Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011
War? With yet another country? Now?
So simple. So right. So intelligent. Why, then, is he an "outsider" and why are these ideas of his not more common in Washington, especially right now? Insane. I don't get it. We should all be brighter than where we are and what we're doing.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
How war should be
"In the earlier days of history, kings and leaders went to the battlefield with their men; but today, those who determine that a nation will go to war remain safely behind.
The next time leaders talk of warring, all the people should get together and send those leaders to the front lines. Give them a big arena with wonderfully effective ammunition, and the war will be finished in a day." — Parmahansa Yogananda, January 17, 1943
Who's with me on this?
Enjoy your beautiful Sunday out there, folks.
The next time leaders talk of warring, all the people should get together and send those leaders to the front lines. Give them a big arena with wonderfully effective ammunition, and the war will be finished in a day." — Parmahansa Yogananda, January 17, 1943
Who's with me on this?
Enjoy your beautiful Sunday out there, folks.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Let's hope he's wrong about war with Iran (guest post)
May 29, 2010
The Coming Iran War
It's happening again.
The same forces -- with a few new additions and minus a few smart defectors -- who pushed the United States into a needless and deadly war with Iraq are now organizing for the next war.
This time the target is Iran, which, just like Iraq, is said to be on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction.
Also, just like Iraq, its president is a supposed madman determined to destroy Israel.
In fact, in the case of Iraq, that president, Saddam Hussein, not only threatened to "incinerate half of Israel," he actually launched 39 SCUD missiles against Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.
That war finished off Saddam as a power.
But that was not good enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering buddies. Ten years later, with Cheney in the vice presidency and 9/11 as the pretense, the Cheney crowd led America into a war to depose Saddam. The goal: to turn Iraq into an American protectorate in order to make tens of billions of dollars for themselves and their corporate allies. So far, 4,400 Americans, 318 allied forces, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died to advance that agenda.
But Cheney also enlisted a gang of war cheerleaders who had no interest in making money off the conflict. Those were the neocons who pushed for war out of the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel.
The Cheney gang consisted of people like Doug Feith, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Scooter Libby, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and their various allies in government and media. The Israel lobby is also a member of that gang -- although it operated with nothing like the vigor that it now dedicates to the anti-Iran effort. (The pressure exerted by the lobby is a big part of the reason so many Democrats supported a war they knew was wrong.)
Of course, Iraq did not have WMDs and the Bush administration almost surely knew it. (If Iraq had them, we would no more have attacked Iraq than we now attack North Korea. In fact, the evidence that a country does not have WMDs is our willingness to consider bombing it.)
But, no matter, the gang of war profiteers and neocon ideologues were hell bent on war anyway. The supposed WMDs were just a pretense.
This would all be for the history books (and the grieving widows, parents, grandparents, children, partners, sisters and brothers of the fallen Americans) if the same scenario was not being played out today.
Earlier in May, Turkey and Brazil -- after months of intense negotiations -- persuaded the Iranian regime to accept a deal that would have vastly reduced its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The Turkish-Brazilian deal was almost identical to the one President Obama and our allies pushed the Iranians to accept back in October.
Only this time, it wasn't good enough. The Obama administration ignored the Turkish-Brazilian breakthrough, saying its goal was crippling sanctions and that it was close to achieving them. Of course, few believe sanctions will have any significant effect other than to punish ordinary Iranians, people who are suffering quite enough under a monstrous regime.
But the administration seems to have been sold a bill of goods that leaves the U.S. with only two choices: sanctions or war. The diplomatic option seems to be off the table, pushed off by pressure from various warhawks, neocons, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies in Congress. (Obama originally favored open-ended diplomacy with no deadline; Netanyahu somehow convinced him that a deadline on diplomacy made sense. It doesn't.)
Even some of the more progressive voices are falling for this false choice largely because the lobby -- although clearly struggling as J Street moves into clear ascendancy among young and middle-aged Jews -- still manages to intimidate.
The other day, an Op-Ed appeared in the Jewish newspaper, Forward, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform Jewish movement in America and a progressive, that read like something out of 2002.
Yoffie's piece is a cris de couer, urging all Jews to support a hard line on Iran. "Now is the time," he writes, "to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat.
Yoffie's piece is significant on two counts. The first is that he does not push the ridiculous line that a nuclear Iran would happily commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. The rabbi clearly knows enough about international relations and human behavior to understand that there are limits to what nations will do to make a political point and that national suicide is not one of them.
No, his description of the threat to Israel is both more subtle and more honest.
He writes, "Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live."
There is truth in that. The thought of a nuclear Iran so close to Israel is upsetting. But then so was the Cold War. And so is the fact that North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Russia all have nuclear weapons -- not to mention all those missing nukes which could end up, God forbid, in the hands of terrorists. And such is life these days in New York City, Washington, London and -- especially -- Seoul, where, just under the surface, is the fear that a catastrophe could happen at any time.
It also should be noted that for most of the world, the idea that Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is itself deeply troubling. In fact, much of the world believes that Israel is so vehement about Iranian nukes because it wants to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, leaving it free to do what it wants, whenever it wants to. It enjoys its hegemony. That is what Yoffie is hinting at.
Nonetheless, I agree with him that the world, and not just Israel, would be better off if Iran never develops nuclear weapons.
But my idea of how to prevent a nuclear Iran is rather different than the rabbi's.
Here is Yoffie: "There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options -- whether economic sanctions or military action -- are impossible without American support."
Funny, Yoffie refers to "all" of the options when he only names two -- sanctions or war. It is as if he intended to include the one option that makes sense, diplomacy, and changed his mind at the last minute. The "all" is a remnant of a thought he would not permit himself, either because he honestly opposes diplomacy or because he doesn't want to cross AIPAC.
Yoffie's alternatives are no alternatives at all. Sanctions won't work (except to punish ordinary Iranians and enrich those who defy the sanctions) and "military action" will produce nothing except more dead -- including Americans -- and, quite possibly, a regional war. War would also eliminate any chance that Israel will ever have peace with the Muslim world and would destroy America's standing in a critical region.
What is Yoffie thinking when he rules out diplomacy but rules in a third Middle East war? Is the preemptive slaughter of innocents really a legitimate option for civilized people in 2010? Well, it isn't for me or for the Reform Jews who look to Yoffie for leadership. (Jews are mostly doves and Reform Jews, to their credit, are the most dovish of all.)
It is war, not diplomacy, that belongs off the table. I'm sure Rabbi Yoffie knows that. That is what he should have written.
MJ Rosenberg.Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
The Coming Iran War
It's happening again.
The same forces -- with a few new additions and minus a few smart defectors -- who pushed the United States into a needless and deadly war with Iraq are now organizing for the next war.
This time the target is Iran, which, just like Iraq, is said to be on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction.
Also, just like Iraq, its president is a supposed madman determined to destroy Israel.
In fact, in the case of Iraq, that president, Saddam Hussein, not only threatened to "incinerate half of Israel," he actually launched 39 SCUD missiles against Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.
That war finished off Saddam as a power.
But that was not good enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering buddies. Ten years later, with Cheney in the vice presidency and 9/11 as the pretense, the Cheney crowd led America into a war to depose Saddam. The goal: to turn Iraq into an American protectorate in order to make tens of billions of dollars for themselves and their corporate allies. So far, 4,400 Americans, 318 allied forces, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died to advance that agenda.
But Cheney also enlisted a gang of war cheerleaders who had no interest in making money off the conflict. Those were the neocons who pushed for war out of the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel.
The Cheney gang consisted of people like Doug Feith, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Scooter Libby, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and their various allies in government and media. The Israel lobby is also a member of that gang -- although it operated with nothing like the vigor that it now dedicates to the anti-Iran effort. (The pressure exerted by the lobby is a big part of the reason so many Democrats supported a war they knew was wrong.)
Of course, Iraq did not have WMDs and the Bush administration almost surely knew it. (If Iraq had them, we would no more have attacked Iraq than we now attack North Korea. In fact, the evidence that a country does not have WMDs is our willingness to consider bombing it.)
But, no matter, the gang of war profiteers and neocon ideologues were hell bent on war anyway. The supposed WMDs were just a pretense.
This would all be for the history books (and the grieving widows, parents, grandparents, children, partners, sisters and brothers of the fallen Americans) if the same scenario was not being played out today.
Earlier in May, Turkey and Brazil -- after months of intense negotiations -- persuaded the Iranian regime to accept a deal that would have vastly reduced its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The Turkish-Brazilian deal was almost identical to the one President Obama and our allies pushed the Iranians to accept back in October.
Only this time, it wasn't good enough. The Obama administration ignored the Turkish-Brazilian breakthrough, saying its goal was crippling sanctions and that it was close to achieving them. Of course, few believe sanctions will have any significant effect other than to punish ordinary Iranians, people who are suffering quite enough under a monstrous regime.
But the administration seems to have been sold a bill of goods that leaves the U.S. with only two choices: sanctions or war. The diplomatic option seems to be off the table, pushed off by pressure from various warhawks, neocons, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies in Congress. (Obama originally favored open-ended diplomacy with no deadline; Netanyahu somehow convinced him that a deadline on diplomacy made sense. It doesn't.)
Even some of the more progressive voices are falling for this false choice largely because the lobby -- although clearly struggling as J Street moves into clear ascendancy among young and middle-aged Jews -- still manages to intimidate.
The other day, an Op-Ed appeared in the Jewish newspaper, Forward, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform Jewish movement in America and a progressive, that read like something out of 2002.
Yoffie's piece is a cris de couer, urging all Jews to support a hard line on Iran. "Now is the time," he writes, "to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat.
Yoffie's piece is significant on two counts. The first is that he does not push the ridiculous line that a nuclear Iran would happily commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. The rabbi clearly knows enough about international relations and human behavior to understand that there are limits to what nations will do to make a political point and that national suicide is not one of them.
No, his description of the threat to Israel is both more subtle and more honest.
He writes, "Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live."
There is truth in that. The thought of a nuclear Iran so close to Israel is upsetting. But then so was the Cold War. And so is the fact that North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Russia all have nuclear weapons -- not to mention all those missing nukes which could end up, God forbid, in the hands of terrorists. And such is life these days in New York City, Washington, London and -- especially -- Seoul, where, just under the surface, is the fear that a catastrophe could happen at any time.
It also should be noted that for most of the world, the idea that Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is itself deeply troubling. In fact, much of the world believes that Israel is so vehement about Iranian nukes because it wants to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, leaving it free to do what it wants, whenever it wants to. It enjoys its hegemony. That is what Yoffie is hinting at.
Nonetheless, I agree with him that the world, and not just Israel, would be better off if Iran never develops nuclear weapons.
But my idea of how to prevent a nuclear Iran is rather different than the rabbi's.
Here is Yoffie: "There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options -- whether economic sanctions or military action -- are impossible without American support."
Funny, Yoffie refers to "all" of the options when he only names two -- sanctions or war. It is as if he intended to include the one option that makes sense, diplomacy, and changed his mind at the last minute. The "all" is a remnant of a thought he would not permit himself, either because he honestly opposes diplomacy or because he doesn't want to cross AIPAC.
Yoffie's alternatives are no alternatives at all. Sanctions won't work (except to punish ordinary Iranians and enrich those who defy the sanctions) and "military action" will produce nothing except more dead -- including Americans -- and, quite possibly, a regional war. War would also eliminate any chance that Israel will ever have peace with the Muslim world and would destroy America's standing in a critical region.
What is Yoffie thinking when he rules out diplomacy but rules in a third Middle East war? Is the preemptive slaughter of innocents really a legitimate option for civilized people in 2010? Well, it isn't for me or for the Reform Jews who look to Yoffie for leadership. (Jews are mostly doves and Reform Jews, to their credit, are the most dovish of all.)
It is war, not diplomacy, that belongs off the table. I'm sure Rabbi Yoffie knows that. That is what he should have written.
MJ Rosenberg.Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Prediction: President Obama is getting his voice
You watch, after the "beating" the President took from political consultant James Carville about the British Petroleum, in which Mr. Carville said the President either needs to somewhat "get tough" or the situation would hand him his ass, so to speak, in a sling, I believe the President is getting his voice. He's getting his strength.
Proof?
From The Huffington Post, late Saturday night/Sunday morning:
Obama Repudiates Bush Doctrine In West Point Graduation Speech
WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) --The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead, President Barack Obama said Saturday as he outlined a foreign policy vision that repudiated the go-it-alone approach forged by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Obama said all hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
The U.S. military is the "cornerstone of our national defense," but Obama said the men and women who wear America's uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. "The rest of us must do our part," he said.
"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone," the commander in chief told graduates in gray and white uniforms seated on the field at Michie Stadium.
Diplomacy and muscle must work together, he said in calling for "renewed engagement" from diplomats, along with development experts, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and first responders.
So, yeah, you watch, I predict that, from here out, Mr. Obama s going to, to an extent, take off the "kid gloves" and get tougher. Don't you know Rahm Emanuel is/would push him in that direction?
The times and the situations call for it--the economy, Israel/Palestinian relations, our work with the banks and the oil companies, virtually every corner of his work.
You watch.
Heaven knows I could be proven wrong.
I don't think I will be.
This President is a good student and a learner.
Let's see what happens.
Here's hoping.
Link to original post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/obamas-west-point-speech-_n_585988.html
Proof?
From The Huffington Post, late Saturday night/Sunday morning:
Obama Repudiates Bush Doctrine In West Point Graduation Speech
WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) --The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead, President Barack Obama said Saturday as he outlined a foreign policy vision that repudiated the go-it-alone approach forged by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Obama said all hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
The U.S. military is the "cornerstone of our national defense," but Obama said the men and women who wear America's uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. "The rest of us must do our part," he said.
"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone," the commander in chief told graduates in gray and white uniforms seated on the field at Michie Stadium.
Diplomacy and muscle must work together, he said in calling for "renewed engagement" from diplomats, along with development experts, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and first responders.
So, yeah, you watch, I predict that, from here out, Mr. Obama s going to, to an extent, take off the "kid gloves" and get tougher. Don't you know Rahm Emanuel is/would push him in that direction?
The times and the situations call for it--the economy, Israel/Palestinian relations, our work with the banks and the oil companies, virtually every corner of his work.
You watch.
Heaven knows I could be proven wrong.
I don't think I will be.
This President is a good student and a learner.
Let's see what happens.
Here's hoping.
Link to original post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/obamas-west-point-speech-_n_585988.html
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Pretty cool, Bill
Okay, so the big news is that Bill "Bubba" Clinton went over to North Korea, had a sit-down with Kim Jong Il, took some pictures, had a conversation and got back the two journalists who had been held in that country for months, got tried and then convicted by the "Leader's" courts.
Outstanding.
All around, this seemed like the perfect thing to happen and the perfect person for the job.
An ex-President who knew the "Leader" so well, basically just sitting around not doing much and he goes over and pulls off a bit of a coup for the journalists and, really, the United States.
I have one question and three observations.
The question: According to reports, "North Korean media said Clinton had carried a message of apology from Obama and that the former president and Kim held wide-ranging talks, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said those claims were 'not true.'" Is this, indeed, correct? Did this administration not send any message of apology? I hope and assume this is not true and that no message of apology was sent or given.
The first observation: These events, along with President Kim's shooting of missiles toward Japan, among other things, however unsuccessfully, seem to point out that Kim really craves attention--international attention from other foreign leaders. It seems, if he gets that, then he's happy and docile. This may not be true but there seems to be something to it.
The second observation: I will be extremely surprised if now-former-President George W. Bush ("W") is ever called on--or even volunteers, on his part, for that matter--to do such a negotiation for the US during what will likely be his long retirement.
Finally, hopefully, this will lead to further disarmament talks between North Korea and the West. That would add more terrific results to what already turned out fairly well, thank goodness.
Links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_journalists_held
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_nkorea_analysis
Outstanding.
All around, this seemed like the perfect thing to happen and the perfect person for the job.
An ex-President who knew the "Leader" so well, basically just sitting around not doing much and he goes over and pulls off a bit of a coup for the journalists and, really, the United States.
I have one question and three observations.
The question: According to reports, "North Korean media said Clinton had carried a message of apology from Obama and that the former president and Kim held wide-ranging talks, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said those claims were 'not true.'" Is this, indeed, correct? Did this administration not send any message of apology? I hope and assume this is not true and that no message of apology was sent or given.
The first observation: These events, along with President Kim's shooting of missiles toward Japan, among other things, however unsuccessfully, seem to point out that Kim really craves attention--international attention from other foreign leaders. It seems, if he gets that, then he's happy and docile. This may not be true but there seems to be something to it.
The second observation: I will be extremely surprised if now-former-President George W. Bush ("W") is ever called on--or even volunteers, on his part, for that matter--to do such a negotiation for the US during what will likely be his long retirement.
Finally, hopefully, this will lead to further disarmament talks between North Korea and the West. That would add more terrific results to what already turned out fairly well, thank goodness.
Links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_journalists_held
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_nkorea_analysis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
