ARTICLE: Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says, By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, April 12, 2008; Page A01
Poor choice of words on Bush administration's part: we end up doing in Iraq what the region's players do with each regional crisis--namely we use it as a venue for proxy conflicts. First it was Al-Qaeda, now it's Iran. This sort of approach miss-characterizes internal conflict as "our war," meaning we "must win" or we lose face and possibly the larger--equally mis-characterized--"global war."
That is what scares me about McCain: his is a world at war. That's what he grew up with as a kid. It's the environment within which he most comfortably wields power. When he lacks it, he must create it through the anger, the feuding, the personal vendettas.
It's that conflict paradigm that could kill our global economy just as easily as protectionism. Indeed, the former enables the latter.
Between Obama's trade pandering and McCain's war pandering, you really have to wonder if America is hell-bent on destroying an international liberal economic order that is our gift to humanity, doing so right at its moment of global apogee.
History will condemn us for our stupidity if this is all we can manage.
Comments (7)
"Between Obama's trade pandering and McCain's war pandering, you really have to wonder if America is hell-bent on destroying an international liberal economic order that is our gift to humanity, doing so right at its moment of global apogee."
The exact reasons why I support neither candidate.
Posted by James Miller | April 29, 2008 11:35 AM
"...you really have to wonder if America is hell-bent on destroying an international liberal economic order that is our gift to humanity, doing so right at its moment of global apogee."
The liberal economic order usually has too few friends.
The ordinary voter sees, and feels, the costs but takes the benefits for granted. The benefits are invisible, like oxygen -- you only miss it when it is not there.
This perpetual problem requires leadership. That, too, is scarce. True supporters of what used to be called Free Trade are rare. It is usually not an election-winner. We were lucky to have had a run of several pretty strong free-trade presidents in a row.
Posted by Lexington Green | April 29, 2008 1:12 PM
There is something about the way you just riff on a subject like the presidential candidates and say things like, "history will condemn us if... " that is very unsettling. It's the way you sound like you know exactly what you are talking about, you know the exact weight of history in metric units of, "oh my god I can't believe they were that fucking stupid, amazing, horrific, and/or appalling."
Posted by BeansnRice | April 29, 2008 3:01 PM
Now if we could just find a candidate with the better aspects and experiences of Obama and McCain ... without their baggage. I wonder.
Posted by Louis Heberlein | April 29, 2008 6:54 PM
OKAY! Let's just say it. All three major party candidates are unlikely to measure up to the challenges. So what does the American electorate do? Demand that all three indicate specifically their top ten policy initiatives, their top ten for each cabinent positions, their top ten hopes and dreams for their presidency, their top ten worries. MSM would be most helpful if it limited its analysis to these items. Otherwise we let their real personalities and capabilities disappear into the fog of wishes and beliefs not realities. Turning into a very very dangerious time when most of the world still pinning its hopes on a US turnaround. Maybe its just too little and too late. The historic compromises of the Constitutional Convention appear to be more and more the cause of US success and strength so far and perhaps the cause of US decline. A new Consitutional Convention is very very dangerous but increasingly necessary to US survival. How about just pretending and have a Constitutional Convention Blog and see what real ideas turn up. Would any of the candidates support such an idea? Or learn from it?
Posted by William R. Cumming. | April 29, 2008 7:22 PM
"Between Obama's trade pandering and McCain's war pandering..."
Which leads to the natural question of whether it is easier for an administration to take the country off the rails by pushing a bad trade policy or a bad war policy. I think recent history has shown clearly that it is much easier for Presidents to make war than prevent trade.
Posted by Christopher Thompson | April 29, 2008 8:07 PM
Hell bent, or maybe just to dense to get it.
Posted by Kevin from Minneapolis | April 29, 2008 9:23 PM