qaeda elements on its soil.
“We have 85,000 troops in the tribal areas. We will not hesitate for a moment … if we have actionable, timely intelligence, we will go after them,” the ambassador told CNN.
And then in deed:
The BBC reports:
Pakistani troops, backed by helicopter gunships and artillery, have launched an attack on a militant base in North Waziristan, army officials say.
Note that, in the BBC story, Obama’s mentor, US Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) is in Pakistan as it happens (the new diplomacy has already begun).
There’s more too all this, particularly about how Obama’s statements have strengthened the hand of pro-democracy moderates in Pakistan like former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. But I’ll save those for a future diary.
The point of this one is that it is Obama deciding the narrative of US foreign policy in the presidential race (it has been ever since he was first to oppose the Iraq war, but it has taken every one else years to catch up), and by forging the New Diplomacy script, he is also influencing policy itself.
Naïve and Inexperienced?
Or smarter and more visionary than his critics?
He who is demonstrating leadership and causing others to follow, not those that just talk about it, is the one showing the right experience and savvy to usher in a bright new era of US foreign policy in this new century.
Obama uses the bully pulpit and causes all the sides reluctant to speak or act before to do so now.
The rest are merely engaging in spin.
Keep your eyes open. This is likely to keep happening, again and again and again, as the campaign progresses. Because when it comes to US foreign policy, one player has the vision, while others can't think outside the "conventional wisdom" box.
UPDATE: At the AFL-CIO debate (which began after this diary was written) more evidence of the foreign policy narrative in this diary surfaced, particularly when Senator Clinton said to Obama, "you should not always say everything you think when you are running for president, because it can have consequences," and was booed for it. The heavy applause received by Obama on Pakistan and foreign policy from a union crowd also speaks volumes on how the "war and peace" theme is driving this campaign. Also noteworthy, At labor debate, sparks fly over foreign policy, from the Boston Globe.