Comments on: Obama in Oslo: Power without Empire

By: Lindalu P'lus

Lindalu P'lus — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:39:54 +0000

Yes. U r brilliant. What are your thoughts on CongressmanRon Paul.? Mr. Paul should at least be taking Bernanke’s place on President Obamas cabinet in my humble opinion. Ihavemoved so far right on liberalism continuum that now i am a left wing conservative. It is circular is it not?
And can anyone help straighten out the confusion I have about the “Russians?” I thought they didna exist yet we have them to blame for the nuclear missile going awry in the night sky over Norway. Whose got the back story on that as Americans focus on another “spitzy” scandal reference: Tigger. Guess I b havin a blond moment.

By: MaxedOutMama

MaxedOutMama — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:29:17 +0000

Jay – I agree with some of this post and disagree with some, but it is interesting.

But I came over because I saw the settlement news on the lawsuit, and I wanted to congratulate you. Congrats!! I doubted this would be resolved, because after all the Federal Government is in such a state that it can’t account for ANY group of funds.

It’s a major victory, but I think the tribes really need to get control of their own assets.

By: copithorne

copithorne — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:49:12 +0000

Increased violence serves the strategic interests of extremists. When there is violence, it is because the extremists hold the strategic initiative.

The strategic interests of Western Civilization are served by the restrained, limited, or precise use of violence. When violence is reduced, it is because civilization holds the strategic initiative.

In many ways, this is a different calclulation than prevailed in the twentieth century and earlier.

It takes wisdom, courage, maturity to pursue the strategic interests of the West in a disciplined way. I’m very grateful that those qualities are now part of our foreign policy rather than the gut reaction that the prior administration placed such faith in.

There is one vector that make things difficult. For many people having enemies is not the incidental result of pursuing policy goals and facing obstacles in the pursuit of those goals. Instead a lot of political engagement appropriates the language of politics to gratify the desire for enemies and the discharge of internal conflict that having enemies can provide.

Having enemies has always been a huge part of politics throughout history.

People who use politics in that way can only really be defeated by power because negotiation and compromise is an intrinsic contradiction to the unconscious purpose of their poltical engagement.

By: ShrinkWrapped

ShrinkWrapped — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:29:45 +0000

I actually agree with most of your post but I think you missed an important point in mine. I am not concerned with how I, or any other American, perceives Obama. He does need to, in Tom Barnett’s terms, rebalance our relationships (especially with China, while managing Russia’s estrangement from an agreed upon international order, etc.) I think his speech yesterday was a very good start at explicating his evolving view of our international entanglements; I am concerned about his follow through when things get difficult, but we will see what happens at that point. What I think is being missed is the perception of us by our enemies. If the HISH alliance thinks he is weak and unwilling to use force, they will become further emboldened. In the Middle East, our adversaries often believe their won florid proclamations and it has led thenm into “adventurism” on more than one occasion. It is their reaction I worry about. When Michael Young says that Hezbollah thinks they are winning, it makes war much more likely; when Iran thinks that Obama will do nothing to stop them, their acquisition of a bomb becomes more certain, and the possible use of a bomb increases as well. By appearing to be weak when intending to convey a more reasonable tone, war becomes more likely and a war in the Middle East always bears the risk of spiraling out of control.
To a lesser extent this analysis can be extended to include Mr. Putin, who has an inclination to use force and intimidation whenever he thinks he can get away with it cheaply. If America appears to him to be weak, the risk of increased aggression from the RFussians is assured.