Petraeus-Crocker hearings: Tell 'em, Senator Feingold!

I like the idea of a halfway point between simply pulling out and letting the chips fall where they will and Shayna’s ideal. Tell the neighboring countries when the last US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Tell them that they have until then to put a plan together for the region. If they want the US’s involvement in the process, great, but it’s their concern.

It’s a form of strong-arming, but would probably get better results than sitting around waiting indefinitely for the Iraqis to stand up. Shoot, any sort of timetable would get better results.

We could frame it as: “We’re leaving, whether you help us make it an orderly withdrawal, or whether you don’t. We would prefer that you do, and the end result if you do is probably more closely aligned with your own best interests. Let’s talk turkey. I mean, let’s start serious negotiations.”
ETA: Errr, what Bosstone said.

Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq

I think he’s right, and we need to do the same with Turkey, Syria, etc.

More than that, a tremendous opportunity is being squandered with Iran. If we dropped out aggressive posture towards Iran, publicly and with fanfare, we would undercut the power of the hostile mullahs enormously, we are the boogeyman that keeps them in power. A moderate, more secular state could arise in Iran without just about zero investment on our part. We couldn’t ask for a better ally against AlQ, they hate each other’s guts to a spectacular degree. Outside of the value of peace, it makes excellent sense in a cold-eyed realpolitik way. As a picture can be worth a thousand words, a single olive branch could be worth a thousand rounds of ammunition.

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don’t. The Iraq disaster has been a boon for opponents of democracy and enemies of America. They may not want to give up that bad example.

And it’s wrong; specifically, it’s the sort of wrong answer you’d expect from someone working on Obama’s campaign. I don’t mean that to be mean, but it’s true; your opinion seems a little insular.

Bush may be internationally unpopular, but I’ve got a little secret for you; out here outside the United States, when it gets right down to brass tacks, we don’t really care who the President is. (For that matter, you can apply the same standard to any country; here in Canada we don’t really give a hoot who the President of France is, and I’m sure they feel the same way about us.) What matters is what we’re gonna get out of it. If Obama’s Presidency would help Canada, I want him elected. If Obama were actually likely to get rid of NAFTA (which apaprently he won’t, contrary to what he told the folks in Ohio, har har, but this is hypothetical) then I’d pray every night for him to lose to McCain, even though I think McCain is a dirtbag.

If the U.S. wants substantial help, the U.S. has to pay. There’s no free lunch. We like your movies and everything, but we’re all going to do whatever is in our national interests, whether or not it helps you. If helping the USA out of Iraq would help Canada we’ll mostly be all for it, and if it won’t, well, tough noogies. They’ll say the same thing in Turkey, Syria and list as many countries as you care to name. That’s how you treat the rest of the world and that’s how EVERY country treats the rest of the world; even foreign aid usually has strings attached, and is heavy on the PR. Nobody’s gonna give Obama a break just because he seems like a nice guy.

You’re certainly entitled to that viewpoint, RickJay, but I simply don’t agree with it. I also take issue with your use of the word “we” throughout. You’re free to speak for yourself, but I don’t think you can legitimately speak for Iran, Turkey, Syria, or any other nation.

I’m not sure he can speak for anyone else in Canada, for that matter, Shayna, but what he’s saying about the interests of nations does have the ring of, plausibility, if not truth.

Well part of it elicits a shrug of the shoulders and ‘so what?’ from me. Give and take is what negotiation and cooperation is all about. That still doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it, and it still doesn’t mean that no one would be any more willing to work with Obama than they were willing to work with Bush. Here’s what I like about Obama’s approach, which appears to differ with Feingold’s ‘leave now and abandon the problem in everyone else’s lap’ philosophy, not to mention Bush’s “I’m the Decider” policy. . .

I think that to say that these policies and practices will engender no more cooperation and conciliation that those of George W. Bush, is wrong. I think world leaders will be much more inclined to work with President Obama, who wants to work together to solve some of the global problems we face, than with George W. Bush who says, “It’s my way or the highway.”

Antiwar.com Blog - Antiwar blog Ron Paul also had some serious questions that will now and forever go unanswered by the administration.

:dubious: There’s gonna be an uphill battle as it is, and you wanna put a Jew on the ticket too?!

:wink:

In an ideal world …sigh

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We need to set aside our differences with them as much as we can and just sit down and talk with them.
This approach would really put the ball in their court, so to speak. They’re so used to an aggressive USA stance since the Shah was deposed and the hostages taken that they might not know how the shoe feels on the other foot!
But it is certainly worth trying, as the whole war thing isn’t going over so hot right now.

IMHO, to attribute that characterization to RickJay’s post somewhat overstates his position.

I quite agree. But even granting the less arrogant mien that we anticipate in an Obama presidency, the other nations of the world will surely consider his initiatives through the lenses of their own interests. In my view, your post above seemed to be neglecting to take that into consideration.

Well then perhaps he should clarify it, because that’s exactly what I got out of it.

I don’t believe I suggested or implied anywhere that other nations don’t have their own interests at heart, in fact, just the opposite. What I’m saying is that what differs about Obama over Bush is that, in my opinion, Obama actually gets that, where Bush doesn’t.

Here’s an example of what I mean, taken from one of the blogs on the Obama site (bolding mine):

I don’t believe for a moment that Barack Obama won’t take the interests of other nations into consideration when reaching out to them for their cooperation. Isn’t that the whole point of getting them involved – helping secure their own interests in the region?

You realize, of course, that many Americans, if they did not believe that either, would hold it against him in November.

Perhaps a better way of spinning that would be to assert that President Obama would not forget that his most effective tool for motivating other nations to assist with his initiatives is going to be an appeal to those nations’ own self interests.

Shayna, I really believe you and I are on the same page on this point, or at least singing from the same hymnal. Have a good time at the caucus! :slight_smile: