Restitutor Orbis

An excellent piece by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC from March 19, 2009:

I am going to push an article I wrote a couple weeks back and which was published at Associated Content.

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
US diplomacy with Iran during the Bush years embraced decades of propaganda and misunderstanding. Improved relations require a new paradigm marked not by ideology but by pragmatism and a willingness to see the world as it is - not how we wish it to be.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1454813/a_selffulfilling_prophecy_conservative.html

President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,

Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."

It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.

Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."

"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.

Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.

And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.

It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.

Obama gave an interview Monday with Al Arabiya TV, offering a new face of America to Arabs and Muslims. Obama made it clear that the US would remain friends and allies of Israel but he offered an olive branch of Islamic nations and expressed concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people. Significantly, this was his first television interview, and it was not given to domestic networks but to an Arab network seen by tens of millions of Muslims.


CNN reports that

Obama's interview was seen widely in Pakistan and has received a generally positive response from analysts there. Islamabad author and journalist Imtiaz Gul told CNN: "It's a good sign of an attempt to reconcile with the Muslim world, to say America wants to reach out to them and not to consider them as an enemy."

Another piece I saw today was from Frontal 21, a German newsmagazine, which had a report about the misdeeds of the Bush Administration, specifically, in this case, torture and human rights abuses. This piece argues that legally, Obama is bound to prosecute Bush.



I don't think we can ignore Obama's governing style in the decisions he's made and is yet to make. Bush seemed to govern either according to an ideological play-book or on intuition, and he surrounded himself with a staff of "yes men". Facts had to conform to ideology and unpleasant facts had to be legislated out of existence, ignored, or reinterpreted so as to no longer present a problem. It's no wonder that the Bush foreign policy decisions of the past eight years led to so many problems and even debacles.

But as a January 20th article in the New York Times points out, Obama is a different sort of president. He actually likes divergent opinions. He actually likes facts. He is willing to entertain opposing voices before coming to an informed decision.

What the country has seen of his leadership style so far evokes the discipline of George W. Bush and the curiosity of Bill Clinton. Mr. Obama is not shy about making decisions and making them expeditiously — he assembled his team in record time — but he has also sought to tap into the nation’s intellectual dialogue at a time of great ferment...“He sort of lives in a grudge-free zone,” said John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of his transition team. “He’s capable of taking on board a lot of information and making good decisions. He knows he’s going to make mistakes. But he also knows that you’ve got to do the best you can, make tough decisions and move on.”

It is refreshing to have somebody in charge who can and will look at the world unblinkered by ideological predispositions. The world is a dangerous place and ideology only makes it more so. The world is not a simple place and ideology does not allow for levels of complexity. But as the New York Times reports,

“I don’t think it maps into traditional right-left, but nor is it Bill Clinton-like triangulation,” said Robert B. Reich, Mr. Clinton’s labor secretary and an economic adviser to Mr. Obama. “My sense is he genuinely believes that people can come to a rough consensus about big problems and work together effectively. I don’t really get a sense of ideological position. He’s obviously a man of strong convictions, but they don’t fall into the standard boxes.”

They are starting to refer to Obama as a "post-partisan" president for his efforts to work across the aisles and to include opponents in the debate and decision-making process. This president wants consensus, not "us" vs. "them." To that end, he has dropped the $200 million that was supposed to go towards contraceptives in the new stimulus bill. This is a concession to Republicans, though they are no doubt claiming some sort of ideological victory. In the end, Obama does not really need the Republicans to pass the bill, which should be enough proof of his sincerity to find that consensus when he meets with Republicans at a luncheon on Capitol Hill today (CNN is saying that today "Obama tests his bipartisan potential"). The Republicans are apparently claiming that the Democrats are Obama's true problem, hinting that they are not in lock-step with the president (Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky on the TODAY show this morning), but these reports are patently false. In fact, six Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for Obama's request to have the remaining $350 billion from the first stimulus package released to him last week.

MSNBC reports that "House Republicans have drafted an alternative. Except for an extension of unemployment benefits, it consists exclusively of tax cuts." Not surprising; and not very helpful either. For eight years they've had what they wanted, and now, as a minority, they want to dictate to the majority, after a popular vote utterly rejected their failed policies, what we should do now in this economic crisis their policies created. Fascinating.

I will save the best for last. ABC news is reporting that "The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France." Given that the taxpayers have forked over $45 billion to Citigroup to bail them out, it seems particularly obscene to buy the plane from France when at least buying one from the US would have helped US industry and by extension, US workers.

The decision came 24 hours after the banking giant, which was rescued by a $45 billion taxpayer lifeline, defended buying the state-of-the-art Dassault Falcon 7X -- one of nine to be flying in U.S. skies -- as a smart business deal.

The jet, the epitome of corporate prestige and privilege, can carry 12 passengers in elegant comfort.

ABC News has learned that on Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it."