Obamista--although my head told me (and keeps reminding me still) that real
change comes about from grassroots movements. Politicians can usually do little
more than ratify progressive change.
I haven't turned against Obama particularly, despite his continual tendency to
"split the difference" between, say, the spirit of the Clinton Administration
and the spirit of the Reagan Administration. What else can you expect?
(If you're disillusioned with Obama, go back and listen to an interview with
George W. Bush on Youtube).
FDR embodied both the prophetic charisma of a grassroots leader and the canny
calculation of a political functionary who is more priest than prophet. In this
latter aspect, FDR compromised with the Southern racists of his own party,
interred Japanese Americans, and at first inhibited his own New Deal program
with the typical ruling elite concern about inflation. Not to mention the
failure to do more to address the plight of the German Jews prior to World War
II. But who knows what the real political possibilities of the time were?
Juan Cole, in his blog, Informed Comment, has expressed conditional, but strong
support of U.S. participation in the Libya operation. I believe he is the
single most trustworthy voice about the situation in the Arab countries. (He's
a professor of Mideast studies at U Michigan. He is fluent in Arabic and Farsi
and has lived in the Middle East. Interestingly, he comes out of the Bahai
religious tradition that originated in Iran--although he has distanced himself
from the mainstream Bahai community. His specialty is history of religion, with
emphasis on the Mideast.)
Josh Marshall, of the blog Talking Points Memo, a cautious, moderately liberal
Democrat and canny observer of the domestic political scene, who is pretty far
from being Michael Moore, has come out strongly against it. He is fearful of
an Iraq or Afghanistan-style quagmire.
One of my FB friends, who seems to tentatively support the Libya involvement,
observed there's another kind of quagmire to worry about: Even if the U.S. &
NATO operation is successful in ousting Quadaffi (sp?) and allowing a reform
regime to come to power (maybe *especially* if successful) there may be a clamor
elsewhere in the Arab world from reform forces for intervention on *their* side.
Refusal would be perceived as hypocrisy and betrayal.
I initially supported the military action in Afghanistan. Now, despite the
official optimism emanating from Afghanistan, I don't see where our presence
benefits the Afghan people.
I was also suckered by the John Edwards campaign.
Nevertheless, like my FB friend, I *tentatively* support U.S. involvement in
Libya at the level stated by official policy. Foreign policy "realism" as
expressed by Josh Marshall--well, I'm sure he means only a moderate dose of it
and also a type of it that tips more toward isolationism rather than
intervention--but it seems to me that foreign policy "realism" of any kind
slides too easily into a realpolitik that has led to a lot of grief in the
world.
(BTW, I think it may be difficult for the U.S. & NATO to meet *all* the
"conditions" listed by Juan Cole.)
If the U.S. involvement in Libya turns out to be a disaster, there is one small
consolation: I believe it is safe to say that Obama's actions in that regard
were based on some kind of careful, rational calculation rather than something
his "gut" told him.
Anyway, Josh Marshall and Juan Cole's thoughts on Libya are below:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/at_the_end_of_last.php#more?ref=fpblg
No comments:
Post a Comment