|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: Fareed Zakaria gives some good advice to Obama |
 |
|
I like how Zakaria thinks. Here is a piece of his from Newsweek laying out a pretty good strategy. It appeals to me and I think it would appeal to most of the people against the war. Any thoughts?
What Obama Should Say On Iraq
The Democratic candidate needs to implement a serious policy based on his long-held views, but informed by the conditions on the ground today.
Barack Obama needs to give a speech about Iraq. Otherwise he will find himself in the unusual position of having being prescient about the war in 2002 and yet being overtaken by events in 2008. The most important reason to do this is not political. Iraq is fading in importance for the public and, to the extent that it matters as an electoral issue, most people agree with Obama's judgment that the war was not worth fighting.
The reason to lay out his approach to Iraq is that, were he elected, the war would be his biggest and most immediate problem. He will need to implement a serious policy on Iraq, one that is consistent with his long-held views but is also informed by the conditions on the ground today. This is what he should say:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142642/page/1
Obama could do worse than to choose this guy for Secretary of State. If not that then Head Speech Writer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In my opinion, should Obama make a speech with this as his text, he'd change the dynamic of the election campaign. It would satisfy all but the war-mongers and the Libertarians (who all seem to be Canadians who can't vote). It would force McCain to try to sell the war all over again, which is a sale I don't think he can make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
You do know Zarkaria was a huge, I mean HUGE advocate of invading Iraq.
don't believe me?
In fact this to me was one of the most important reasons for invading Iraq.
| Quote: |
February 17, 2003, U.S. Edition
Don't Open a Credibility Gap
If it turns out the president is bluffing about 'serious consequences,' what will happen the next time the United States makes threats?
By Fareed Zakaria
In the world of foreign policy, the word "credibility" is a damaged good. When a policymaker says we should do something "to maintain our credibility," it conjures up a tragic event--Vietnam. The experts all agree we foolishly bloodied ourselves and slaughtered others halfway across the globe just to prove we wouldn't back down. Credibility, they concluded, was a meaningless idea. But right now with Iraq, the need to maintain resolve seems obvious. Whatever one's initial views about taking on Iraq--and I have been for it--I cannot see how America can back down without damaging its, well, credibility.
Imagine the situation. A week from now, pressured by France, Germany and Russia, the United States decides to give the inspectors more time. It announces that, come to think of it, Saddam isn't that much of a threat. Though the president of the United States has said repeatedly that he would have "zero tolerance" for Iraqi deception, he didn't really mean it. When Colin Powell persuaded the United Nations to pass a resolution telling Saddam that he had a "final" opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences," it was a bluff. (The "serious consequences" turn out to be that the United Nations sends in a few dozen more inspectors.) What would happen the next time the United States makes threats?
And what about America's allies? Washington has pushed countries like Kuwait, Qatar and Turkey to stick their necks out and support it in a very dangerous neighborhood. European states like Spain, Italy and Poland have dared to break with the Franco-German juggernaut, a move that could cost them dearly within the European Union.
All these leaders have taken risks abroad but even greater risks at home, where the war is deeply unpopular. Tony Blair has supported American action despite the fact that a majority of his cabinet, his party, his Parliament and his country oppose a war. If now the administration were to cut and run, what would America's reputation be with these leaders? If a year from now Washington went to them and said, "We must come together on a policy. This time we're really serious," would anyone listen?
Think also about the effect it would have on countries like France and Russia. Would they not decide that undermining American policy works? All they have to do is wait it out and eventually the United States will change its mind. And leaving aside allies, consider the effect on the adversary. Saddam Hussein has already made clear what he believes. In his November 2002 interview with the Egyptian weekly Al Usbou, he explained, "[T]ime is working for us. We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street."
Beyond Saddam Hussein, what will other adversaries think of American threats? At this very moment the United States is trying to persuade another rogue regime not to acquire nuclear weapons. One of America's foremost East Asian experts, Thomas Christensen of MIT, says, "There's no doubt that North Korea is watching what we do in Iraq very closely. It would be incredibly dangerous to back down now."
In Vietnam, America had staked its reputation in a guerrilla war against an utterly determined enemy consumed with nationalist passion. It could not win and should have come to that realization more quickly. But even in Vietnam there was a case for credibility--though it got greatly exaggerated. In Henry Kissinger's new book, "Ending the Vietnam War" (really a compilation of everything he's written on the subject), he points out that after World War II the United States proved--in places like Greece, Berlin and South Korea--that it stuck by its friends. It could not simply abandon South Vietnam after four presidents of both political parties had declared that its survival was crucial to American national security.
When America did leave, the international climate was affected. As Kissinger notes, within six months of Saigon's fall, a Cuban expeditionary force appeared in Angola. Soviet and Cuban adventurism across the Third World picked up substantially. Three years later the Shah of Iran was toppled. Then U.S. diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran. Of course, local politics contributed to all this, but Kissinger wonders how much these developments were influenced by the fact that America's enemies were increasingly convinced "that the wave of history was on their side."
A senior Asian diplomat told me recently that prior to this month he had never fully understood the saying "When you have drawn your sword you must use it." "I always thought the phrase didn't make any sense," he said. "One could always just put the sword back in. But watching the current confrontation between the United States and Iraq, it's clear. You've drawn your sword. Now you must use it."
Back to top
|
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/021703.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I take from the particular article you posted is: Be very careful what stands you take. Much like in the classroom, don't make empty threats.
I don't recall what Zakaria thought in '02-'03 before the war. That isn't what the article I posted in the OP is about. That is about a responsible way to get out of the present bad situation.
Had Bush/Cheyney/McCain said in early '03 that they wanted to invade Iraq, change its government and set up bases that would remain for the next 100 years, the public would have been even less enthusiastic about the war than it was, and the support for the war was quite weak. The majority of Americans do not want us having an empire and that is what Iraq is. This is quite different from coming to the aid of an established government, like we did with South Korea and Vietnam. (Even those wars were unpopular.)
It seems to me that the issue of Iraq is really about what kind of country America is. Do we want to be a country that encourages other countries to improve their human rights at home and develop some form of democratic system on their own, or do we want to be an aggressive imperial power that imposes our will on others at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths? After 2 1/4 centuries are we going to change our ideals? That is what is at stake.
Regardless of what Zakaria thought 5 years ago, in the article I posted he was offering Obama a policy that would allow us to return to our historic role and the way most Americans want to see ourselves. What this thread should be about is his suggested approach to the situation now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
