Obama’s, “Appeasement,” and Diplomacy

Now that a few days has passed over the uproar of President Bush’s remarks where he implicitly slammed Barak Obama on negotiating with some of America’s less than savory neighbors, I think it’s time for me to weigh in.

Michael Tomansky of the Guardian has a good piece up on how Obama has been able to blunt criticism from the Republicans on foreign policy. The gist is that Obama is going to present a very different vision of American foreign policy that is centered on diplomacy and he is not ashamed of presenting such a view.

While it shows very smart politics for Obama to use the opportunity to blast the foreign policy blunders of the Bush Administration and tie John McCain to it (nevermind that McCain’s foreign policy would be different from Bush’s), I do wonder if Obama’s vision is a wise one.

I should state upfront- I am no fan of the Bush foreign policy. I think this Administration was wrong in going to war with Iraq and once in Iraq it was too stupid to deal with the responsibilities of occupying a nation of 22 million people. It has angered long standing friends. Afghanistan is becoming a mess if it already isn’t a mess. We need a president who will try to repair some of the damage done by the President and his aides.

That said, I fear that Senator Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy could be as bad as President Bush’s emphasis on warmaking.

Conservatives and Liberals tend to see the world through two different narratives. Both narratives are important- for the other party- to understand.

Liberals tend to see foreign policy through the eyes of Vietnam. The story is one of an arrogant superpower trying to tell another nation far away how it should live and the results are disastrous. For liberals, it makes more sense to talk to other nations and peoples and keep American arrogance in check.

For Conservatives, the narrative is Munich. When President Bush was talking about Nazi Germany in front of the Kenesset, he was referring to the attempts to use diplomacy to diffuse Hitler. Of course, it didn’t work. For conservatves, it makes sense to be suspcious of diplomacy because it has been used for ill in the past.

Both of these stories are important lessons, but they make more sense of the opposite ideology than it does for the ones that hold the stories near and dear. One would hope that conservatives would learn from Vietnam that when an arrogant power decides to not listen to friends and go to war for paper thin reasons, they are going to set themselves up for a fall.

Liberals need to learn that talking with a supposed enemy doesn’t always lead to peace. Sweet words of peace can be manipulated for more darker ends.

And that is what is bothering me with Obama’s approach. It’s talk without any preconditions and seemingly with no leverage. This is what Obama has to say about diplomacy with Iran:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

h

Here are my concerns: Does without preconditions mean no preliminary talks, to get some of the thornier issues out of the way? Would we see the image of a President Obama meeting with President Amajinedhad with no prep ahead of time? What happens if Iran doesn’t listen?

Please understand me, I am not saying we should invade Iran. What I am saying is this diplomacy backed up with anything should negotiations fail?

There was a lot of shock when Hilary Clinton said Iran would be obliterated if it tried anything against Israel. For me, there was a sense that she “got it.” It’s not that I expect Clinton would immediately go to war against Iran, but her words were a warning to Iran that she could use the “stick” of military action if it were warranted. With Obama, that doesn’t seem in the cards.

I should state this is not saying Obama is an appeaser. I don’t see him doing something as foolish as Neville Chamberlain. I just don’t think diplomacy is the end all and be all. Sometimes it can work and by all means, it should be used before going to war. I also think war should only be used as a last resort and when there is a solid chance of success with an exit strategy.

That said, as another blogger said recently, we don’t know what will happen when and if Obama becomes President. It is easy to say one thing on the campaign trail and another when you are sitting in the Oval Office and having to deal with protecting 300 million people. Hawks have made peace and doves have made war. It will be interesting to see where Obama ends up if he becomes Commander in Chief.