Fareed Zakaria:"... in terms of foreign policy, he's the true realist in the race."

[babylonsister]

Obama Abroad

He's been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he's the true realist in the race.


A survey of world citizens' opinion of John McCain vs. Barack Obama and a look at the major issues in the countries being visited by the Democratic candidate. Plus: Match the international pundit with what he said about Obama in an interactive game.

By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 19, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Jul 28, 2008


The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There's no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he's a "realistic idealist." Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a "pragmatic neo-Wilsonian." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist."

Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman's administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush," he told The New York Times's David Brooks in May.

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

more...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763

[eleny]

1. His take on McCain's world view...

"McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph."

[ananda]

2. American force is part of the evil.

Along with other countries with imperialist
exploitative designs.. like China in Africa.

[Cha]

9. So we must bomb bomb bomb and

grab their oil 'cause I'm the carlyle candidate:silly:

[scarletwoman]

3. k&r -- As pundits go, I've quite a bit of respect for Zakaria, who doesn't just talk out of his ass.

I'm glad to see him defending Obama. Good article, thanks for posting it!

sw

[babylonsister]

5. Obama's coming up on his show at 12ET on CNN; so Zacharia

had some experience to draw on for his article.

[scarletwoman]

8. Thanks, but I don't have cable/satellite. And my Flintstones computer doesn't do video. (nt)

[babylonsister]

10. Well, that works well, because he was on

last week-big boo boo. :rofl:

[scarletwoman]

12. Yeah, I caught that. (nt)

[Whisp]

15. he's quite the different one on CNN.

first time i saw him I thot I had PBS on - he's got a brain the size of a blimp compared to the blitzers and campbells festering boils.

I sit on the edge of my seat when Z talks.
i throw my couch cushions at the tv when those other idiots yammer

[babylonsister]

4. FYI: Obama coming up at noon ET on Zacaria's show on CNN. nt

[Connie_Corleone]

6. Obama was on his show last week.

[babylonsister]

7. Thanks, Connie_C. Wolfie just said this; must have been an old

clip I was watching. :blush:

[polichick]

11. "He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism."

This is so important imo ~ a big THANK YOU to his anthropologist mother!

[Median Democrat]

13. Obama v. McCain/Paul Wolfowitz - Who's Naive?

Remember Paul Wolfowitz who declared prior to the Iraq war told a Congressional panel that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”<56><57><6> By March 2005, two years later, oil revenues were not paying for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, Wolfowitz's estimation of 50 to 100 billion US dollars had not materialized, and, in light of his miscalculation, detractors criticized his appointment to head of the World Bank.

Likewise, John McCain declared before the Iraq war: "There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." --on the Iraq war, "Hardball" interview, March 24, 2003

Also, remember this McCainism: “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.”

Yet, the GOP claims that Barack Obama is the one with naive views on foreign policy?

:sarcasm:

Paul Wolfowitz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz#Wolfowitz.27s_economic_arguments_pertaining_to_the_Iraq_War

Deputy Secretary of Defense
From 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

* * *

In the first emergency meeting of the U.S. National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case." The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption", American unilateralism, and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.<39>

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. had to deal immediately with the threat of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.<39> The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. Victory was declared on March 6, 2002. Just under a month later, on October 10, 2001, George Robertson, then Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, went to the Pentagon to offer NATO troops, planes and ships to assist. Wolfowitz rebuffed the offer, saying: "We can do everything we need to." Wolfowitz later announced publicly, according to Kampfner, "that 'allies, coalitions and diplomacy' were of little immediate concern."

* * *

Following the declaration of victory in Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, "Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view." Wolfowitz "saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions." The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.<39>

Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz had a plan to sell the war to the administration as well as the general public, as he later stated: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."<43><14><13><44><45><46>

* * *

During Wolfowitz's pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki's estimates of the size of the post war occupation force as incorrect and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war. Two days after Shinseki testified, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army—hard to imagine.<39>

On October 26, 2003, while in Baghdad staying at the Al-Rashid Hotel Wolfowitz narrowly escaped an attack when six rockets slammed into the floors below his room blowing out the windows and frames.<47> Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring was killed and seventeen others soldiers were wounded.<48> Wolfowitz and his DOD staffers escaped unharmed and returned to the United States on October 28, 2003.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Lest we forget ...

soft-headed American idealists charmed the aboriginals out of existence.

[Blondiegrrl]

16. ::happy sigh::

It's going to be so refreshing to have a smart president again.