Fred Kaplan, on Obama’s willingness to talk to bad people:
[H]ere’s a fact of our times (and Obama seems to have a grip on this, perhaps because he’s not so immersed in the diplomatic subculture): A presidential visit is not the cherished commodity that it once was, because the United States is no longer the superpower that it used to be.
When the Soviet Union imploded, so did the Cold War system whose existence bolstered our power and influence. After a while, many leaders—who once turned to the United States to permit, enforce, and legitimize their dealings in the world—began to go their own way, pursue their own interests, build their own alliances, not necessarily against the United States (though sometimes it worked out that way) but, more to the point, without giving much thought to Washington’s feelings about the matter. [...]
No matter who is elected this November, the next president will have to take extraordinary steps to translate this global reach into power and influence—to restore American leadership. One of the main challenges in this effort will be to prove to others that this leadership is desirable.
The new reality is that to a degree we haven’t seen in our lifetimes, the United States is a normal country—a very powerful country, but normal nonetheless: not a superpower. A presidential visit, in this light, is not such a big deal. Or, to the extent that some countries might still regard it as a visitation from on high, it may be just the jolt to get things moving.
Either way, not only was Obama’s remark not naive; it reflected a more instinctive understanding of the post-Cold War world than either of his opponents seem to possess.
(And, as Ilan Goldenberg says, we have perfectly cordial relations with regimes that are as bad as many on our do-not-call list.) This is a point which goes beyond scheduling official visits. Our military is still designed to counter a Soviet invasion of Europe (an invasion which, it was assumed, would bear an eerie resemblance to WWII). Our response to 9/11 was to buy more jet fighters, reboot Reagan’s Star Wars, and try to cast OBL as Uncle Joe Hitler in the blockbuster sequel World War IV. (SPOILER ALERT: It sucked.) We are still pissed at Iran for taking American hostages (1979), Cuba for hosting Soviet missiles (1962), and North Korea for the war (ended 1953). Not that these countries have since spontaneously become model neighbors, but “containing” these regimes per Cold War Diplomacy 101 has not noticeably moderated their behavior, nor reduced their longevity – and, although something of a Johnny-Come-Lately to this group, the 12-year containment of Saddam’s Iraq did not turn out particularly well, either. People say Americans don’t know their history, and that’s partially true. The other problem – the far worse problem – is that they don’t know when to let it go. A more useful life skill, much harder to master.
I’m not saying Obama’s got all the right answers – he definitely doesn’t. And I’m not saying we can’t revisit historical decisions, or that they don’t matter. Sure they do. What I’m saying is that the conditions under which these decisions were made do not exist anymore; so, if you are still getting the exact same answers you would have gotten 50, or even 20 years ago, you probably aren’t doing it right. Banging on about how we need to keep doing something because that’s how we’ve always done it, much like analogizing everything to WWII, is not a sign that you are a deep strategic thinker, it’s a sign that you are a one-note moron who needs to invest in a new calendar. It sounds new and scary, but I promise it won’t hurt you. You can even get one with kittens on it.
And at the risk of leaving my parents’ generation with nothing to talk about this election season, will you please shut the fuck up about about Louis Farrakhan already? Even Rakim doesn’t give a shit anymore. Let it go.

June 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm
If Obama took to the stage at the convention with this playing behind him, why, I dare say that might just make me believe in America again.
Nah, who’m I kidding? He’ll have to wait until the inauguration.
June 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
We nominated Obama for President
June 5, 2008 at 12:53 am
You don’t go to the ballot box with the canidate you want, you go with the one you have…
June 5, 2008 at 3:11 am
“the 12-year containment of Saddam’s Iraq did not turn out particularly well, either.”
Not true. The containment worked fine. It was the decision to end that containment and move to the destruction of Saddam’s regime (for no apparent reason) that has caused trouble.
June 5, 2008 at 4:06 am
One huge problem is not just that the foreign policy establishment remains addicted to the past and past grievances.
It’s that they get the past wrong.
And by continually mythologizing the past in such a way as to justify the policies they want today, they make it more difficult to make any sane arguments about how to do anything better.
I don’t think this is some lesson which only means hourlong rants by various leftists on real history. (As useful as they may be.)
Americans actually do appreciate bold reformers who clearly explain long-standing problems by pointing out that the reason we’re still getting something wrong today is that people are foolishly doing the same wrong things they did in the past.
I actually think Obama groks a bit of this. In his AIPAC speech — certainly no revolutionary departure from U.S. foreign policy speeches — he at least avoided the game by which you keep praising the U.S. tough intervention in Iraq & its decades-long blunt idiocy on Iran and claim that he would do the same stupid things but better.
He actually very clearly said that the wrong things had been done, the wrong goals had been pursued, and the only way to make things any better is to change what it is we’re trying to do.
That’s at least leagues beyond the typical Democratic genuflection to the hawks who supposedly must dominate all foreign policy else you’re a foolish surrendercrat hippie.
June 5, 2008 at 8:07 am
The containment worked fine.
Let’s not let the world-historical awfulness of the war blind us to the fact that the sanctions regime was, by pre-Bush standards of badness, pretty bad.
Sanctions did nothing to change Iraq’s government for the better, impoverished millions of Iraqis and largely prevented the country from rebuilding after the first Gulf war, all in order to stop Saddam Hussein from launching aggressive wars that he was in absolutely no position to in any case.
Before 1991, Iraq was a middle-income country, where most people who kept their heads down and stayed out of politics could lead reasonably secure, comfortable lives. The sanctions regime definitely played its part in turning it into the hellhole it is today — and more to the point, it manifestly didn’t “work” in the sense of driving Hussein from power.
June 5, 2008 at 8:07 am
Well, it “worked” in the sense that Saddam didn’t invade any more countries, but it didn’t moderate his behavior or end his regime. It was expensive, diplomatically difficult, hard on the Iraqi people, and it involved near-constant bombing and other war-related program activities. The decision to invade was a whole new level of pointless, but it never would have been made without 12 years of cold war.
June 5, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jinx.
June 5, 2008 at 9:58 am
Jinx is the new pwned?
June 5, 2008 at 10:20 am
Before 1991, Iraq was a middle-income country, where most people who kept their heads down and stayed out of politics could lead reasonably secure, comfortable lives.
I would actually say “before the 1980s.” The sanctions definitely ground Iraqi society down, and they levied a terrible toll on the Iraqi people, but the Iraq-Iran war was devastating as well – in most ways moreso. The loss of life was massive (combined casualties put it, proportionally, at WWI magnitude), the resources squandered were immense and Iraqi culture was itself militarized and deeply psychologically scarred.
The sanctions kept Iraq down, and added to the pain for sure, but I put the start date a decade earlier.
(Ed note to the Eds: It’s Ilan Goldenberg not Goldberg. But hey, they all look alike)
June 5, 2008 at 10:28 am
One more thought: containment also worked in terms of keeping Saddam WMD-free.
That was important. The sanctions could have been smartened to lessen the burden on the Iraqi people, while still keeping WMD-related material out of the reach of Saddam.
That is, IMO, what should have happened.
You can even get one with kittens on it.
Um, dude, war kittens please.
June 5, 2008 at 10:38 am
That person’s name confounds me.
June 5, 2008 at 10:44 am
I have already suggested that he change it. We should probably do it for him if he continues to ignore common sense. He’ll thank us eventually.
June 5, 2008 at 10:56 am
Also true, although I’d argue that, apart from nuclear weapons, nobody cares as much as they pretend to. And what could have prevented Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons would have been the same thing that had previously prevented him, and nearly everyone else who might want nuclear weapons, from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not a perfect guarantee, but a reasonable approach.
I’m not necessarily saying containment was the wrong strategy – if Saddam was determined to be difficult at all costs, he was going to be difficult, and so anything we did was going to look ineffective. My Monday Morning QB job would be safe in any case. It just seems that there should have been some point – 1998, especially – when people should have asked “is this policy really working?” and “is this policy serving US interests?” instead of saying “it is our policy to continue following our policy because it makes us look tough.” That the eventual break from this policy was to make the situation a million times worse implies that someone should have asked “is this new policy likely to make the situation a million times worse?”, another key policy consideration I forgot to mention earlier.
June 5, 2008 at 11:18 am
Agreed. Whoever invented the term WMD should be tarred and feathered. And policy inertia is insidious.
I would say, though, that keeping certain items off the export list isn’t that onerous and is done as a matter of course with lots of nasty regimes out there (even friendly-ish regimes that we’re not totally in bed with yet).
Meaning: we could have smartened the sanctions up considerably and still accomplished our goals vis-a-vis nukes and other arms that we wanted to keep out of Saddam’s reach.
June 5, 2008 at 11:42 am
I suggest “Beau-Flexxx von Voltron”. Note the the second ‘x’ is backwards.
June 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
Note the the second ‘x’ is backwards
Don’t condescend.
June 5, 2008 at 11:48 am
Some people think it’s upside-down.
June 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Fools!
June 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
You mean, around about the time we bombed Iraq?
June 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I misspelled ‘candidate’, my apologies, I blame the Pilsner Urquell.
Chess helps me understand situations like this. 1991-2003 was a long convoluted Queen’s Gambit Declined opening. 2003-present was some sort of disasterous exchange that left one side heavily outnumbered, and in a horrible board position. In two more moves it will be 2008, and a new player is going to take over that losing position and the mid-game will begin. That player is expected to lose, stalemate, or win?
Yes analogies are stupid, but then again I am a doofus….
June 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ideally about 5 minutes before that, although immediately afterwards could also work.
June 5, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Chickens ⇒coming home⇒roost
June 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Eric B. for (Vice) President!
June 6, 2008 at 10:09 am
My favorite jam back in the day…