I have been quite critical of Obama
through the years, mostly about his performance rather than his
ideas. He spent the whole first term domestically negotiating with
himself, trying to figure out what proposals would have a chance of
acceptance from the Republicans, and then being surprised when they
upped the ante as he proposed what he thought they might accept. Or
that's the way it seemed.
So it is with some sense of ruminative
perplexity that I see I am agreeing with him pretty much across the
board these days. Of course, now that he has screwed up the public
relations and perceptions for so long, his chances are diminished,
but maybe he's at his best coming from behind. Who knows.
Strangely, since he is taking his time
and making sure he thinks clearly and doesn't just react, I think he
is acting very bravely on Iraq. I also think he is acting in a way
that my policy ideal at the Goldman School of Public Policy, Aaron
Wildavsky, would approve, if he were still alive.
First, bravery in action and
negotiation. Obama is getting pilloried for not keeping forces in
Iraq. “They say” that if he had done that, somehow the ISIS
forces would not be sweeping in from the northeast. Somehow the
divisions of troops in the Iraq Army would not be melting away,
abandoning their equipment and their uniforms. “They” are
various, amazingly including the should-be discredited voices of the
past – Cheney for God's sake, Wolfowitz, Bolton, everyone except
Rumsfeld. But even the sober voices somehow allege that Obama was
ball-less, and should have insisted on keeping troops there, although
they don't say how he could have left troops there given the poor
deal Maliki was offering for status of forces.
Now, maybe it's true that there was
nothing Obama could have done to leave some forces in place, that
Iran dictated that end result. Maybe that's the truth. But the way
I look at it, the question is, how much is the US willing to give up
in order to keep forces in place, which costs the US a lot, but which
is nominally for the benefit of the host country? Are we begging to
be of help to them? Certainly to ourselves as well, blocs not having
been abolished in the world, and terrorism being exportable, but most
directly, isn't it being helpful to them, the recipient countries?
Are they children that we care for so much that we are begging to let
us do something for them? Isn't this the tail wagging the US dog??
So, it's a negotiation. Obama says,
this is our last, best offer. They say no. What should we do,
revise the offer? Or should we say, OK, we both lose by not doing
things together, but so be it. We'll see what happens. We think it
will hurt both of us, but we can't accept your terms. What is wrong
with that?
“Stay the course” was heard in
Vietnam, and it has been heard here in Iraq, too. “They” say
that if we don't stay the course, America will not be trusted in the
future. What will it do to our “credibility?” Well, I think
that's crap. It's more important for our credibility that we be seen
as a country that has a decent negotiating position, a country that
will help ourselves by helping others, but up to a point. That is
the kind of credibility Obama is forging for us. He is being
politically brave to do so, and being canny in not announcing it
publicly. And he is being very brave in risking “failure.”
Now, about that “policy” business.
There are the “planners,” and there are others, perhaps called
those who “muddle through” (Lindblom's term.) “Planners”
have to have everything set from the start. If this, then that; if
something else, then another “that.” It is in some ways a very
defensive strategy that seeks to eliminate risk by thinking of every
contingency beforehand. “Muddlers,” on the other hand, take it
one step at a time. They realize that the world is complex and that
everything cannot be foreseen. So they take a step that seems to
provide a good prospect for the future, understanding that
assessments and decisions will have to be made. They have confidence
in their future intelligence and capacity.
In a way, the “invade with
overwhelming force” crowd is like the planners. In seeking to
dominate, they are seeking to get their way, whatever it is, and not
let the voice of others be heard, not let the choices of others
intrude, and have it set up from the start. I think it was Crash
Davis who said, “Strikeouts are fascist.” Our neocons are quite
fascistic, in case no one noticed.
So I think Obama is being brave in
saying, OK, the negotiation fell through, I think we're still in a
good position, let's see what happens. I have confidence that we
will find good options to take in the future, and that the
wrongheadedness of Maliki will run its course, and we will find a way
to ally with more enlightened forces. We'll find allies willing to
make sure terrorists don't find a haven. It's brave.
I think Obama is pissed he's getting
such a bad rap, and I think he's great at coming from behind. So I
am belatedly rallying to him. I think he is pretty admirable right
now.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment