Hope And Gory Glory

By Cernig

Well, the first debate just ended and Barack Obama put himself firmly in the Democratic hawk tradition. Other than the Iraq withdrawal - to which he's too firmly committed to backtrack - and the "negotiate with our enemies" which is standard Democratic fare even for hawks, he took a decidely belligerent line:

- He quite categorically stated that Iran's 4,000 centrifuges are "to develop a nuclear weapon" - something the IAEA authority hasn't proven and the last NIE on Iran disagreed with.

- McCain said that a nuclear Iran would "compel" others in the region to seek nukes and Obama agreed. But what about israel, the actual, real nuclear power in the region? Does it 'compel" a response too then? Neither candidate even mentioned Israel other than to say it was under an existential threat. Both were engaged in the AIPAC money hunt but McCain won by being more belligerently anti-Iran than Obama and making sure everyone knew it.

- If anything, he was more hawkish than McCain on Pakistan, although McCain's idea of a Surge for Afghanistan and praying Petraeus can pull it off is a real crap shoot which experts on the tribal tensions of the region say is highly unlikely to suceed.

- He agreed wholeheartedly with McCain that Georgia and other countries in Russia's "near foreign" must be brought into NATO, that Russia was outrageously aggressive in Georgia and that steps must be taken to restrict Russian expansionism in search of lost Empire. Yet the evidence says that Russia's response was far more moderate than it could have been to an unannounced attack by the main force of Georgia's military on a region where Russia had a peacekeeping role and that Russia is keeping to the terms of the ceasefire as they are interpreting it. The US or any other major power wouldn't have been any softer in their actions. But...for both Mccain and Obama it's back to the Cold war, where their aged senior foreign policy advisers feel most comfortable and where the Red Menace can again do sterling duty in vote-winning.

- He backed the multi-million dollar boondoggle that is missile defense, despite the current plans being only a gateway to weaponisation of space, requiring the abrogation of key arms control treaties. No mention of how co-operation with Russia on policing loose nuclear materials is to be accomplished while simultaneously demonising Russia or rubbing Russian faces in US/NATO encroachment and erosion of their own deterrent from either candidate.

Both candidates tied hope to gory glory tonight, and that's where Obama blew it. He's never going to be seen as hawkish enough by Republicans or hawk independents and he's just disillusioned progressive doves who had talked themselves into believing he was anything other than an Albright Hawk to begin with. "Blinky" McCain, I think, will be seen by most voters as having won this debate. He'll have done so by out-warmongering Obama, by sticking to his soundbites more and by being more wrong but sure and consistent about it rather than Obama being right.

Update: Steve Clemons had many of the same misgivings I did. Steve Benen thinks Obama came out ahead on points. And Marc Ambinder has some initial figures:

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

It looks like I'm in a minority on my opinion, but once the campaigns get partial transcripts and edited clips out there, showing their man in his best light and their opponent in his worst, that could change.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

C
I didn't like what Obaama said on foreign policy either but I think he said what he thought he had to say. The question is did he mean it? I don't know the answer to that question but I do know that McCain means it and yes, Hillary means it too. I hold out some hope that a President Obama will be different than a candidate Obama.

[BJ Bjornson]

While I posted most of my thoughts above, my main hope is that Obama means at least one part of what he says; that he'll talk to folks before he starts bombing them. It may not be much, but I'd prefer a small change in the right direction to a reversal towords an even more wrong one.

[Kevin]

I'm actually, sort of, kind of, in agreement with you here, Cernig.

I obviously support the tough talk, but I find your take refreshing over some of the pom-pom waving that's going on around the pundo-sphere this morning.

[tgs]

Couldn't agree more. It was depressing even though I expected it.

And as Sean Penn mentioned, the words 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' were not mentioned once in a debate about US foreign policy.