This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/22/foreign-policy-presidential-debate
The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Presidential debate on foreign policy: live Glenn Greenwald commentary | Presidential debate on foreign policy: live Glenn Greenwald commentary |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Updates will appear below | Updates will appear below |
| Tonight at 9pm EST, the GOP and Democratic presidential candidates will participate in a "debate" over foreign policy, in which the most difficult challenge for each will be to identify meaningful differences with the other. One expects them each to compete vigorously for the title of he who will will impose the greatest suffering on Iranian civilians, demonstrate the most fealty to the Israeli government or, as they affectionately call it, "Bibi" (Joe Biden: "with regard to Bibi, he's been my friend for 39 years! The president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He's spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he's spoken to anybody"), and most ruthlessly pile up corpses in the Muslim world. | Tonight at 9pm EST, the GOP and Democratic presidential candidates will participate in a "debate" over foreign policy, in which the most difficult challenge for each will be to identify meaningful differences with the other. One expects them each to compete vigorously for the title of he who will will impose the greatest suffering on Iranian civilians, demonstrate the most fealty to the Israeli government or, as they affectionately call it, "Bibi" (Joe Biden: "with regard to Bibi, he's been my friend for 39 years! The president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He's spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he's spoken to anybody"), and most ruthlessly pile up corpses in the Muslim world. |
| It should be greatly riveting and quite inspiring. Depending on how it unfolds and the questions that are (and are not) asked, I may live-blog the festivities in this space. Or I may post a reaction once it's done. Or I may write nothing until tomorrow morning. Whichever of those courses I embark upon, I encourage readers to use the comment section to live-blog the debate as it occurs. | It should be greatly riveting and quite inspiring. Depending on how it unfolds and the questions that are (and are not) asked, I may live-blog the festivities in this space. Or I may post a reaction once it's done. Or I may write nothing until tomorrow morning. Whichever of those courses I embark upon, I encourage readers to use the comment section to live-blog the debate as it occurs. |
| For the moment, permit me to make one point about the two candidates' positions on Iran which has broad application to most of the issues likely to be debated tonight. It is true that Romney's war threats toward Tehran are broader and more aggressive than Obama's, in that the Republican has vowed to prevent Iran even from obtaining the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon, while the incumbent Democrat has vowed to prevent only its "acquisition". That is not a trivial difference. | For the moment, permit me to make one point about the two candidates' positions on Iran which has broad application to most of the issues likely to be debated tonight. It is true that Romney's war threats toward Tehran are broader and more aggressive than Obama's, in that the Republican has vowed to prevent Iran even from obtaining the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon, while the incumbent Democrat has vowed to prevent only its "acquisition". That is not a trivial difference. |
| But if there is one thing the 2008 campaign should have permanently taught, it is that campaign rhetoric often bears little relationship to what a person will do once empowered. More important, it is almost certainly the case that an Obama-led attack on Iran would generate far more public support than a Romney-led attack, because most Democrats will almost certainly cheer for the former while pretending to be horrified by the latter, will while Republicans would support both (that's the dynamic that made the very same "counter-terrorism" policies that were so divisive in the Bush years become wildly popular once Obama embraced them). | But if there is one thing the 2008 campaign should have permanently taught, it is that campaign rhetoric often bears little relationship to what a person will do once empowered. More important, it is almost certainly the case that an Obama-led attack on Iran would generate far more public support than a Romney-led attack, because most Democrats will almost certainly cheer for the former while pretending to be horrified by the latter, will while Republicans would support both (that's the dynamic that made the very same "counter-terrorism" policies that were so divisive in the Bush years become wildly popular once Obama embraced them). |
| That's true on the international level as well. Recall the 2008 CIA report fretting about growing anti-war sentiment in western Europe and concluding that the best weapon to safeguard against its continuation would be the election of Obama. That's because, the CIA presciently realized, Obama's election would massively increase public support for US wars because it would be a kind, sophisticated, progressive constitutional scholar rather than a swaggering, evangelical Texas cowboy who would be the face of them. Add to all that the Nixon-to-China dynamic - just as only a conservative president could have established relations with the Chinese Communists, arguably only a Democratic president could start a new war in the Muslim world, cut Social Security, etc. - and the picture is far more muddled than many like to depict it as being. | That's true on the international level as well. Recall the 2008 CIA report fretting about growing anti-war sentiment in western Europe and concluding that the best weapon to safeguard against its continuation would be the election of Obama. That's because, the CIA presciently realized, Obama's election would massively increase public support for US wars because it would be a kind, sophisticated, progressive constitutional scholar rather than a swaggering, evangelical Texas cowboy who would be the face of them. Add to all that the Nixon-to-China dynamic - just as only a conservative president could have established relations with the Chinese Communists, arguably only a Democratic president could start a new war in the Muslim world, cut Social Security, etc. - and the picture is far more muddled than many like to depict it as being. |
| I'm not at all suggesting that a war with Iran would be more likely with Obama than with Romney. There are ample, reasonable grounds for concluding the opposite, including the fact that Obama has - whatever his motives - rather clearly served as some form of impediment against an Israeli attack. | I'm not at all suggesting that a war with Iran would be more likely with Obama than with Romney. There are ample, reasonable grounds for concluding the opposite, including the fact that Obama has - whatever his motives - rather clearly served as some form of impediment against an Israeli attack. |
| But the point is that this is far from certain. Just as Obama was able to achieve more than Bush ever dreamed of achieving in terms of transforming extremist civil liberties theories into bipartisan consensus, the case could be made that Obama would be a more effective instrument in bringing about these policies than Romney would be, and would certainly unite the country more potently behind them, even if he is less committed to them rhetorically or even in substance than Romney the candidate claims to be. | But the point is that this is far from certain. Just as Obama was able to achieve more than Bush ever dreamed of achieving in terms of transforming extremist civil liberties theories into bipartisan consensus, the case could be made that Obama would be a more effective instrument in bringing about these policies than Romney would be, and would certainly unite the country more potently behind them, even if he is less committed to them rhetorically or even in substance than Romney the candidate claims to be. |
| 6.54pm: Underscoring these points, Atrios earlier today wrote: | 6.54pm: Underscoring these points, Atrios earlier today wrote: |
| "I don't write much about the stuff Glenn Greenwald tends to focus on anymore, not because I'm trying to be a good little Obot, but because I find it all to be completely depressing and hopeless. Under a Republican administration you can expect some half-hearted objection to the National Security State and Empire from Democrats, and under a Democratic president there's seemingly no way to do anything about any of it. Most Dems - elected and voters - are happy to defer to Obama. And pretty soon [Romney] might control the flying death robots." | "I don't write much about the stuff Glenn Greenwald tends to focus on anymore, not because I'm trying to be a good little Obot, but because I find it all to be completely depressing and hopeless. Under a Republican administration you can expect some half-hearted objection to the National Security State and Empire from Democrats, and under a Democratic president there's seemingly no way to do anything about any of it. Most Dems - elected and voters - are happy to defer to Obama. And pretty soon [Romney] might control the flying death robots." |
| I empathize with those sentiments entirely, though I never find these kinds of situations hopeless. It may be a form of naiveté, but I believe in the power of reason, ideas and - especially - persuasion, as well as the ability of any structure built by human beings to be subverted - torn down and replaced - by other human beings if the right passion is invoked and the right strategy found. But the dynamic Atrios is describing there about what happens under a GOP President versus a Democratic one is undoubtedly accurate, and is the point I was making above. | I empathize with those sentiments entirely, though I never find these kinds of situations hopeless. It may be a form of naiveté, but I believe in the power of reason, ideas and - especially - persuasion, as well as the ability of any structure built by human beings to be subverted - torn down and replaced - by other human beings if the right passion is invoked and the right strategy found. But the dynamic Atrios is describing there about what happens under a GOP President versus a Democratic one is undoubtedly accurate, and is the point I was making above. |
| Meanwhile, as ChicagoDaveM points out in comments, The New Yorker's Philip Gourevitch proposes a good question that he'd like to see asked at tonight's debate: | Meanwhile, as ChicagoDaveM points out in comments, The New Yorker's Philip Gourevitch proposes a good question that he'd like to see asked at tonight's debate: |
| "President Obama, you run a very regular and deadly program of secretive targeted assassination by drone aircraft, and yet you have forbidden the use of coercive practices such as waterboarding in interrogation. So why is assassination O.K., but using force in an interrogation is out of bounds?" | "President Obama, you run a very regular and deadly program of secretive targeted assassination by drone aircraft, and yet you have forbidden the use of coercive practices such as waterboarding in interrogation. So why is assassination O.K., but using force in an interrogation is out of bounds?" |
| Esquire's Tom Junod would like to hear this question: | Esquire's Tom Junod would like to hear this question: |
| "Your administration has not just employed targeted killing; it has made the case for targeted killing to the rest of the world. What would you tell the leader of another country who wants to make use not only of technology pioneered by America but also of legal arguments pioneered by America? Do those arguments only count for America, or do they count also for Russia, China, and well, North Korea and Hezbollah?" | "Your administration has not just employed targeted killing; it has made the case for targeted killing to the rest of the world. What would you tell the leader of another country who wants to make use not only of technology pioneered by America but also of legal arguments pioneered by America? Do those arguments only count for America, or do they count also for Russia, China, and well, North Korea and Hezbollah?" |
| If I could ask one question tonight of President Obama, it would probably be this one: | If I could ask one question tonight of President Obama, it would probably be this one: |
| Prior to your election, Democrats - you included - spent years aggressively denouncing President Bush for claiming the power to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial review and imprison people without due process. | Prior to your election, Democrats - you included - spent years aggressively denouncing President Bush for claiming the power to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial review and imprison people without due process. |
| And yet you have claimed not only those powers, but also the authority to assassinate people, including Americans, without any due process. | And yet you have claimed not only those powers, but also the authority to assassinate people, including Americans, without any due process. |
| How can you claim that it was wrong for President Bush merely to eavesdrop on or imprison people without judicial review, but it's permissible and lawful for you to do something much more extreme - target them for assassination - without any judicial review? | How can you claim that it was wrong for President Bush merely to eavesdrop on or imprison people without judicial review, but it's permissible and lawful for you to do something much more extreme - target them for assassination - without any judicial review? |
| Please do not place any bets on any of those questions being asked. | Please do not place any bets on any of those questions being asked. |
| By the way, the live-blogging is hereby deemed commenced. I won't add any more "update" designations at the top, but will simply add items throughout the night at the bottom, though I'm still not promising that there will be more. | By the way, the live-blogging is hereby deemed commenced. I won't add any more "update" designations at the top, but will simply add items throughout the night at the bottom, though I'm still not promising that there will be more. |
| 9.25pm: Obama said that it is vital that any new government in Syria is "good for our allies in the region". I wonder who he means? | |
| When asked whether he regrets calling for Mubarak to step down, Obama also said: "No, I don't. America must stand with democracy." And, presumably, with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE. | |
| 9.27pm: It's 27 minutes into the debate, and so far the two have agreed on far, far more than they've disagreed. In fact, I'm not certain that they have actually disagreed on anything yet. | |
| 9.32pm: "America remains the one indispensable nation", said President Obama. Not just "indispensable" - the "one" nation in the world that is. Hear us roar!!! | |
| 9.34pm: Both candidates are eager to ignore the topic of this debate - foreign policy - in order to talk about the economy because they perceive, accurately, that this is what most voters care about, and because they don't really have much to disagree in the foreign policy area. And so they are now dispensing with any pretense and regurgitating their economics debate. | |
| But US foreign policy actually does have a significant relationship to the economy- namely, the massive military, the constant aggression, war and occupation, the hundreds of military bases around the world all drain resources away from far more constructive purposes - but neither of these two candidates will dare to question any of those imperial premises, so they can't actually address the prime economic impact of US foreign policy. |