Tag Archive | "Lipstick"

McCain’s Cold-War View of The World

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama?

On the campaign trail, the debate over foreign policy has been muted of late. That might be because more important topics such as lipstick and hockey moms have taken center stage. But the contrasts between the presidential candidates also seem to have softened. Their differences over Iraq policy have shrunk as the place has stabilized somewhat and the Iraqi government looks for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. Both candidates oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Both support a vigorous fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet there’s clearly a fundamental difference between the two that might best be captured by asking a simple question: What kind of world do we live in? Neither candidate has been asked this, and I doubt either would answer as frankly as I am suggesting, but here’s my guess — drawn from their writings and speeches — about what each might say.

We live in a very dangerous world, John McCain would respond. In his eyes, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors — funded and supported by states that adhere to their views — pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the “first serious crisis since the end of the Cold War.” The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power — hard power — to defeat the enemy and spread freedom.

Barack Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the Cold War — when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities — we face lesser threats today. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these
countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight al-Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes such as Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq war, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that led the United States to an unprovoked and hugely costly invasion and occupation. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek — in development and democracy-building — we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s — more so than most U.S. politicians seem willing to admit. We live in remarkably peaceful times. A University of Maryland study shows that deaths from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the past half century. A study from Simon Fraser University finds that casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since Sept. 11, 2001. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan — that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.

It’s also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Since the end of the Cold War, similar alarms have been sounded several times. In the 1990s, the Cox Commission argued that China was building a military to rival ours, citing numbers that soon proved to be bogus. Then there was Saddam Hussein, who was described as a powerful and imminent threat to the United States. In fact, the greatest problem we have faced in Iraq is its weakness, its utter dysfunction as a state and a nation.

Rhetoric about transcendent threats and mortal dangers grips the American imagination. But it also twists U.S. foreign policy in ways that can prove to be extremely costly to the country and the world.

   [Enlarge]
Fareed ZakariaAbout The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator.

Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post.

Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

The Post-American World

Popularity: 7% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

The $700 Billion Financial Bailout Smells

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Financial Bailout Smells
   Cartoon By: Gary Varvel

Popularity: 7% [?]

Former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee: Sarah Palin Is A ‘Cocky Wacko’

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


“Former Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee has called vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a “cocky wacko” and said her selection as John McCain’s running mate has energized supporters of Democrat Barack Obama.

Cocky WackoChafee left the Republican Party last year after losing his bid for re-election and now supports Obama. He told an audience Tuesday at the New America Foundation in Washington that the Alaska governor has revived a “lackluster McCain candidacy.” — The Associated Press

I wouldn’t call Governor Palin a “cocky wacko“, but she certainly has a lot of confidence for a vice-presidential candidate who is totally unqualified for the office she is seeking. I can’t wait to see how long her cockiness will hold up when she’s interviewed by the likes of a Chris Wallace or a Chris Mathews.

Palin does subscribe to some wacky views: Opposition to abortion except to save life of the mother, opposition to stem-cell research, vendetta against Polar Bears, believes global warming isn’t caused by humans, thinks it’s kosher to shoot game from the air, belongs to a church that believes homosexuality is a perversion that can be cured be the faithful praying in tongues, believes she can get away without holding press conferences or granting interviews to the press…

Chafee is correct, Palin has energized the “lackluster McCain candidacy.” McCain is so boring and lifeless I’m surprised someone hasn’t checked his wrist for a pulse instead of shaking his hand. Even if McCain had selected an incontinent monkey as his running mate, it would have energized his campaign.

Palin is wacky, but she’s also intelligent, confident and very attractive — qualities the media loves. Of course Palin gets more media attention than McCain, a geezer watering his lawn would draw more media buzz than McCain.

Palin calls herself a “Pit Bull with lipstick“, but a cocky and wacky Pit Bull with or without lipstick is a very dangerous animal. It will be a disaster for America if the Palin/McBush ticket wins the general election.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Translate to EnglishÜbersetzen Sie zum Deutsch/GermanПереведите к русскому/RussianΜεταφράστε στα ελληνικά/GreekVertaal aan het Nederlands/Dutchترجمة الى العربية/Arabic中文翻译/Chinese Traditional中文翻译/Chinese Simplified한국어에게 번역하십시오/Korean日本語に翻訳しなさい /JapaneseTraduza ao Português/PortugueseTraduca ad Italiano/ItalianTraduisez au Français/FrenchTraduzca al Español/Spanish

Voxant Video NewsRoom

Recent Page Hits




MyBlogLog Community




Join My community

Site Sponsors

Information

Advertisement



Partners





pingoat_8.gif
Top 100 - Marketing
Politics blogs
Top Blogs
Blog Directory & Search engine
Top Politics blogs
Political Topsites
Blogarama

Afrigator