71 thoughts on “The Country’s In The Very Best Of Hands”

1. peaceful largely secular Egyptians might support some of those factions for now

   LOL.

   [peaceful secular Egyptian]:I support you NOW, but I reserve the right to not support you in the future.

   [MB] Thank you. We will peacefully step aside if or when you change your mind. As you know, that is our history.

   I think the White House walked back his comments for political reasons

   And I think you are seriously deluded. They are on record with a desire to impose sharia law. Which I doubt even you can square with secularity.

2. Carl, If you believe that all US presidents talk too much, if you believe that all US presidents feel their personal wisdom is just too wonderful to deny the rest of us, etc, I figured you would say so.

   About being lazy; are you saying you want me to supply you the transcripts of various statements by President Bush on the official US position regarding how people in Eastern Europe and China should re-organize their governments? As you know, there were lots of official presidential statements, and as we are both sitting in front of computers hooked up to the internet, we can both quickly find them. The reason I’m not listing any in particular is that I figured you would accuse me of cherry-picking.

   Here’s one at almost at random (not cherry-picked, so it is not a perfect match to Obama’s February 1 statement on Egypt, but it is close enough.)
   Short version: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17119
   Long version: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16935

3. If you believe that all US presidents talk too much… I figured you would say so.

   Correct. Also, if re-examining the record of George Bush, Sr., would throw any light on current events, I figured you’d say so, and how it does. Er…except you haven’t.

   Here’s one at almost at random

   Yes, that does seem rather at random. So how does this contradict my thought that at this time, I see no reason for the United States to have a particular position on what is happening, or should happen, in Egypt?

   In the speech to which you point, George Bush comments favorably on the holding of elections in a newly free Poland (free of Soviet oppression, that is). So now I’m left to wonder:

   (1) Do you think holding elections is the same thing as protesting in the street?

   (2) Do you think the United States was at war with Mubarak, the same way we were at war with the Soviet Union, so we should equally cheer a reduction in influence of our enemy?

   (3) Is there no meaningful distinction between throwing off the yoke of a hated external oppressor and revolution?

   (4) Or…you know, what? You keep hinting around here — what exactly is your thesis that makes some trenchant parallel between the liberation of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union and what is going on in Egypt just now?

   If what happens in Egypt turns out to be the first elements of a broad Middle Eastern movement towards self-determination and liberty, and away from the oppressive thuggery of international communism, or Nassarism let us say, or even pan-Islamism, then I’ll be the first to cheer. But that’s not clear what’s happening yet, and certainly not in the way it was clear that the developments in 1989 in Poland were good for the Poles, and all humanity. Some popular revolutions work out well. Many others merely pave the way for Napoleonism or Bolshevism or the rule of mullahs, or some other horror. Not being a Jeffersonian, I don’t praise revolution ipso facto. Neither should our President.

4. Maybe I should add, Bob, that not even Obama believes in praising revolutions per se. That’s part of the issue here, no? He didn’t initially praise the protestors and urge their demands be met, and then later he seemed to do so, but then we’re not sure — various statements were “walked back” as you say — and so on. The criticism he’s getting here seems mostly founded on the fact that he did not have a simple, consistent policy position throughout — the way George Bush Sr. certainly did with respect to the liberation of Poland and Eastern Europe generally from the USSR’s hegemony.

   Of course he did not have a self-evidently consistent policy because, as I’ve argued — and I’m not even sure you disagree — events were not plain enough in their meaning and outcome that a reasonable person could. My position is that when a reasonable person doesn’t have a good idea about the virtue or harm in what’s happening, he should probably keep his mouth shut. Particularly if he’s the President of the United States.

   Let me put it to you this way: if you have some amazing way of knowing that we’re seeing a repeat of Berlin in 1989, and not Tehran in 1979, then you should say what it is, and then you can argue Obama should take a page from Bush, Sr.’s playbook of twenty years ago. You should also send your metholodogy over to McLean, because they look like they could use some help.

5. Carl Pham says:

   “I see no reason for the United States to have a particular position on what is happening, or should happen, in Egypt?”

   To be slightly pedantic, it’s perfectly reasonable for the US to have a “position”. Earlier in another post you said:

   “In the context of Egypt, it’s unclear to me why the United States, as a nation, should have anything to say at all. ”

   In the first place, most countries have a position. And most countries have interests. Especially when it comes to the Middle East and the oil they sit upon. Once they have interests, the leaders of these countries, will certainly do what they can to see their interests maintained. To do otherwise would be an abdication of responsibility. This does not mean they get an overwhelming vote. But the level of intercession is a grey area.

   And then, it’s pretty tough for a leader of a country like the US – a big player – to say in public, merely “We are watching the situation closely”. Especially when you have been supporting the regime there to the tune of 1.5 very large a year. Madagascar can say only that. The US can’t.

   And lastly, countries big and small can be pulled in and have to choose sides whether they like it or not. Thuesly giving them a “say”. Mubarak calls in some chits and you the leader of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick then get to decide whether to pay up or blow the guy off. But you HAVE to decide. No choice.

   Maybe you have a treaty. You have to decide whether to honor it or blow it off. No choice.

   The leader of the country in question has something on you and tries to extort your cooperation. You have to decide.

   Your allies tell you their very existence is in the balance….whether or not they survive depends upon what you do. You have to decide.

   Most importantly, should you decide to do nothing; take no position; have no say. You’ve done something. You’ve influenced the outcome. You’ve decided. Most especially in this case.

   So you DO get a say – sometimes whether you want one or not.

   Now whether or not you say all this publically is another thing, I agree. And maybe that was all you meant to say.

6. I wonder if Bob can explain why it was wrong for Hondurans to dispose their President via miliary coup (according to the Obama Administration)?

   I wonder if Bob can explain why it was great for Egyptians to dispose their President via military coup (according to the Obama Administration)?

   I’ll point out up front that Honduras held elections to select a new leader. (pro-democracy)

   I’ll point out up front that Egyptians are claiming to hold elections to select a new leader in September. (pro-democracy)

7. Hey now, McGehee. I find that when reading Bob-1 at his most infuriatingly pompous it helps to envision him wearing a pink tutu. (Not that I know what Bob-1 actually looks like; so I just imagine an avuncular older male — the kind that is always chuckling and patting you on the head when you’re a kid trying to be serious — dressed in a pink tutu.)

8. Leland, I’m going to answer you right now because it is faster than answering Carl and I’m short on time. I could give you an answer that involves values (and they’re important) but then we’d get into an argument about values and legal definitions and technicalities (and they’re important too, but less fun to argue about). I think the right kind of answer to your question is a realpolitik one. A realpolitik answer addresses the wish Ken Anthony expressed for foreign policy to be conducted as if we were adults, not children. If you really want the other kind of answer, I can give it a try when I have time, but I think the following answer is better:

   Americans want the countries in both the Middle-East and Latin America to become stable free democracies. In Latin America, the problem for many decades was military coups — democracies would get started, but then they’d get knocked over by the military. In the middle east, for the most part, democracy never really took hold (there’s a few interesting exceptions).
   In both places, the Soviet threat meant we made undemocratic allies, and in the middle east, the war on terror maintains the status quo, but we’re happy to promote democracy when and where we can, if it doesn’t threaten our security.

   In the situation in Honduras, democracy was indeed being threatened by a leader who was getting too full of himself, but the USA and the OAS strongly preferred a solution that preserved and strengthened democracy without resort to a military coup, because of the long problematic history of military coups in Latin America. Particularly now that the threat of communist dominoes is gone, the USA and the OAS wanted to try a non-military approach. (This is where we jump off into an argument about the legal technicalities involving the Honduran constition, but we’ve had that argument already.) In any case, the stakes were fairly low Leland — Honduras was never a threat to the USA. Do you think things have worked out ok in Honduras so far?

   In Egypt, the military had a good relationship with us, and they seemed to be best most pro-democratic alternative to chaos or the rise of Islamists or the anti-democratic status-quo, which appeared to be no longer tenable. Here, the war on terror makes the stakes fairly high. The Egyptian people seemed ready to accept the military, the military was friendly with us (particularly regarding the war on terrorism), the military likes receiving our money, and the military was making all the right pro-democracy promises, so we went along with it, and we’ll see how it works out.

9. Andrea Harris Says:

   “I find that when reading Bob-1 at his most infuriatingly pompous it helps to envision him wearing a pink tutu. ”

   *snicker*

10. Americans want the countries in both the Middle-East and Latin America to become stable free democracies.

    My particular interest is not in the form of government so much. My interest is that we know their interest and act accordingly with our self interest. That’s why I emphasize intelligence. Acting in ignorance is not likely to be successful. That seems to be the gist of what Carl is saying.

    Every nation should act in it’s own best interest. We should support or oppose them in relation to our interests. I support Israel and Israel is worried. This tends to worry me. I don’t know for certain, but I suspect that Israeli intelligence is a lot more focussed on their self interest than whatever’s going on with us. The CIA telling us not to worry about a nuclear Iran was shocking. The announcements regarding the Muslim Brotherhood made by the Obama admin. was sadly not so shocking.

    I want pro America governments. I’d like ours to be the first among many.

11. Do you think things have worked out ok in Honduras so far?

    Yes, well except for the State Department’s continuing efforts to get Zelaya back into Honduras despite his crimes. Particulary when a peaceful transition occurred without him. Bob, can you explain why the State Department continues to meddle in the peaceful affairs of Honduras, since as you say, they are no threat to the US?

    Particularly now that the threat of communist dominoes is gone

    Care to explain Venezuela? Maybe you can explain why the President doesn’t support either a military coup or democracy in that Latin American nation?

    Here, the war on terror makes the stakes fairly high.

    I think it had a bit more to do with the security of the Suez Canal, and then the security of Israel, and then somewhere way down the line may have been a concern about terrorism. If that wasn’t the priority, then that would explain a lot to me.

12. Bob, now that Robert Gibbs is gone, the President needs a new glib flak. What you’ve just written is a superb example of the kind of rapid-response rationalization that would be highly prized there.

    Apply for the job, man! Let your silver tongue be heard on a far wider stage. I’m sure you could talk the “pro-democratic” Egyptian military into the minor lifestyle adjustments to which they’ll need to become accustomed so that Egypt can become Lebanon in the early 70s.

    Brush up a little on your history, however. The Soviet threat in Latin America caused the US to make unsavory allies? I’m just curious which Latin American countries you counted as Soviet satellites — the equivalent of East Germany or Cuba — in the 70s and 80s?

13. Was that a trick question? Nicaragua is exhibit one. We could talk about what was going on elsewhere, even including those nutty shining path maoists, but do we disagree about what was happening in Nicaragua?
    (I’d still like to catch up on your earlier comments too.)

14. Also, why do you not think of Cuba as part of Latin America?

15. Nicaragua was a Soviet client state? Really? How many Soviet troops were stationed there, Bob? Did they fly MiGs with which Moscow supplied them? So you think the reaction of the Reagan Administration to the Sandinistas — widely and severely criticized by the Democrats at the time as hysterical overreaction — was spot on?

    I admit I write this merely to enjoy the possibility of seeing your head explode when you attempt to be simultaneously on the same page as Barack Obama and Ollie North.

    And you also think it was necessary for the United States to make unsavory allies in response, because, as was the case for Eastern Europe, we couldn’t simply intervene directly for fear of drawing in the Red Army? The Monroe Doctrine was already dead? All that fuss and pop music in the 80s about our cavalier imperialist behaviour south of the border was delusional?

    Also, why do you not think of Cuba as part of Latin America?

    Good point, Bob. I meant to say Central America. But alas, I didn’t. Guess my main point is wrong now. Damn!

16. The question wasn’t whether I supported the Reagan administration’s particular policies toward the Sandinistas, the question was why did the US government once support so many undemocratic regimes (put in place by coups) in Latin America. The answer is the perceived threat of communism, and by extension, the perceived Soviet military threat. Do you actually disagree about that?

    Your question about MiGs is just as irrelevant as your question about my views on the Sandinistas but it reminds me that one reason for invading Grenada was at the extension of a runway, presumably for Soviet military cargo planes, and I think we can both agree that there were Soviets and Cuban military “advisors” in both Nicaragua and Grenada. And as for your question on pop music and invasions — obviously we could have invaded more countries if it came to that (hence the worry and musical fuss) but funding and training the contras seemed to make more sense than invasions even to ardent anti-communists. The goal remained not giving the Soviets more leverage — I think we would have tolerated communism in Latin America if there was no Soviet or Chinese threat associated with it. Also, most communist activity in Latin America (particularly in South America) was at a stage where an invasion wouldn’t have helped — so we did things like collaborating with Operation Condor instead of pushing for democracy.

17. Like kids in a school yard, when the fight is over, take the ones with the bloody noses to the nurse.

    The only thing that annoys me is that we don’t have space travel up to the level where it should be. By now, we should have options.

    I expect that when all is said and done, this planet will have become uninhabitable from all of the nuclear missles coming from all directions.

    It’s a toss up for me which should come first, quotidian space travel or ubiquitous regeneration of humans. Granted not all of mankind would be able to handle it, but all I am asking for are options…

18. The question wasn’t whether I supported the Reagan administration’s particular policies toward the Sandinistas

    Oh but it is, Bob. Because I’d like to know whether you are espousing a consistent set of principles, or, as Leland seems to have wondered, just issuing any old rationalization with fashionable buzzwords to support a far simpler (one might say crasser) philosophy, e.g. to reactively defend Obama against the Neanderthals criticizing him here.

    the question was why did the US government once support so many undemocratic regimes (put in place by coups) in Latin America. The answer is the perceived threat of communism, and by extension, the perceived Soviet military threat. Do you actually disagree about that?

    In fact, I do, Bob. I recognize that it’s an unquestioned assumption among the educated leftist elite, of course, and that my questioning it would provoke gasps of disbelief among the New York/DC cocktail party crowd. But there it is. Unrepentant curmudgeon that I am, I don’t mind questioning this bit of conventional wisdom, inasmuch as I’ve lived through enough history to contrast the conventional wisdom with my own memories — and the former doesn’t come out as shiny as one might have hoped.

    In my experience, the United States’ record on support, or nonsupport, of “undemocratic” regimes has been mixed. In some cases we have supported undemocratic regimes — and Mubarak is a good example. In others we have opposed them, or even deposed them, sometimes to our disadvantage in the contest against Communism. (The 1963 deposal of Diem in Vietnam will no doubt jump immediately to mind.) I can really see no strong correlation between American support for an undemocratic regime and its usefulness in the struggle against Communism. Really, the only really useful non-allied regime was the Turks. They were, indeed, not very democratic, but Kemalism was far better than the corrupt cruel Ottoman absolutism that it replaced.

    To my mind the principle reason American foreign policy has hesitated over whether to support an “undemocratic” regime is because it is not always clear that the ultimate future of such a regime is bad. Pinochet, for example, is an example of an “undemocratic” regime with a very good outcome: while a dictator who brutally suppressed dissent, he was also an “inverse Stalin” who brought his backward miserable country so forcefully into the modern era that Chile is now a very successful and prosperous (and democratic) nation. Franco is arguably another example, as were Indira Gandhi and Syngman Rhee.

    In other cases we supported “undemocratic” regimes because there seemed no reasonable alternatives: the Shah is a good example where the “undemocratic” ancient regime is greatly to be preferred to the results of the popular revolution.

19. He should have kept support one way or the other to himself because of the fluid situation. Vanilla calls for no violence and working behind the scenes is what I would have done. I would have ascertained the viability of Mubarak staying and gone from there. I write that not because of what I know now but after watching Iran, Poland and Lebanon in the past.

20. The above comment was a response to Bob

21. I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/02/re-countrys-in-very-best-of-hands.html

Comments are closed.