Posted on 06/22/2009 5:16:47 AM PDT by Tolik
Let Me Count the Ways Why Obama Should at Last Speak Out
( I write this at around noon on Saturday, and suspect the pressure of public outrage will soon get to Obama, and he soon will recant and start sounding Reaganesque)
(As in something like this:
Hundreds of thousands of gallant Iranians are now engaged in a non-violent moral struggle against tyranny in Iran-one of the great examples of bravery in our times. All free peoples of the world watch their ordeal, and can only wish them success, while owing them a great deal of gratitude for risking their lives for the innate and shared notion of human freedom and dignity. We in the United States ask the government of Iranas well as its military and security forces to recognize the universal appeal of freedom that flourishes among its own remarkable people, to stand down and renounce its serial use of violence and coercion-and to ensure a truly free election where the voices of all can be at last fully heard, so that Iran can once more properly reenter the family of law-biding nations.)
So why speak out louder?
(Does not Obama see that the world has been given a rare chance, thanks to brave Iraniansas if the German people had risen up in 1938 in fear of what was on the horizon)
1) It is the moral and right thing to do to support the brave and idealistic (the Congressional Democrats mostly get this. And, after a week of embarrassment, the I worship whoever runs the White House pundits are not far behind and scrambling to retract and revise last weeks obsequious columns.). The dissidents in fact can win in this new age of private instant communications, in which global news is not predicated on elite correspondents and news desks editors, but can flow globally and instantaneously, unfiltered, with unforeseen consequences.)
2) The theocracy is a fiendish regime that hides behind third-world victimhood while it murders and promotes terror abroad. When it totters, the world sighs relief from Iraq to Lebanon; when it chest-thumps, thousands die at home and abroad.
3) Of the three ways to stop a nuclear theocracy-(regime change, preemption, embargo), supporting the opponents of the regime is the most logical, peaceful, and cost-effective-and has the best chance of success. (Ask the worried surrounding Arab frontline countries).
4) There is a long bipartisan American history of supporting dissidents who were fighting for election fairness abroad in Poland, Serbia, Latin America, and South Africa. (Does Obama think Mandela did not wish words of support from America? Why then would he think the Iranians being shot at in the streets would not wish moral clarity from the prophet of Cairo?). The Europeans (and even the Arab world) are way ahead of us.
5) Obamas realpolitik is flawed:
1) if the mullahs win, they will have greater contempt for our timidity;
2) if the dissidents win, they will not forget our realistic fence-sitting;
3) you can never believe (ever) anything the mullahs say or do. Negotiating with them is like signing a pact with Hitler. They are afraid of US voiced support for the dissidents, not the dissidents themselves who ask for our solidarity. If anything, the theocrats grasp that their own do not want a nuclear confrontation with Israel in which the people would be sacrificial pawns. Again and again, the dissidents have repeated that they are tired of being hated in the world as Ahmadinejads Iranians, not that they wanted Obamas America to be less critical of Ahmadinejad
. And Why He Has Not:
1) Our President has always been a trimmer-voting present serially in Illinois; proclaiming broad new positions on the campaign trail only to disown them while President; rhetorically always splitting the difference with on the one hand, on the other, some, they, others say, I dont accept false choices etc. So now he waits to see who wins. And then will provide the soaring rhetoric postfacto to suggest that he was either the careful realist all along who foresaw the dissidents failure-or the enthusiastic moralist who always really did cheer on the mullahs demise. Robert Gibbs has both scripts already fed into the bookend A and B teleprompters.
OR
2) Its a personal thing that interferes with Obamas ego, and messianic personal diplomacy. Obama himself is not comfortable with those abroad who emulate American values and seek to have the freedoms and rights we take for granted. The post-colonial industry mandates that the Other is a perpetual victim of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, and racism with justified grievances. Only elite American intellectuals of singular insight and empathy understand the calculus of the oppressed, and so, through apologies, accommodations, and concessions, they alone on our behalf can deal with an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Ortega, Castro, Morales, Nasrallah, etc. But when we see a purple-finger election, a statue of liberty at Tiananmen, or the current Levi-clad, cell-phoning, English-placard-carrying Iranian grassroots resistance, all the above is rendered null and void. Obama wants to rise above his country; but when his country is not held in disrepute (as is true among the Iranian people), he is an actor without a role.
People abroad really do prefer freedom and true constitutional government to autocratic grievance mongers who loot their country and brutalize the free. In such conditions, old-fashioned Americans, often inarticulate and perhaps clumsy, but honest in their belief in the universal appeal of human freedom, do better than all the nuanced Kennedy School intellectuals (e.g. They laughed at the reductionist Tear Down This Wall and Evil Empire and apparently preferred No Inordinate Fear of Communism). So a deer-in-the-headlights Obama wonders, Wait, why arent they shouting the boilerplate Death to America! and invoking, like I did, 1953 and the CIA crimes? Dont they know the things that we did to them and I apologized for? Dont they see that I am as separate from the US of the 1950s as they are? Whats this grass-roots rejection of an anti-Western, anti-colonialist indigenous Iranian government all about? (cf. his moral equivalent comparison of Mousavi to Ahmadinejad as equally anti-American).
OR
3) Obama is clueless. Hillary knows more, but not that much more (Bill knows less as his 2005 Davos disastrous encomium of Iran proved). Biden, well, is Biden. The brighter like Holbrooke serve on the second tier. In short, no one knows now to whom do you apologize? And if to no one, what then do you do? Were back to sorta, sorta not shoot the pirates, kinda, kinda not stop the Koreans, maybe, maybe not keep renditions, tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, and drone attacks-or why didnt someone brief me on the problems with closing Guantanamo before I promised the world at end to our American Gulag?
OR
4) Hes addicted to the ossified Iraqi paradigm of Bush intervened and caused a mess (Free Iraq is apparently still equivalent to Saddams Iraq), so I dont want to follow his lead (as if vocal support now is the same as shock and awe then). Somewhere in stone a lie is chiseled Iraq made Iran stronger. He doesnt see the footnote: But if Iraqi democracy survives, it fuels emulation in neighboring Iran and does more to undermine the theocracy than all the F-22s in the world. Who knows-if Iranian freedom spreads, some nut might praise Bushs commitment to Middle East freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and not Obamas apologetics at Cairo? (Free Shiites in Iraq are far better for Iran than either oppressed minorities under Saddam, or Saddams opportunistic dictatorship). Bottom line again: Obama needs to forget Ahmadinejad and talk daily with Maliki.
OR
5) His entire anti-Bush foreign policy is then in trouble. Weve heard for eight years a cheap slur of neo-cons did it, not that in the dangerous world abroad there are no good choices, but supporting freedom is usually the better alternative if one must choose. If a peaceful democratic revolution succeeds in Iran, then what happens with outreach to Putin, Chavez, and Hamas? The new liberal realpolitik insisted that we dont offer moral judgment, and was framed instead by winning the hearts and minds of tyrants through humbling ourselves and meae culpae. But if these democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and an Iran (?) were to succeed, then what? You would not go to Chavez and promise first to talk about shared colonial racist oppression, but rather say to the Venezuelan people, We stand with you in your struggle to achieve freedom and dignity and to join the other democracies of Latin America? That is not just in the cards, and so Iran, is well, a monkey-wrench.
For now, watch the Iranian army and police. If one battalion bolts, then . . .
Just a partial list. More at the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
It was George Bush's policy of direct engagement and support of liberty that has led to the people of Iran seeing the measure of freedom now established on both sides of them in Iraq and Afghjanistan...and desiring it for themselves.
Obama cannot possibly go too far in recognizing that, or he absolutely repudiates himself and his entire foreign policy.
...but the fight in Iran is far from over, and is getting brutal.
Young Woman (Neda) shot to death in Terhran. 6/20/2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fVyGo7rZUI
Crowd Hunting Basij, Man shot. 6/20/2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYaL4mA-bSY
URGENT: HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT IRANIAN PROTESTORS RIGHT NOW...ON TWITTER
AMERICANS SUPPORTING IRAN LIBERTY
AMERICANS DON'T NEED OBAMA SPEAKING FOR THEM, WE'RE FREE AND CAN SPEAK FOR OURSELVES
POEM FOR THE ROOFTOPS OF IRAN - INCREDIBLY MOVING
You can follow me on twitter if you want.http://www.twitter.com/Jeff_Head
Again, Why the Diffidence? [Victor Davis Hanson]
Obamathe Manichean?
Of all the puzzling reasons one can adduce both for Barack Obama recent serial apologies abroad, and now his strange silence about human rights abuses from Venezuela to Iran, I think one of the most likely is his Manichean notion of world affairsone also reflected in most of the curricula of our major universities.
The binary oppressor/victim narrative goes something like this: the United States for the last half-centurythrough its embrace of neocolonialism and imperialism, and then again through its birthing of globalized capitalismis at fault for most of the mess outside the West.
We as the bad guys impose, dictate, exploit, ignore, and manipulate the more noble Other to such a degree that he is forced to lash out in understandable, though often dangerous ways.
This is a sort of all-inclusive worldview that in postmodern fashion pits those with power against those without it. And in such a simplistic bipolar world, only a few gifted Western elite intellectuals, of superior intelligence, empathy, and insight, can reach across the divide, understand the Other, and find common ground, by accommodating the West to alternate paradigms of politics, culture, and economic and social lifedifferent of course, albeit not intrinsically in any sense inferior.
Then something messy comes along that doesn't fit the neat paradigm like the purple-finger elections in Iraq, Tiananmen Square, or the most recent democracy demonstrations in Iran that confound that easy calculus. Just when you are singularly prepared, in bold face-to-face diplomacy, to understand the historic grievances of an unshaved, Nehru-coated Ahmadinejad, and to make the necessary apologies and accommodations, thousands of Iranians hit the street in Levis, with English-lettered protest signs, hitting their cell-phones and chanting Western-like protests again indigenous Iranian theocratic fascism.
So how can it be, that anyone would wish to model their politics after Western-style free speech and consensual government, given our culpability for so many global pathologies? The even weirder result that follows is that we become skeptical of the pro-Western Columbian, Israeli, Iraqiand Iranianas somehow less authentic by the very fact of his good will to, and admiration of, us (contrary to everything one has been taught in post-colonial classes).
In that vein, Obama is almost more at ease with virulent anti-Westerners, whose grievances Obama has long studied (and perhaps in large part entertained), and whose estrangement alone offers opportunity for Obamas sophisticated multicultural insight and singular narcissistic magnanimity.
Obama has already been shown to be irrelevant.
Our Hope-and-Change Policy Toward Iran [Victor Davis Hanson]
bflr
Obama wants to rise above his country; but when his country is not held in disrepute (as is true among the Iranian people), he is an actor without a role.
I am ashamed to ask: what is bflr?
Great post and exactly his dilemma of not wanting to give Bush credit for freeing Iraq. That and he is a tyrant.
Pray for America and Iran’s Freedom
Worth reading the full article ping.
Chavez was the first regime to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory.
No shame my FRiend.
Bump
For
Later
Read
It’s my way of making myself feel like I am getting off this derned computer and accomplishing something today!
As Ann stated, if we don't say and/or do the right thing, the Mullahs will blame us for Svengali behavior anyway and if the revolution suceeds the freedom fighters will remember how the U.S. chickened out. All because of Barack Hussein Obama.
Somewhere in stone a lie is chiseled Iraq made Iran stronger. He doesnt see the footnote: But if Iraqi democracy survives, it fuels emulation in neighboring Iran and does more to undermine the theocracy than all the F-22s in the world. Who knows-if Iranian freedom spreads, some nut might praise Bushs commitment to Middle East freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and not Obamas apologetics at Cairo?
got it
thanks!
In listing the reasons Obama chose the later, VDH omitted one that I believe he also thought of but elected to omit.
Obama doesnt share the world view, sympathies and aspiration of the westernized sector of Iran who are risking their lives on the streets of Iran. The sector of the Middle East he is determined to reach out to is the anti-west, anti-american elements - Amedinejad & his supporters, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc..
Ill offer some photos that appeared on FR to make my point.
Iranians in Tehran sympathetic to the West/US defy the Mullahs to show support after 9/11.
Obamas Reverend (Wright) delivers his chickens come home to roast sermon after 9/11.
Freedom. What a nightmare for Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.