The Miseducation of a Future President, Part II (UPDATE: Obama Tries the Jedi Mind Trick. Again.)

It turns out that Barack Obama did make the mistake I feared regarding his characterization of the 1945 Yalta meetings between US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and USSR President Josef Stalin.

I think people understand the notion of talking to our enemies," Obama said. "If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can't meet with some half-baked dictator [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is ridiculous.

Tom Maguire:

Well, Stalin was a fully-baked dictator, but he was also our ally against Nazi Germany when he met with Roosevelt. [SNIP]

Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman.

Three things:

1. FDR was in his grave long before Stalin’s USSR became a full blown enemy.
2. Nixon’s meeting with Mao is the exception that proves the rule, but produced the aphorism “only Nixon could go to China” due to Nixon coming into the meeting from a position of strength rather than of supplication. And Nixon’s homework for the trip started well in advance of his second presidential candidacy. (The first was in 1960.)
3. Mikhail Gorbachev was taking affirmative steps to reduce antagonism with the West--not threatening to “bury us” or one of our allies. (Does Obama not remember when the Russian words glasnost’ and perestroika entered the American lexicon? He should remember the latter word since one of its English definitions is 'reorientation'--or, more simply, 'Change.')

Not knowing world history is one thing; not knowing the history of your own country is another; but not knowing presidential foreign relations history when one has a flocking degree in political science with a specialization in international relations from Columbia University and is running for president is a frightening issue. (A commenter to Burt Prelutsky’s observations regarding Ivy League presidents reminds us that, during the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination controversy, some pundits contended that Miers wasn’t qualified to sit on the USSC because she did not attend an Ivy League law school. But, perhaps at least one Ivy League institution should be concerned about one of its more basic programs.)

Unfortunately, Obama’s ignorance of his own field takes its place in a long line of frightening issues regarding the man behind whom the Democrats are uniting to become our 44th president.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

UPDATE: Now Obama campaign says that he never claimed to want to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions being on the table.

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

However, LGF finds yet more evidence that the senator says whatever is expedient at a given point in time even if it is 180 degrees contradictory to something he has said earlier. From the CFR debate last year:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

This is becoming tiresome.

UPDATE: Screen Capture from BarackObama.com (click on it to see full version):

First line:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Do you get the feeling that my kinsman is making it up as he goes along?

My fellow Americans, especially black ones: is our pride at having the first black American president--even one who comes along and says anything--worth risking our nation's existence over? Because that's what's at stake. Our enemies smell this weakness.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Comments

[Rich]

J-

I recently had to break off a friendship due to who I was voting for. Her and her family got so wound up I was not voting for Obama a shouting match broke out. What shocked me was the amount of rage and hate that was demonstrated. It's like they took leave of their senses. She didn't have a line of argument just that Obama is Black. My point is I wonder how much impact actual debate (and pointing out what you are pointing out in this post)has. 70-80% of the Black folk I have spoken to are voting for Obama simply because he's Black. The universal ethos is "It's our turn now." Don't know if that is a good way to pick a President.

[brotherbrown]

I have to give you credit for this one. I have no doubt that the people who already aren't going to vote for Obama will be able to add it to their toolkit, and it would no doubt sway some small percentage of undecideds against him. But it's not going to have that great of an impact because someone being imprecise about US and World History won't strike most people as all that serious an issue. Afterall, McCain has had and will have some imprecise language that his (VP Choice) Leibermann and other advisors will have to help him keep straight.

And the window is closing on the GWBush era. No real point in going there, so I won't.

Rich, I hope you don't therefore think all Obama supporters are irrational, messiah seekers who really aren't worthy of friendship if they let an election ruin a friendship. But a friendship does take two...think about it.

[Rich]

Brotherbrown

The ones that I have contact with are definitely seeking a messiah. I have found roughly 20-30% that can actually answer an argument with something other than vitriol. They are not able to engage in a debate about a specific policy. It always boils down to it's our turn and if he loses its the man that kept him down, not his policy positions. Sure there are people that will vote against him solely because he is black, just like black folk that will only vote for the Black candidate. As I say this is only my experience.

[Richard Cook]

To me this is the killin' part in all of the Obama narrative. J-
if I am violating linking rules slap me down. I thought this article characterized the disconnect between people I talk to and my perceived reality. Disclosure - I lived and worked in Chicago for 20 years so I know pretty much the background on this John Kass article:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_unstained_by_chicago_way.html

[baldilocks]

RC,

I don't mind links. Go ahead and use html because Typepad is cutting your link off. Or mail it to me.

[Eric Chen]

Juliette,

Like Obama, I graduated from Columbia as a Poli-Sci/IR major, which followed neatly from my MOS in the Army, 96B (Intel Analyst). Compared to the history, econ and (especially) ethnic studies classes I took at CU, my poli sci professors were solid - serious teachers and scholars. If there is a bias in the poli sci program at Columbia, it's a lean toward realism over liberalism.

There's a difference between serious students and noise-making activist students at Columbia, as I'm sure is the case at any serious academy. Oddly enough, as much as it can seem like a disconnect, there are students who are loudly partisan in their political campus activities while displaying sharp analysis in the classroom.

Obama makes a valid point, which I don't think your post undercuts: we shouldn't rule out meeting with Iranian leadership. At the same time, there should be careful orchestration and well thought out strategic purposes for doing so. Stalin and USSR were never our friends; at best, they were suspended enemies in an alliance of necessity that ended as soon as the mutual enemy was defeated. The Soviet-run ComIntern rivaled Fascism as a threat to the US until WW2, and indeed was more pervasive in the US before, during, and after WW2. But FDR did work with Stalin, however odious that must have been. Nixon met with Mao - the same Mao who had caused so many American deaths in Korea, aided to a lesser degree north Vietnam, ushered in modern insurgency, and forced development of China's nuclear program - in order to dampen the Red Chinese threat and split the already deteriorating Sino-Soviet alliance. JFK facilitated the stalemate that elevated the competition in ways the Sovs could not keep up, and Reagan facilitated the dismantling of the USSR.

Today, Iran is critically positioned for our near-fights (Iraq and Afghanistan), but also Israel/Palestine, as an oil producer, and with our rivalries with China and Russia. Iran also happens to be a traditional nation-state with a functional government of the type President Carter has been vainly seeking from the Palestinians. Finally, it's also apparent that our proxies in the UN and among our European allies are ineffective dealing with Iran.

It wasn't that long ago Iran, under the Shah, was viewed as critical to US interests in the region. I don't think those regional interests have decreased for us since 1979. There's a lot of water under the bridge, but no less than what we had with other governments. The question is, can we make a deal with Iran that will serve our interests?

[Khaki Elephant]

The question then remains: how appropriate is it for an American president to meet with a leader who has personally called for the genocide of Jews?

Perhaps there is a reason anti-semites the world over are sending Obama their support.

[waltj]

Something that always must be kept in mind is the purpose of any discussions, whether it's between two small business owners negotiating a contract for office supplies, or two heads of state weighing courses of action that could lead to war, peace, or something in between. Talking just to talk is a waste of time and energy, and can lead to false hopes or assumptions. I don't think President Bush properly appreciated this when he first met Putin, and I don't think Obama appreciates it now. We in the West, and in the U.S. particularly, sometimes naively expect that the "other side", whatever that might be, just wants to get to know us, and will be able to do business with us once they see how reasonable we are. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me get down into the weeds a bit to follow up on Eric's statement and hypothetically suppose that President Obama (did I just write that? Yikes...) meets Iranian whackjob-in-chief Ahmadwhathisname "without any preconditions". Let's also say that the talks come off with a hitch, but of course, with no substantive agreement. How will this be reported? In the West, reporting will be factual, with editorials in the NYT, LAT, and WaPo probably trumpeting Obama's great wisdom in meeting with his Iranian counterpart.

Now, how will it be spun in Iran? First of all, give up any notion of fairness. It will be triumphant, and have Ahmadinnerplate dictating terms to Obama, with pictures that appear to show just that, along with a story saying how the U.S. recognizes Iranian influence in the region. This will be broadcast domestically, in Arabic to Iraq and the Arab Gulf states, and in Dari to Afghanistan. Every Iranian diplomat will also tell the same story. By the time we figure out what's going on, the story of Iran's "victory" at the talks will have taken on a life of its own, and it'll be extremely hard for the U.S. to walk the story back into its box. What interest of the U.S. would served in a meeting like this? I can't think of one.

Unfortunately, this is how the world works. Negotiating in good faith works with Canada and Sweden. It doesn't where the other side has an entirely different expectation, and an entirely different objective, in seeking the meeting in the first place.

[Khaki Elephant]

Excellent point, walt. For supportive evidence look no further than Carter's recent trip to the Middle East . . . his jaunt to Cuba or his visit with North Korea. Lord, even his misadventures at the Piggly Wiggly can become fodder for anti-american political rhetoric by the head cashier.

[waltj]

Carter never met a dictator he didn't want to swap spit with. The man is an embarrassment and should have his passport revoked. I'm ashamed to say I actually voted for him in '76, so it's partly my fault that he became president. But I learned my lesson. That's the last time I voted for a Dem. I won't change that record this time around, with Mr. History Expert running for their party.

[DarkStar]

If anyone really payed attention to whom the U.S. is "cozying up to" in the name of self interests, they should be able to see why a president refusing to talk with certain leaders really is a big case of hypocrisy.

[DarkStar]

Maybe I need to make this clear. My point is NOT to criticize the U.S., my point is that a president's claim of not wanting to validate certain leaders by not meeting with them is nothing but a side show.

[Hank]

We all know the story

First you talk politely

Then a little forcefully

Then you yell

Then you scream

Then the knives

Then a gun

Then Nuke ‘em

------------

It is nice, if when you have negations and talks for the negotiators to like each other, but what if they have a personality conflict.

Low and mid level diplomats can be transferred

Senior diplomats can be given the opportunity to seek non-governmental employment

But how do you fire the President.

If one is concerned about peace, Heads of State meet with carefully constructed agendas so that personalities will not harm results.

-----------------

The Nixon meeting with Mao should be seen in context of ending the Viet Nam War.

Kissinger opened a diplomatic campaign to make both Russia and China feel they had more to lose by interviewing to support North Viet Nam than if they just left it to it’s own devices. To the Russians he opened a softening of détente including signing the ABM and SALT weapons reductionisms treaties. To China he offered diplomatic recognition and opening of trade relations. President Nixon’s famous visit to China in 1972, was part of this campaign.

From my blog:
http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2008/01/tet-1968-personal-narrative.html 1968 a Personal Narrative

[waltj]

"...why a president refusing to talk with certain leaders really is a big case of hypocrisy".

Even with your clarification, I don't really see your point. How is it hypocritical to take care of American interests first? Help me out here. Maybe cite some examples. We have a pretty good idea who's being snubbed, but who exactly, in your view, are we cozying up to that we shouldn't be?

[DarkStar]

How is it hypocritical to take care of American interests first? Help me out here. Maybe cite some examples. We have a pretty good idea who's being snubbed, but who exactly, in your view, are we cozying up to that we shouldn't be?

Last, first. If we are serious about human rights violations and not dealing with despotic countries, China and Saudi Arabia come to mind right away.

I'm not saying it's hypercritical to take care of American interests, I'm saying that it is hypercritical, on one hand, to say you won't speak with leaders of nations doing "bad things" while dealing with other leaders of nations doing the same "bad things" you denounce.

There is no consistent and logical reason why China and Cuba and Haiti are treated differently, from what I can see.

[Khaki Elephant]

Well . . . China, Cuba and Haiti are not currently supporting terrorist attacks on our troops and our allies. Some might consider that a minor reason to treat them differently.

[DarkStar]

Well . . . China, Cuba and Haiti are not currently supporting terrorist attacks on our troops and our allies.

Uhhhh... China is supporting Syria. Syria is supporting Iran as well as not really watching their borders for terrorist crossings.

Castro in Cuba has a humans rights record that is pretty dang poor and Haiti isn't better, but Cubans landing on America soil are automatic refugees, Haitians are sent back home.

[waltj]

Granted, China's human rights record is awful. Saudi Arabia's is different than China's but just as bad in its own way. I don't think anyone who is realistic would deny this. Unfortunately, the world is a pretty complicated place, and you've just picked two of the more complex nations we have no choice but to deal with in some fashion. Human rights is only one component of those relationships.

China first (I'll do the Saudis later if you're still interested after reading this). The world's most populous country has also had economic growth averaging around 10% for the last decade or so. Of course, it started from nothing, so it still has a long ways to go before it achieves the prosperity it seeks. But still, that's astonishing growth by any measure. A growing middle class, concentrated in the coastal and southern cities, is flexing its economic muscles at home and overseas, but development in the interior of the country lags (and yesterday's earthquake won't help). Chinese factory owners are growing rich on exports while legal protections for patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property remain weak, putting foreign partners and investors at risk. The government remains single-party, with high levels of corruption, official abuse of individuals, and little chance for redress of grievances for the average citizen. Tibet is only the worst manifestation of this.

The people, namely the newly-wealthy and burgeoning middle class, have not yet demanded political reform in any meaningful fashion. An end to corruption, yes. But not a multi-party state or free elections. At the moment, getting rich is enough, and the newly-affluent don't want their hard-won riches stolen by party hacks.

While China sells arms in Africa to any dictator whose check doesn't bounce, supports the Burmese dictatorship, and works with Syria on various military projects, it is also our primary go-to country when the level of idiocy in North Korea reaches an unsustainable level and we need the NoKos to dial it back some. China is also one of our biggest trading partners, a major buyer of American products (although the trade balance is vastly in their favor), and a fellow Perm-5 member of the UN Security Council that can't just be ignored. These guys can hurt us if we're not careful. Maybe not militarily so much (although they're working on it), but in plenty of other ways. These are just a few of the moving parts that have to be kept in balance in any effort to improve China's human rights record. So how would you go about it?

[DarkStar]

waltj, I see nothing wrong with what you wrote. My point in this "exercise" is, if there is going to be comments made about not talking to X because of Y, then when you talk to A because Y, you place yourself in position to be called, at best, inconsistent.