It's worth keeping in mind that South Ossetia is a tiny region of a small country in the politically fragmented Caucasus. Roughly the size of Rhode Island --- and well less than half the size of Kosovo --- South Ossetia has an estimated population of a mere 70,000.
It is a minor pawn caught in a border dispute with Russia, a country of over 140 million. Georgia itself has a population of little more than 4 million. So it's worth remembering just how disproportionate Russia's actions have been.
Back in February, I warned about the hyperbole coming from the Clinton campaign about Kosovo's declaration of independence. I argued it would set "a new precedent for a potentially explosive series of other pro-Russian areas of the Caucusus to declare independence, such as Transdniestr from Moldova, or South-Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia." And I applauded the more cautious and even-handed Obama campaign statement.
Interestingly, the events in Georgia are offering a new chance to contrast foreign policy approaches:
Obama’s statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCain’s initial statement[...] put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.
A McCain adviser suggested that Obama’s statement constituted appeasement, while Obama’s camp suggested that McCain was being needlessly belligerent and dangerously quick to judge a complicated situation.
“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”
Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russia’s incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: “What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty,” he told reporters in Sacramento.
McCain’s statement was longer, more detailed and more confrontational.
"[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.
“The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.”
Obama answered a few questions from the press last night during his flight to San Diego. Obama said his team "didn't have a particular site in mind," but he wants "to make sure that my message is heard as opposed to creating a controversy."
The goal is to "lay out... the next administration's role in rebuilding our transatlantic alliance." The venue should be "appropriate" and not a "distraction."
Obama's advance team will arrive in Berlin this week to scout venues and finalize plans. Sources have given the German media a list of locations being discussed, of which the Gendarmenmarkt and the Schöneberger Rathaus are the most mentioned.
Interestingly though, the Berliner Morgenpostreports that the campaign has already declined an offer "to hold the speech in a building near the Brandenburg Gate," insisting instead on an outdoor venue.
The week-long, still-simmering war of words between Angela Merkel's center-right CDU and foreign minister's center-left SPD continues. The controversy has sustained itself this long for three main reasons:
(1) Because of the time change, German and American media are often reacting to one another on the following day rather than instantaneously. This drags out the news cycle.
(2) Even though developments have been few, interest is so intense in Germany that there's a demand for new articles every day and new statements from government officials on both sides of the debate, who tend not only to repeat but also, irritated, to intensify their argument.
(3) More political leaders from across Germany are now adding their thoughts, not always strictly by party lines.
But here are the highlights:
Social-Democrats continue to accuse Chancellor Angela Merkel of hypocrisy, using any pretext to tie Merkel to Bush:
"Ms. Merkel should be careful with accusations of political campaign against the Democratic presidential candidate."
In 2002 before the German parliamentary elections, she traveled as opposition leader to the US "to campaign against then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and wouldn't rule out the possibility of German participation in the Iraq War. She stabbed the then-Chancellor and his administration in the back."
The chair of the governing CSU party in Bavaria (allied with the CDU), Erwin Huber, accused foreign minister Steinmeier of trying to "ingratiate himself with a possible favorite."
I don't see how Obama has render any outstanding service to [German] unity. That's not a criticism, but there's no reason to give him that privilege.
But in so doing, Huber contradicted his own party's foreign policy adviser, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who on the same day dismissed criticism of Obama as just so much "summer theater." The adviser continued:
There are no plausible objections to an Obama appearance on the Pariser Platz (before the Gate). When there's public interest in an event, the square can be used.
Matt Yglesias uses a discussion of Brazilian sugar ethanol as an excuse to veer off into a diatribe about American sugar policy:
[T]he ridiculous tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol is just one small slice of the larger set of terrible sugar policies in the United States which are aimed at making sugar cane expensive in order to boost the fortunes of America's beet sugar producers and, indirectly, the high fructose corn syrup industry.
What kind of justification one could mount for this perverse effort at sweetener autarky are couldn't quite say, but I have a longstanding dream of a politician handing out bottles of Mexican Coke (made with real sugar) at rallies, drawing vast crowds and powering a massive grassroots campaign for proper sugar.
I've always wondered why European Coca-Cola simply tastes better.
Now if only someone could explain to me why candybars like Snickers sold in Europe are far tastier. Ex-pats tell one another that it's because European standards for chocolate quality are higher and enforceable.
I've blogged about the potential for sugar-based ethanol to transform Latin American politics. Cuba, for example, is turning more and more to a democratic and moderate Brazil for its energy needs, while Venezuala's oil-based influence is declining.
Latin American countries, with their abundance of sugar, could be prime innovators in producing higher-quality (and cheaper) ethanol than American corn could ever do. And green energy could just remake the geopolitical map.
Today the German Chancellor's spokesman confirmed her displeasure with the plan for an Obama speech at the Brandenburg Gate:
Thomas Steg, a spokesman for the chancellor, said Mrs. Merkel had “only limited understanding for using the Brandenburg Gate as an election campaign backdrop,” and that she had “great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany but in the United States to the Brandenburg Gate.”
As Mr. Steg put it, “No German candidate would think of using the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate.”
These are concerns that should have been addressed to campaign staff privately. To leak those concerns to the press is a diplomatic catastrophe, given that Obama might be the next president of the United States.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the German government has sent such mixed signals, with the Foreign Ministry and City of Berlin approving the plan, and reports that the German ambassador to the United States, Klaus Scharioth, "has reportedly worked for weeks to convince Obama's campaign that the candidate's only large European appearance should take place in Berlin" --- in other words, a public appearance, exactly what the Chancellor's office now thinks would be inappropriate in a foreign country for a political candidate.
I have wondered for days what the Chancellor's office could possibly be thinking.
The Foreign Ministry, in the hands of the Social-Democratic party, voiced its support for an Obama speech at the Gate, according to a newspaper account (my own translation):
As once more proven by the opening of the American embassy [last week], the Gate is a "part of a collective German-American memory." Because of this background, a speech "before or by" the Gate, whether by Obama or the Republican candidate John McCain, is an "expression of the lively German-American friendship."
Meanwhile, feeding the debate, the Bush administration has continued to add pressure on the German government to tone down its welcome of Obama, first through contacts at the G-8 Summit in Japan, and now today through a Deputy Treasury Secretary:
Indeed, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the mass circulation tabloid Bild that "it would be nice if the German government would focus on strengthening its contacts to us rather than already beginning to look for our successors."
Some additional hints from Spiegel Online about the content of Obama's speech:
SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that he wants to outline a new foreign policy that consults partners more, but also makes clear demands on Europe. [...]
"Obama wants to signal to the Europeans that he will reach out much more to the trans-Atlantic partners than George W. Bush did. You will hear the words 'I can listen' frequently in his speech," said the advisor.
When asked about the potential for a European tour to backfire among American voters, the advisor answered:
"We are aware of that risk," said the advisor. "A voter in North Dakota doesn't care much for the trans-Atlantic agenda. He would rather ask: What is Obama planning to do for me?" [...]
And he won't shy away from some "tough love" in his speech, said the advisor, noting that he would spell out clearly that Europe needs to assume more international responsibility, especially in Afghanistan, and perhaps in Iraq as well.
The German news service Deutsche Welle notes that Obama praised Germany during a recent June energy speech:
"Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that."
Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, centrally located, surrounded by federal government buildings, and opening up onto a massive park, is essentially the German equivalent of the Washington Mall.
And an event from the steps of the Brandenburg Gate holds the same historical resonance, especially for an American president, as, say, Martin Luther King's rally on the steps of the Washington monument.
The location is all the more potent given that --- during the years of the Cold War --- the Berlin Wall ran directly behind the Brandenburg Gate, leaving it visible but inaccessible from West Berlin, as seen here in a photo of Kennedy's famous visit in June of 1963:
The Brandenburg Gate is, to grasp for another comparison, something like Germany's Eiffel tower, a national symbol commonly sported on coffee mugs and tee-shirts. Easily one of the most recognizable locations in Germany, it's flanked by the German parliament building on the one side and, tellingly, by the new $145-million American embassy on the other.
Arguably, given Kennedy and Reagan, no other location in the world still holds the same symbolism for America's historical commitment to freedom and democracy.
German diplomats have apparently been at work behind the scenes to encourage Obama to speak in Berlin:
Germany's ambassador to Washington, Klaus Scharioth, has reportedly worked for weeks to convince Obama's campaign that the candidate's only large European appearance should take place in Berlin.
Obama campaign staff have been in touch with the Mayor's office in Berlin, and Secret Service agents have reportedly already scouted out the area around the Brandenburg Gate. The German news-magazine Spiegel also reports the date has been tentatively set for July 24th.
Interestingly, the Chancellor's office (Germany's executive branch) has apparently shown some hesitation about the choice of location. According to a statement described in the German press --- by my own translation:
"The Brandenburg Gate is the best known --- and one of the most historically significant --- places in Germany," according to the Chancellor's office. In the past, this location has only been used on special occassions for political events, and until now has only been offered to elected presidents.
The Chancellor's office worries that the precedent set by using the Brandenburg Gate might spoil its special significance and make it the scene of more frequent political rallies. The final decision, however, lies not with Germany's center-right Chancellor, Angela Merkel, but with Berlin's heavily Social-Democratic provincial senate, which has apparently already signaled its full support.
Today, foreign policy heavyweight, 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman, and former member of the House of Representatives from Indiana (a key battleground state), endorsed Barack Obama for President. There is a great write-up this morning in Bloomberg:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has won the endorsement of one of his party's top foreign policy figures, Lee Hamilton, who hails from Indiana, home to one of the next crucial primary votes.
Hamilton, a former U.S. House member who co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and headed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he was impressed by Obama's approach to national security and foreign policy.
"I read his national security and foreign policy speeches, and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough," Hamilton said in an interview. "He impresses me as a person who wants to use all the tools of presidential power."
Hamilton also sided with Obama on two foreign policy stances that have been criticized by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee. Both have dismissed the Illinois senator, saying he doesn't have enough experience to deal with critical foreign policy matters.
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems, to advocating rash, unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world," Clinton said Feb. 25 in Washington.
Hamilton said he agreed with Obama's position on meeting with U.S. adversaries such as the leaders of Iran without conditions. Also, Obama's consideration of unilateral military action against terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, is already U.S. policy, Hamilton said.
Matt Yglesias has a convincing argument for why foreign policy differences among the candidates may be more meaningful than domestic policy differences:
Not on are foreign policy issues very important, but the president's level of control over them is much, much, much higher.
A president who wants to implement sweeping change of the country's national security policies can snap his finger and get it done, whereas domestic policymaking is a complicated interplay between administration, congress, interest groups, etc.
One need look no further than the current president, who has been left a free hand with foreign policy but has had virtually no control over the domestic policy agenda --- losing major fights over social security and immigration.
This is fascinating. Conservative Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas actually agreed with Joe Biden on Sunday morning ABC's "This Week" that the United States should look into easing the embargo with Cuba:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to the issue of Cuba -- excuse me -- because I think this might be an area where you and Senator Biden disagree. He said this may be a moment now, the moment when Raul Castro comes in, to talk with the Cubans, to relax, to increase remittances, increase the contacts between the United States and Cuba. Do you agree?
SEN. HUTCHISON: I have believed for a while that we should be looking at a new strategy for Cuba and that is opening more trade, especially food trade, especially if we can give the people more contact with the outside world, if we can build up an economy that might make the people more able to fight the dictatorship, I think that's something that we should have considered a while back, honestly.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: No kidding? Including now talking with Raul Castro?
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, I think if we had -- if we can change the Sunni chieftains in Iraq, some of which were helping the insurgents against us, maybe talking to someone who seems to be a hardcore enemy doesn't hurt anything and it might help.
There may genuinely be an opportunity for new talks with Cuba. It may also be possible to ease some aspects of the embargo without a full repeal --- such as allowing more food imports and more travel. Even more interesting is her admission that maybe talking to our enemies isn't such a bad strategy after all.
Building on my recent diary about Kosovo, tonight I blog over on the frontpage of MyDD about the differences between Obama and Clinton on their approach to Cuba.
Both candidates released statements following Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia yesterday. And at first, they seem quite similar. Both make clear their intention as president to recognize Kosovo's independence. Both make equally clear that they believe both Kosovo and Serbia should join the EU. But there are equally striking differences.
First, the Clinton campaign shows its enthusiasm for Kosovo's independence by using the Albanian word "Kosova" throughout and by chiding the Bush administration for independence not coming soon enough:
I regret that is has taken so long for us to reach this historic juncture and that the Bush Administration has not always given the issues of Kosova, Serbia's democratic future, and the Balkans the attention they deserve. This has helped contribute to the complicated and risky situation on the ground in the Balkans that we still face today.
Huh? The situation in the Balkans stems from Kosovo not plunging faster towards a unilateral declaration of independence that had and still has the potential to create tension across the region?
The international community has tred carefully around the issue of independence and rightfully focused on stabilizing the area first. As with Taiwan, Kosovo was already in a position of de facto, internationally-enforced independence, and the actual declaration of independence was correctly treated carefully and postponed as long as possible.
or: How the Democratic Party is Ceding the Anti-War High Ground, crossposted at DailyKos
Since the original authorization there has neither been a vote to invade Iraq nor a vote to take back that decision made for us by the president and a congressional majority. If there had been such a vote- many of those who made the wrong decision back then have learned better or have been replaced by those whom knew better... so I am not particularly worried that we will somehow choose to invade Iraq all over again. I am worried that those who have learned of their error do not realize it was the wrong decision based on what they knew at the time, rather than what they know now. You do not only need to know the Iraq war was wrong, you need to know why.
This (pdf link) is why the Iraq War was wrong in October of 2002:
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and MSMs attempt to reframe next week's Iowa primaries to promote the candidates with proven 'experience' in foreign affairs is an ideal time to revisit Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor Samatha Power's August 3rd memo.
Power wrote the memo after Obama came under attack for his comments on the situation in Pakisan, advocating a position which would re-examine the efficacy of continued US support of Mushareff as Ismalic fundamentalists' power grab on the country's northwest borders with Afghanistan continued to gain momentum
The full memo is here, an excerpt below
Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.
Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.
The conventional US methods of interjecting ethically questionnable cohorts into the politics of countries on the Western elite's drawing board failed in Iraq (Chalabi) and fails once again in Pakistan.
Not much is being reported on Bhutto's checkered past, when just last month MSNBCs Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief reported:
Bhutto is a flawed hero. She has been accused – she says for political reasons – of massive corruption while serving twice as prime minister, first in the late 1980s and later in the mid-1990s. Bhutto stands accused of stealing roughly $1.5 billion, mostly in the form of kickbacks on government contracts.
Common interests
Bhutto and Musharraf also have a common interest in keeping the courts here weak. Despite her rhetoric against the Pakistani president, it was Musharraf who helped to have Bhutto's corruption charges put on hold when he allowed her to return to Pakistan from exile last month.
While the Harvard- and Oxford-educated Bhutto is the leading opposition politician in Pakistan, she is still more popular in the West than at home. Bhutto’s regime is remembered for having one of the worst human rights records in Pakistan's history, and her government did not allow the media freedoms she criticizes Musharraf for crushing.
Bhutto could also still face corruption cases in Britain, Spain and Switzerland.
Engel's report references another less than favorable NYTs article which reports:
"But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return – one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions – has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis,"
Some interesting tidbits ... a timeline ...
May 2006, Bhutto and Nawaz Shariff, both then exiled ex-premiers signed a "charter of democracy" "which rejects all constitutional amendments introduced after General Pervez Musharraf assumed power in bloodless coup on October 12, 1999.
October, 07. Conventional Washington wisdom backed the return of Bhutto to Pakistan in to broker a shared government deal with Mushareff. Despite the attempt on her life upon her arrival, the US registers no overt concern, leaving her security in the hands of Mushareff
November,Mushareff, reluctant to cooperate with Washington, flies to Saudi Arabia and agrees to allow exiled former PM Shariff to re-enter Pakistan in time to register for the Jan 8 election. From AsiaNews http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=302375
Interestingly, Saudi Arabia's ambassadors to the United States Adel A. Al-Jubeir and to Pakistan Ali Saeed Awadh Assiri were present in the meetings with the King Abdullah. The presence of the Saudi envoy to the US was important since it indicated that the US would also be on board in the ongoing interaction between Sharif and the authorities in Pakistan, sources added
November, Bhutto announces plans to partner with Sharif (overthrown in the 1999 coup by Musharraf) and demands Musharraf step down ...
December, on the same day as the Bhutto assassination, Bloomberg reports:
At least four supporters of Pakistan's former premier Nawaz Sharif were killed and another 12 wounded in the capital, Islamabad, when gunshots were fired on an election rally.
Where am I going with this? What does this have to do with Blackwater? I guess Im wondering if conventional washington thinking, souring on the idea of Bhutto, just opted out of ensuring her security .... and now sits back as chaos unfolds throughout Pakistan, just like we did in Iraq, before the US sent in Bremer to implement 'disaster democracy' using private mercenaries to protect its envoys.
No matter how you spin it, what the story really is, the Bhutto assassination is just another example of the failures of conventional US foreign policy.
HuffPo's Lionel Beehner has got it right: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-beehner/us-options-for-a-postb_b_78461.html
The next leader of the free world needs to think more specifically and clearly about how best to use American influence to keep Pakistan from becoming the next Afghanistan or Sudan circa late-1990s. The first serious American politician to propose a radical realignment of U.S. policy toward Pakistan was Barack Obama. Last summer, he proposed unilateral military action if the United States was supplied with "actionable intelligence" on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan. He was pounced on by the punditry, his statements taken as further evidence he is a foreign policy lightweight. How dare a presidential candidate jeopardize one of America's most prized partnerships and impinge Pakistani sovereignty! Or, even if Republicans might agree with Obama, it's best not to say such things in public, pundits said.
Now, fast-forward a few months--after a state of martial law, the most deadly terrorist attack in Pakistani history, and the assassination of the country's top opposition figure--most Americans would probably agree that Washington's backing of Musharraf makes for bad policy. Even Republicans like Mike Huckabee have echoed Obama's sentiments to take out terrorist camps in Pakistan without Islamabad's permission.
Problem is, we don't have the time we had back then for everyone else to catch up with Obama's new vision ... .... !!!
Did you see it yet? Today's foreign policy panel in Portsmouth, New Hampshire? Videos: Foreign Policy Forum.
To me, it portended the magic of what we can anticipate when Barack Obama resides in the White House. Six highly reputable policy advisors engaged in straight talk with America for three hours. Obama, who joined the meeting for the last hour, at long last reveled in the opportunity to engage with citizens in some real conversation sans political positioning. OMG, an opportunity to observe 'what lies beneath.'
Along with foreshadowing how exhilarating and uplifting an Obama White House would be, this forum frankly cataplulted the campaign into uberspace! It was absolutely astonishing to hear the Senator's honest evaluations of the promise and sacrifice we can expect if we make the decision to tackle major issues like global warming and dependence on foreign oil, improving the effectiveness of the United Nations, and teaching Americans how to interact and coexist in a multicultural global community.
"It's not as if we don't know how to do this," he said, noting that Fortune 500 companies are amply staffed with young professionals who are schooled in the art of cross cultural communications and diplomacy.
The challenge, Obama, says, is to find a way to inspire these young entrepreneurs to put these skills to work for their country.
It is clear that the post-9/11 foreign policies of the Bush administration's 'global war on terror' and our attempt to dismantle the Taliban and al-Qaeda, originating with the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, are presently in stalemate if not threatened with strategic failure, without even considering the intractable problems created by our war in Iraq. And while the Republicans, with typical disdain, are offering more of the same it was always assumed that this election was going to become a defining one for Democratic foreign policy, from James Traub's recent article in the Sunday NYT Magazine:
Six years have passed since the terrorist attacks, but it seems that, psychologically, we remain inside their fearful penumbra.
And on this visceral question of fear and threat, the candidates differ greatly. Republicans like Rudolph W. Giuliani promise to assuage our worries by taking the offensive; John Edwards has described the “war on terror” as a slogan rather than a strategy and characterized the supreme goal as reclaiming “the moral high ground that defined our foreign policy for much of the last century.” These are the twin poles of the terrorism debate — bellicosity and benevolence. Democrats are not of one mind on the question. Obama continues to use the expression “war on terror” but shares Edwards’s substantive views. He says he believes that while a small core of jihadists must be confronted with superior force, the Islamic world generally is in the position of the faces looking wonderingly at the American helicopter, susceptible to the instruments of soft power. He has pledged to convene a forum in the Middle East with regional heads of state soon after he is elected. On the other hand, centrists like Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, are skeptical about the efficacy of soft power in this case. Obama, says Marshall, appears to believe that “the threat we face is an Al Qaeda threat — a tiny minority of malignant criminals who have absolutely no public support.” In fact, says Marshall, “Al Qaeda has broad support in the Islamic world,” and Salafism, the extremist branch of Sunni Islam, “is in the ascendant.” And Hillary Clinton, who has expressed qualified support for the Bush administration’s confrontational policies on Iran, has positioned herself carefully to Obama’s right on the subject.
So which is it? Even allowing one of his opponents to frame the debate are we fighting a tiny minority of malignant criminals or an entire branch of ascendant Islam? And what the hell is this soft power? It doesn't sound ready for prime-time, not with a name like that. Well, according to Professor Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who popularised the term:
Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will. Both hard and soft power are important in the war on terrorism, but attraction is much cheaper than coercion, and an asset that needs to be nourished.
Joseph S. Nye Jr - The International Herald Tribune 10 Jan 03
Well, that makes sense, persuasion versus enforcement of our will. Two alternate and exclusive tactics which need to be applied in various situations as circumstances dictate. Why then have we adopted almost exclusively the 'carrot and stick' approach in our fight against terrorism? And what approach is going to provide the most beneficial results for the country as a whole?
Or, as an alternative title "Barack Obama Had it Right (Again)"
There's an excellent diary up on the rec list now concerning Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf and his exploitation of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it focuses so myopically on its "War on Terror." We may sit here and observe that what is happening in Pakistan now is perhaps a predictable consequence of designing a foreign policy in Pakistan that relies solely upon bolstering the existing government against our archetypal mutual enemy off in the mountains at the Pakistan border. We might further believe that the present turmoil - the suspension of democracy, is a logical extension of the militarism we fostered supporting the conflict in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s, or an extension of our tacit acceptance of the military rule and spreading of Sharia law under Zia-ul-Haq beginning in '77. However, while we sit here drawing those historical threads I would like to remind us of a discussion we had, here and elsewhere, some three months ago.
(Thanks to Shaun for inviting me to cross-post this from MyDD. Glad to be here.)
It was May 23, 2007, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, that John Edwards first called the War on Terror a "bumper sticker."
Many Democrats cheered him for finally acknowledging that the Bush Administration's "War on Terror" is not a mission designed to keep us safer, but a slogan designed to quell dissent and to justify not only the disastrous war in Iraq but any number of abuses of our civil liberties as Americans. Don't question our Commander-in-Chief, we've heard over and over, we're at war.
Republicans, ironically enough, confirmed the importance of the "War on Terror" as a political slogan by rallying to its defense, deploying the predictable smear that Edwards must be soft on terrorism because he doesn't agree with Republican framing on the subject. And some Democrats - either because they supported a different candidate or because they were fearful of appearing weak on national security as a party - hastened to enable the Republican talking points and disavow Edwards' statements.
But now we have confirmation that Edwards was, in fact, exactly right - confirmation straight from the chief architect of the Iraq War himself, Donald Rumsfeld:
Originally posted at DailyKos, Aug. 25th - I regularly refer to it as a resource in online discussions, so I hoped it could be handy to some of you.
Jon Stewart: "Do you feel like you're stuck in a narrative now...?"
-an apt question asked of Barack Obama this past Wednesday on a Daily Show interview. We haven't wholly escaped the narrative that had been constructed earlier in the race and attained prominence at the YouTube debate, where we were precipitously informed that Obama is naive and inexperienced. The narrative implies the inexperienced Sen. Obama has outlandish ideas concerning diplomacy and foreign relations, and if anything is to blame for the foreign policy debacle of the past several years, it certainly wasn’t "inlandish" ideas... [/irony] Here and elsewhere analysts poked holes in the narrative even as it attempted to seize upon remarks concerning Pakistan, Afghanistan and Cuba.
The Brandenburg Gate is, to grasp for another comparison, something like Germany's Eiffel tower, a national symbol commonly sported on coffee mugs and tee-shirts. Easily one of the most recognizable locations in Germany, it's flanked by the German parliament building on the one side and, tellingly, by the 
