http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20080923_obamas_foreign_policy_stance_open_access

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081105_obama_s_challenge

11/7/2008 11:20:37 AM

I thought the second article was a bit more insightful than the first. And agree that managing constituencies is the hardest part of foreign policy in today's environment.

My guess is that Obama's status as the first black president gives him significantly more leeway than other democrats would have. For one his has a significant base of support that is essentially inalienable.

Second, there will be many on the intellectual left predisposed to defending him from naysayers wherever they might pop up.

In addition, he showed a unique ability to convince the citizenry to support his policies. I still cannot get over how he won the Gas Tax debate. I would have suggested that he not even try. That he completely pander to voters. Yet, he got people to agree with him.

My hope is that he takes full advantage of this leeway and moves forcefully to the center. His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel, an Israeli hawk to Chief of Staff is encouraging. As is the fact that Dick Lugar felt enough in the running for Sec. State that he had to pull his name out.

Though I am disappointed that Lugar will not be taking a position in the new administration.

11/7/2008 11:34:50 AM

Quote :

"Second, there will be many on the intellectual left predisposed to defending him from naysayers wherever they might pop up."

Yep, aint that the truth. I like the guy, but the hero-worship is a bit excessive. I think I've been pretty balanced in my posts about him, yet whenever I post anything slightly critical the Obamamaniacs on this board rip me a new asshole. He WILL make some mistakes, like any President. It's important to view him objectively now that the election is over, and not just blindly rationalize everything he does.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : 2]

11/7/2008 11:45:39 AM

Quote :

"Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters."

How will leaving a residual force disappoint his followers? I haven't heard anyone on the left demand total withdrawal

11/7/2008 12:21:43 PM

Quote :

"How will leaving a residual force disappoint his followers? I haven't heard anyone on the left demand total withdrawal"

Are you for real?

11/7/2008 12:24:10 PM

Total? As in no air cover, no over the horizon presence, no special forces?

11/7/2008 12:31:24 PM

^^^ i think you would've had a pretty easy time finding that a couple of years ago. Now that things are going so much better there, and the left is more concerned with playing fuck-fuck games with people's wallets (to include social programs, which aren't free), the American political left isn't going to be the limiting factor so much as the Iraqi government.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 7:52 PM. Reason : there...here...whatever you wanna call it]

11/7/2008 7:52:21 PM

kinda hope theres a second type of 9/11 under him so he can do what bush did which is whatever he wants

11/8/2008 2:24:13 AM

damn, you really are a Downs case, aren't you?

shut up and go play in Chit Chat, already.

11/8/2008 2:52:23 AM

ummmmm....

11/8/2008 2:54:01 AM

People don't seem to remember or don't seem to care that Obama supporters are behaving just like Bush supporters when he was freshly-minted.

11/8/2008 4:03:01 AM

^ wrong thread

^^, ^^^^ wrong section

11/9/2008 3:06:05 AM

the 2 carots up one might be wrong section but the 4 carots up one is something i really do believe

i seriously hope some kinda 9/11 type thing happens so obama kinda has a free pass to do some shit, like bush did..wage some new wars etc

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 3:08 AM. Reason : enact some new policies etc...stuff like the patriot act]

11/9/2008 3:07:47 AM

Quote :

"damn, you really are a Downs case, aren't you? shut up and go play in Chit Chat, already."

11/9/2008 3:40:31 AM

Quote :

"get the fuck out, you fucking troll"

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 3:53 AM. Reason : i can't prove you don't believe that, but that sounds like trolling enough for me to suspend you.]

11/9/2008 3:44:50 AM

Quote :

"i seriously hope some kinda 9/11 type thing happens so obama kinda has a free pass to do some shit, like bush did..wage some new wars etc"

That's completely and utterly batshit insane to a degree I had yet to see on TSB until now.

Not only are you saying that you hope another international catastrophe will happen, with little or no regard to the lives of others, but you are doing so because you want the president to use the crisis to have unchecked power.

This is a classic example of not learning from past mistakes... Pick a mistake... Nazi Germany, internment of Japanese-Americans, the PATRIOT Act, anything you can find out there in history... Using a crisis to give a leader unchecked power will NEVER result in good things. EVER.

11/9/2008 3:59:04 AM

yes, it's so retarded that it has to be trolling. in either case, it doesn't warrant a response. DNL is gone for the time being, and there isn't any need to discuss that idiotic statement any further in a legitimate thread about two particularly well written articles.

11/9/2008 10:27:51 AM

Iran and Iraq, and Russia to a lesser extent, are going to be major challenges for Obama.

Quote :

"Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents"

I was hoping he would take a tougher stance against Israel re: the Palestinians. I really had no reason to believe that I guess, other than the fact that his previous church (Trinity) has a Liberation Theology component; such churches tend to be critical of Israel.

if there's one way to handle the Mideast in general, it will be to actaully hold Israel to some standards for once.

but with his selection of Rahm Emanuel... i've got no reason to be expecting any real changes in US foreign policy towards Israel

11/10/2008 3:07:04 AM

I'm on flood control, else I would've made a new thread but:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/barack-obama-gaza-hamas

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

Quote :

"Incoming administration will abandon Bush's isolation of Islamist group to initiate low-level diplomacy, say transition sources * Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington * guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 03.18 GMT US President elect Barack Obama introduces education secretary US president-elect Barack Obama is widely expected to adopt a more even-handed approach to the Middle East conflict once he assumes office. Photograph: Tannen Maury/EPA The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say. The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group. The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later. A UN resolution was agreed last night at the UN, calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between Hamas and Israeli forces in Gaza. The resolution was passed, though the US, represented by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, abstained. Richard Haass, a diplomat under both Bush presidents who was named by a number of news organisations this week as Obama's choice for Middle East envoy, supports low-level contacts with Hamas provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges. Another potential contender for a ­foreign policy role in the Obama administration suggested that the president-elect would not be bound by the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas. "This is going to be an administration that is committed to negotiating with ­critical parties on critical issues," the source said. There are a number of options that would avoid a politically toxic scenario for Obama of seeming to give legitimacy to Hamas. "Secret envoys, multilateral six-party talk-like approaches. The total isolation of Hamas that we promulgated under Bush is going to end," said Steve Clemons, the director of the American Strategy ­Programme at the New America ­Foundation. "You could do something through the Europeans. You could invent a structure that is multilateral. It is going to be hard for the neocons to swallow," he said. "I think it is going to happen. But one Middle East expert close to the transition team said: "It is highly unlikely that they will be public about it." The two weeks since Israel began its military campaign against Gaza have heightened anticipation about how Obama intends to deal with the Middle East. He adopted a strongly pro-Israel position during the election campaign, as did his erstwhile opponent and choice for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. But it is widely thought Obama would adopt a more even-handed approach once he is president. His main priority now, in the remaining days before his inauguration, is to ensure the crisis does not rob him of the chance to set his own foreign policy agenda, rather than merely react to events. "We will be perceived to be weak and feckless if we are perceived to be on the margins, unable to persuade the Israelis, unable to work with the international community to end this," said Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on the Middle East. "Unless he is prepared to adopt a policy that is tougher, fairer and smarter than both of his predecessors you might as well hang a closed-for-the-season sign on any chance of America playing an effective role in defusing the current crisis or the broader crisis," he said. Obama has defined himself in part by his willingness to talk to America's enemies. But the president-elect would be wary of being seen to give legitimacy to Hamas as a consequence of the war in Gaza. Bruce Hoffman, a ­counterterrorism expert at George­town University's school of foreign ­service, said it was unlikely that Obama would move to initiate contacts with Hamas unless the radical faction in Damascus was crippled by the conflict in Gaza. "This would really be dependent on Hamas's military wing having suffered a real, almost decisive, drubbing." Even with such caveats, there is ­growing agreement, among Republicans as well as Democrats, on the need to engage Hamas to achieve a sustainable peace in the Middle East – even among Obama's close advisers. In an article published on Wednesday on the website Foreign Affairs, but apparently written before the fighting in Gaza, Haass, who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote: "If the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold and a Hamas-PA reconciliation emerges, the Obama administration should deal with the joint Palestinian leadership and authorise low-level contact between US officials and Hamas in Gaza." The article was written with Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel and an adviser to Hillary Clinton. Obama has said repeatedly that ­restoring America's image in the world would rank among the top priorities of his administration, and there has been widespread praise for his choice of Clinton as secretary of state and Jim Jones, the former Marine Corps commandant, as his national security adviser. He is expected to demonstrate that commitment to charting a new foreign policy within days when he is expected to name a roster of envoys to take charge of key foreign policy areas: Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistan, and North Korea. Obama has frustrated and confused those who had been looking for a more evenhanded approach to the Israeli-­Palestinian conflict by his refusal to make any substantive comment on Israel's ­military campaign on Gaza, nearly two weeks on. He said on Wednesday: "We cannot be sending a message to the world that there are two different administrations conducting foreign policy. "Until I take office, it would be ­imprudent of me to start sending out ­signals that somehow we are running ­foreign policy when I am not legally authorised to do so." "

1/9/2009 12:20:59 AM