Financial Balance

Here is an excellent article from Foreign Policy, arguing that China's reliance on US dollars for the vast majority of its foreign currency holdings does not constitute the threat to domestic security that many suggest.

Bottom line: As with so very many things, China remains constrained by its own governing system.

Gaza

While trolling around facebook the other day, I saw that a friend of mine had joined a group called "Let's collect 500000 signatures to support the Palestinians in Gaza".

I texted the friend: "Support the people of Palestine how?"

His reply: "By trying to spread awareness of what is actually going on in Gaza. You obviously know how biased our media is on this issue."

My response (via text) was: "I disagree on some level. Dissemination of what's going on in Gaza isn't the issue, though the combination of an Israeli media blockade and Hamas propaganda makes it hard. The real issue is the completely unsophisticated conversation we have here about the nature and strategy of the conflict and our role in it."

I'd like to expound on what I meant by that.

President's Bush's first public comments on the conflict contained the following statement:

"The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office, referring to the Islamist movement that rules Gaza and is deemed by Washington to be a terrorist group.

"Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis," Bush said. "Israel's obviously decided to protect herself and her people."

I don't want to quibble with the factual accuracy of Bush's statement, I'd only like to illustrate the degree to which it is part of an unending pattern, particularly the laying of sole blame at the feet of Hamas. There have been literally hundreds of separate incidents of violence between Israel and Palestine, and more than a few full-fledged conflicts, and our government (and in too many cases our media) have taken a nearly identical view of each one.

Statements like these require our focus for two reasons. We are not bystanders in this conflict. We supply Israel with billions in annual military aid, including recently purchased munitions currently being employed in this conflict. Secondly, these statements are concrete and binding policy guidelines. Official public statements like these don't always (or nearly always) equate to follow-through policies. We talk about carbon reduction and detail how "clean coal" is compatible with that goal. We talk about how important it is for Georgia to join NATO and stand up to Russian aggression in former Soviet states with no real intention of following through on either front. Harry Reid tells us that a Blago appointee will never be allowed to serve in the Senate.

But, in referencing this conflict we continually make the most dichotomous and simplistic statements imaginable, and then enact policy as though they were unequivocally true. Put simply, the statement, "The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas" is a bad basis for policy over the short term, and exponentially worse as time goes on, as it allows us to intellectually disengage from a conflict over which we should have a large degree of agency.

I think the mistake many on the far left (and more increasingly in emerging Progressive circles) make is in trying to be some sort of a counterbalance to this destabilizing rhetoric by pointing out the asymmetric nature of the conflict -- such as the completely disproportionate casualty numbers and overall level of destruction. They try to attack the validity of Bush's first sentence, when in fact it's the nature of the conversation itself that's crippling us. It's worth noting that substituting the word "Israel" for "Hamas", probably leads us to an even less true, even more stupid and destabilizing policy perspective. What we need to do is find a way to expand the conversation. It's the only way we'll ever find the political and rhetorical space to maneuver outside the tiny, impotent box we've barricaded ourselves in.

Thoughts on Offering Thoughts on Gaza

I've put a bit in a bit of thought recently concerning where this blog has gone (and is headed) and to what degree I should consider a somewhat tighter focus. In particular, when I read about and consider events as they unfold in Gaza I'm of two minds about how to approach them. One we will call the Ta-Nehisi corollary of "only blog(ging) about things I'm prepared to argue about". I'm not really prepared to argue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of the very broad outlines of what you might hear on NBC nightly news. Would I argue with Yglesias or Klein (among many, many others)? Probably not. Even on this blog, my foreign policy knowledge and synthesis lag behind posters PW and Aaron. There's also the consideration of whether anyone actually uses this blog as an outlet to catch up and discuss news events (somewhat doubtful).

But, what I've also learned from doing this over the past half year is that putting my opinions out into a public forum (even if they're not really critiqued or read by a large number of people) is valuable. Regardless of the prior paragraph, I desperately want to have something valuable to contribute on issues like these since, to employ a cliche, you gotta crawl before you can walk. So, to the entire TPBP community, thanks for reading as I try to take a few careening steps.

Translation: Expect a post on Gaza in a little bit.

Clinton at State, Gates to Stay Put

I haven’t really had a whole lot to say about politics in the last couple of weeks. I’ve never heard of the vast majority of the people the Obama administration will be made up of. It seemed kind of silly to pretend like I had much of an opinion on exactly what’s going into the new government. I voted for Obama, he got elected: it only seems fair that he should get a chance to actually start governing before I begin complaining too much.

Of course, the big news of the last couple weeks is the slow motion dance that Obama and Hillary Clinton have been engaged in. I’m glad that particular story has finally come to its conclusion. I don’t have any real strong feelings about this, either, although it puzzles me on Clinton’s part: giving up a Senate seat she could have held for life to take up a cabinet post that will last only a presidential term, if that, seems like an odd decision. But I don’t make her choices for her. While Clinton and Obama had their disagreements about foreign policy during the campaign, there really wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two – and I doubt that Clinton is going to be running her own show. Obama is still going to call the shots. Still: eh. I can’t really summon much enthusiasm for the pick, one way or the other.

Keeping on Gates, though, is I think a thornier issue. I’ve heard the argument that the military is comfortable with Gates, that it’s a tiny bit of compromise towards Republicans and might allow some of the more realistically-minded Republicans to reach across the aisle and work with Obama instead of just obstructing until they get another chance to reduce the Democratic majorities in the Congress.

Fair enough, I suppose, and I won’t say the argument doesn’t have a certain internal logic to it. What bothers me is the idea this reinforces, that the military is more comfortable with Republican figures than Democrats. That meme, whether it’s real or exists purely in the media imagination, is a dangerous one. Obama, and progressives more broadly, need to make sure that we move the country away from that idea. If Gates can act as a transitional figure to a progressive voice that’s acceptable with the military establishment, that’s great. We need to see an end to the idea of conservatives as the big, tough warriors who will keep us pony-tailed, Volvo-driving, NPR-listening liberals safe while we go on and on about domestic issues.

Meanwhile, speaking of NPR, where’s my canvas tote? I need to get down to the farmer’s market to grab some arugula.

Russian Mirage

I really wanted to stay away, but this is too good.

So, CNN sent a film crew to the only part of Alaska from which Russian territory is visible with the naked eye. It's 500 miles west of Anchorage, in the middle of the Bering Sea, a windswept rock with 150 people, no television, and it is also a place Sarah Palin has NEVER BEEN. In fact, no governor of Alaska has ever visited this remote island.

What did she think she was seeing? It seems clear that she has been warily eying some part of US territory all these years, unless this whole line of argument is just complete BS. I realize the place obviously isn't exactly a haven of votes, but it does have 40% unemployment. You'd think someone would have seen fit to go look into that.

See the excellent video here.

Obama and the Defensive Crouch

I think Daniel Larison makes some good points in this post about progressives, Obama and the role of a hawkish pose in this election. He has a very on spot summary of the Democratic “defensive pose” that has dominated Democratic and Republican campaigns since Reagan and how Obama breaks the mold a bit.

Obama has essentially been following in this same tradition: opposed to the war in Iraq, but otherwise in favor of a very active role in the world up to and including new military engagements and very keen to declare his support for military action in places other than Iraq by the U.S. and allied militaries. So when progressives listen to Obama’s answers on foreign policy, they tend to cringe because they recognize perfectly well that Obama sounds just like the opposition on most issues related to U.S. policies abroad.

There are two big reasons that Obama was in a unique position to counter McCain this year. The first one being, of course, that he had opposed the war from the beginning – he was against it before it began, unlike all the other serious Democratic candidates for the candidacy. Obama could legitimately point to that stance and say, “I was correct and John McCain was not,” and not get hit for changing their minds when the winds blew foul. The second is that, as Larison points out, Obama has long supported a rather hawkish, liberal interventionist foreign policy vision. Progressives like myself who would like to see a much more restrained use of US military force outside our borders may cringe a bit at that (and extremely limited interventionists like Larison will of course move from cringing to wincing), but the fact is that Obama has a legitimate history of pro-military opinions.

It’s a sorry state of affairs, but the simple fact is that, in general, Americans like wars. We usually win them and they allow people to feel morally superior to other nations. The stab-in-the-back narrative that conservatives have carefully built up around the failure of the Vietnam War and the rosey-hued paeans to World War II and “the greatest generation” have left Americans with an extremely warped sense of what it means to fight a war, let alone the kind of grinding counterinsurgency that the Iraq War has turned into. Americans are used to wars that resemble videogames – quick, on television, and over when the TV goes off. The Iraq war has not done much to inconvenience people yet. We’re still waiting for the bill to come due. Right now, it’s popular to be on the side of war.

There is a popular narrative surrounding Democrats that says they’re weak and aren’t able to carry through wars, unlike the tough, manly Republicans who can get the job done. There’s a lot of blame for this prevailing attitude, not least of which lands squarely on the shoulders of Democrats themselves for constantly running away from this fight. John McCain himself certainly hasn’t done the nation any favors with his constant reiteration of “country first,” as if the Democrats were intending to put someone else (Iran, maybe? Hollywood?) in front of “real” America. I think that John McCain, as a citizen and a human being, should be ashamed of himself, but I won’t loose any sleep waiting for an apology.

The problem comes from the fact that before this mentality can change we have to have a strong Democrat to disprove it. This meme has been an unusually hardy one, and just like the one that insists that Republicans are the party of fiscal sanity, it seems to be a pretty hardy weed. It’s taken a long time for both of these to change. I would love to see a candidate articulate a muscular, responsible and non-dogmatic noninterventionism. When that candidate appears on the scene, I’ll be happy to vote for them. But I don’t think anyone running on such a platform could be elected in this United States. The Republicans, while being manifestly more irresponsible, would have a field day. The media would have none of it in their constant quest for a charismatic strongman. And I don’t think the public would take it seriously.

I think Larison is incorrect, however, when he says that Obama sounds just like the other side. As someone even more committed to noninterventionism than I would call myself, I think he too quickly falls into painting both with the same brush. Obama is far more likely to be considered in his application of force, and far more likely to seek out accord in utilizing it. I don’t think that this will in and of itself lead to a more judicious and just use of force – bad wars can certainly be started this way – but I do think it’s far less likely than what John McCain will offer us.

Perhaps Obama isn’t the candidate I’d want in all respects. Maybe the next guy would be. But Obama can’t be worse than the candidate who promises to double down on all of Bush’s mistakes.

Heath, Ohio's Favorite Son

My former congressman, Bob Ney, is out of prison and accusing the Bush Administration of taking “bloodsport to a new level.” Ney, of course, was sent to prison for 30 months for accepting bribes while a congressman. Makes you feel good to be an Ohioan. Some things that I didn’t know about Bob: he speaks Farsi (that was a pretty big shock) and, while he was in congress, would start drinking at 7:30 in the morning (this was less of a surprise).

But why, you ask, does Bob Ney think that the Bush Administration had it out for him?

[Ney]: But at the end of the day, you know, I brought a lot of things on myself. . . And I did some things that were wrong. But I also believe that part of this was fueled in the sense of the Iran issue. It's been no secret that when I went to prison I gave permission for a secret meeting I'd had with Mr. Guldimann [Tim Guldimann, then Swiss Ambassador in Tehran] who came from Switzerland. He presented a document that was absolutely incredible, where Iran would have recognized Israel and a whole host of other things, would have let our inspectors on their ground; and I sent that to the White House.

I'll stand by that today; the White House denies it, but Colin Powell's former assistant admits that that came over to the State Department and the White House wanted no part of it. And I believe that every step of the way, and I think it came more from Cheney's people, but every step of the way that I attempted to deal with Iran, it got pretty harsh back. And so I think part of this, I made the bullets, I gave them the bullets, but I think some of the force was also involved with, you know, Iran and people that would rather see those countries not communicate, no matter who is head of Iran.

Ney, by his own admission, is a drunk and a felon. He just got out of seventeen months in prison. It certainly isn’t hard to believe that Cheney didn’t want to see a normalization of relations with Iran. It definitely isn’t hard to imagine the Bush Administration mismanaging our foreign policy because it didn’t fit in with their preconceived notions of how the world works. That being said, Bob Ney was a drunken congressman taking bribes – we don’t really need any outside excuses to explain why he was taken down.

Still, it’s always nice to see what people from your hometown are up to.

Fred Hiatt is Concerned About Russia

Fred Hiatt writes a remarkably ignorant column today, discussing Russia’s position in the world today. Russia, of course, is the new threat du jour (radical Islam is so 2006). Hiatt discusses all the ways that the United States has gone out of its way to accommodate Russia on the world stage.

So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?

Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect.

My, look how accommodating the United States has been! It certainly is strange that Russia would be upset with the US, considering that the US is only trying to install a missile defense shield in one of their close neighbors, weakening their security. And when the US is trying to expand mutual defense treaties to small, antagonistic nations on Russia’s border, that’s just what friends do, right? I’m sure that the US wouldn’t have any problem with Russia attempting to expand its sphere of influence into the Western Hemisphere.

I love reading articles about G8 meetings, because in almost every single one, you inevitably get to the line, “the world’s seven largest economies, and Russia.” Hiatt’s condescending and ignorant take should be shocking, but is sadly par for the course. Russia is an autocratic state riding high on oil prices. They are acting in their self interest which – shockingly enough – is not the same as the United States. For Hiatt to imply that the United States has been overly accommodating of Russian fears and ambitions displays either a fairly shocking ignorance, or a willingness to engage in grotesque distortions to support a neocon worldview where the United State’s self interest is redefined as the world’s interest.

Geese, Ganders

One of my favorite bloggers, Matt Yglesias, is back from vacation and is now blogging over at Think Progress, and had a great post discussing the war in Georgia. Yglesias ponders what, exactly, it is that we get out of helping Georgia keep two breakaway provinces:

Indeed, strong pro-Georgian views in the U.S. media and foreign policy community correlate heavily with strong pro-Kosovo views. This highlights the fact that the underlying issue here is simply a disposition to take a dim view of Moscow and to favor aggressive policies to roll back Russian influence rather than some kind of deep and sincerely felt desire to help Georgia.

I think this pretty much sums up the US’s stance on Georgia. We are supporting them because it annoys the Russians, not because we have some sort of deep strategic need to preserve Georgia as it exists. This is not to say, of course, that the Russians ought to be free to take away provinces from Georgia (that don’t, in fact, seem to want to be, or are in any meaningful way, a part of Georgia). But it does mean to say: what are we going to do about it? The answer seems to be: not a whole lot.

DP was discussing earlier why provinces wish to breakaway from countries. The conclusion I've come too is, if Kosovo should be allowed to determine its own fate, I can't see a reason why the Georgian provinces should be controlled by a government that, well, already doesn't control them. The fact that it is wrapped up in a larger set of political circumstances doesn't have much to do with that.

Update: And then, of course, Russia seems to invade the rest of Georgia:

The advance appeared to answer the question on which the conflict had been pivoting: Would Russia simply occupy the two separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or would it push into Georgia, raising the possibility of a full-scale invasion?

The situation is, as they say, fluid. Russia taking over two provinces that already don't want to be part of Georgia is one thing. Russia just taking over Georgia is a different matter entirely.