Stratfor says that never has a incoming administration been talking to so many people. But it adds that what is important isn’t the the volume of talk, but what is being said. In that regard, it’s easier to figure out what foreign governments want than what BHO will agree to. Here’s what they want, in a nutshell. The question is what will Washington agree to give them. Some of the desires are mutually contradictory. Stratfor notes that Obama is mostly dealing with enemies. Only in Europe is it dealing with Allies. One would have thought that America could also see itself as dealing with Allies in the Middle East. What’s really interesting about Stratfor’s analysis is the degree to which the Obama administration may have let America’s rivals dictate the frame of reference of the problem. By seeing things in terms of how much to give the enemy, we minimize the shadow question: what do we want to happen?
Russia, according to Stratfor, wants to be accorded the status of a near-great power.
The Russians are pushing for a grand deal that guarantees a rollback of NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine, scraps plans for U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD), maintains some semblance of Russian nuclear parity in post-Cold War treaties, and ensures Western noninterference in a region that runs from the Baltics down through Eastern Europe and across the Caucasus and Central Asia — what Russia views as its rightful sphere of influence. Only then can Russia feel secure from the West, and confident it will remain a major player in Eurasia in the long run. In return, the Russians theoretically could make life easier for the Americans by cooperating with Washington against Iran and increasing support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan through the expansion of an alternate supply route — two key issues that address the most pressing threats to U.S. national security interests in the near term, but which may not be entirely worth the strategic concessions Moscow is demanding of Washington.
Europe is looking for protection before venturing further afield. Here is where a tradeoff with Russian desires may be necessary.
Before taking any further steps in Afghanistan, the Europeans, including those Central and Eastern Europeans who mostly take a hard-line stance against Moscow, first want to know how Obama intends to deal with the Russians. Even with the Poles going one way in trying to boost NATO security and the Germans going the other in trying to bargain with Russia, none of the European states can really move until U.S. policy toward Russia comes into focus. The last thing the Poles would want to do is to take an unflinching stance against Moscow only to have the United States cancel BMD plans, for example.
Iran wants its share of Iraq and recognition as a major player.
Iran knows that even with the United States drawing down from Iraq, Washington will still maintain a strategic agreement with Baghdad that could be used as a launchpad for U.S. designs in the region as it works to protect Sunni Arabs from Iranian expansionist goals. At the same time, Washington has come to realize that its influence in Baghdad will have to be shared with the Iranians given their geographic proximity and clout among large segments of the Iraqi Shia.
Taliban — they are licking their chops.
Talk of reconciliation with the Taliban from a U.S. position of weakness raises the question of how the United States can actually parse out those Taliban members who can be reconciled. It also raises the question of whether those members will be willing to put their personal security on the line by accepting an offer to start talks when the United States itself is admitting it is on the losing side of the war.
Syria is waiting to be served.
The Americans want Syria to end its support for militant proxies like Hezbollah and stop interfering in Lebanese affairs. But Syrian dominance over Lebanon is non-negotiable from the Syrian point of view. Lebanon historically has been Syria’s economic, political and military outlet to the Mediterranean basin, allowing Syria to play a prominent role in the region. If Damascus is not in control of Lebanon, then Syria is poor and isolated. Even though the Americans and the Syrians are holding talks again, it is still unclear that Washington is willing to accept Syrian demands regarding Lebanon. And unless the United States is, these talks are guaranteed to remain in limbo.
Diplomatic engagement can create instability as well as enhance it. On the one hand, these initiatives could be seen as a period of consolidation after decades of US expansion. But on the other hand, they may simply be a retreat back to Fortress Singapore, along the lines of General Percival. Paying off enemies doesn’t always bring lasting peace, though providing them with stable and sustainable borders often does. The futurity of these diplomatic initiatives is what dynamics they will set in motion and whether those dynamics will be positive or negative. Stratfor says that it will be some time before these complex interactions are internalized, not only in Washington but in foreign capitals. “As is widely known, presidential transitions take time, and diplomatic engagements to feel out various positions are a natural part of the process. Tacit offers can be made, bits of negotiations will be leaked, but as long as each player questions the ability of Washington to follow through in any sort of “grand bargain,” these talks are unlikely to result in any major breakthroughs. So far, Obama has demonstrated that he can talk the diplomatic talk. The real question is whether he can walk the geopolitical walk.”
Peregruzka, anyone?
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Welcome to BHO’s bizarro world:
Neutered NATO is to relied upon for great things…
He wants to negotiate with the Taliban much in the manner of LBJ and Hanoi…
And for the last straw in magical thinking diplomacy: Iran and Syria are to be wowed and wooed…. !
This is pure gonnabee in action.
—-
BHO has hit the reset button on Greek tragedy.
If I was an American ally, I’d be nervous. Grand Bargains always end up throwing weaker nations under the bus. [Insert obligatory Obama campaign story here.]
L3
Obama can talk the talk, but doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Obama’s weakness will likely invite multiple attack on the US. By fairly coordinated enemies. Iran, the Taliban/AQ, China, North Korea, and so on.
Overwhelming Obama’s ability to respond and forcing Obama to simply surrender in all areas which as a Muslim and deeply anti-American (I know, I repeat myself) he wants to anyway.
The utterly hapless and clueless bungling of the buffoon masquerading as president would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that a lot of people are going to die in the end.
Hard to take Stratfor seriously when the writer characterizes “climate change” as one of the major challenges of the 21st C. There is a real lack of deep thinking in this article — and to that extent it probably mirrors the strutting players of the Obama administration.
Wretchard is right. What are the real US interests internationally, and what are the best ways to achieve those interests? Obama clearly is not approaching the issue from that perspective, and neither is Stratfor.
Obama feels politically obligated to pretend to fight in Afghanistan, because he preached during his campaign that our intervention in Iraq distracted us from fighting in Afghanistan, which was the good war. Also, since Patreus turned out to be so successful in Iraq, Obama feels obligated to support Patreus in Afghanistan for a while.
However, Obama does not have the fortitude to fight in Afghanistan. Everyone understands this situation. So, let’s all just let Obama off the hook.
Obama should just pull our forces out of Afghanistan without trying to pretend to fight and without having to go through the motions of pretending to negotiate with the Taliban or anyone else in that theater.
The US military should spend the next four to eight years resting, retraining and re-equiping.
Whatever happens abroad can just happen. We’ll watch what happens when the US does not act as “the world’s policeman” for four to eight years. We’ll watch “smart diplomacy” make the world a better place.
Our biggest concern should be that Obama will approach these issues from the standpoint of what is good for him, personally, rather than what is best for the U.S. And he has a history of doing exactly that, with too many examples available to relate.
No doubt he could feel it was better for him, personally, if Iraq went down the tubes, a seemingly clever deal with the Russians cancelled missile defense (ours, not theirs’), oil went to $300 a barrel (thereby solving global warming and boosting his renewable energy plans), the Community Reinvestment Act was not cancelled but expanded, private health care broke down and had to be replaced by government-run clinics, union wages increased greatly and forced membership soared, public dissent was silenced, and guns were outlawed. These events would be an utter disasters for the country – and ultimately even more so for Obama – but I am sure it would all feel good for him for a little while.
Leo: absolutely agree. I would be very worried if I were Poland or the Baltic states. Peace in our time.
Derek
What Syria probably wants most from the USA is military aircraft. What Syria wants second-most is other US military equipment.
And the USA needs to manufacture and export valuable goods.
So, there is potential for a fantastic deal that would upset the entire applecart in the Middle East.
Why won’t it happen? Because Syria is a madhouse. The Syrian government is as insane as the Iranian government, which also wants US military airplanes and equipment more than anything else in the world. Both countries are run by people who are demented.
But Obama will try to negotiate with them. He won’t offer military airplanes and equipment. Rather, he will offer his good will and personal charm.
I should have written: Both countries are ruled by people who are demented.
The article struck me as leftist apologia with window dressing, or a turkey with dressing. Putin may be having a wet dream about restoring the Russian Empire but the problem isn’t American ABM missiles. We don’t have the power to give the near abroad to the Russians because there are soon going to be damn all Russians to give it to. His nation is imploding, it is in a demographic death spiral that makes Japan look like a collection of happy rabbits by comparison.
He won’t offer military airplanes and equipment.
Of course not. The Speaker of the House needs all the free air service she can get.
The group [Judicial Watch] reported that Pelosi was notorious for making special demands for high-end aircraft, lodging last-minute cancellations, and racking up additional expenses for the military.
In one e-mail, aide Kay King complained to the military that they had not made available any aircraft the House speaker wanted for Memorial Day recess.
“It is my understanding there are NO G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable … The Speaker will want to know where the planes are,” King wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/10/study-pelosi-repeated-requests-military-aircraft/
Maybe, Mike, you should have said that ALL THREE countries are currently being ruled by people who are demented.
The Russians are trying to push back not only against NATO expansion, but against the US presence in Europe. Presumably that is what Medvedev/Putin are getting at with the new “multipolarity.”
Moreover, Russia will not reneg on Iran, its clandestine satellite. Russia has induced Iran into a geostrategic gambit that its body can’t cash; Iran now relies on Russian cover – that is the meaning of Iran’s begging for S-300 in public. Presumably Russia insinuated itself by (1) not posing an overt ideological threat, and (2) having beaucoup wicked military tech to sell. The entire pan-Shiite arc now relies on Russian sponsorship as a result; this is why, for example, Hamas goes to Moscow when it wants to demonstrate its diplomatic legitimacy in the wider world.
Syria, Lebanon, Hamas (not to mention the PA is a formerly Soviet asset via Arafat and now with Abu Mazen, graduate of Patrice Lamumba Friendship University) – all this has been brought within the Russian orbit already. And who do you think took the WMD out of Iraq? And who offered our order of battle to Saddam? And who trained Iraqi intelligence? And who ran interference for 11 years? And what kind of tanks were we fighting there? And who benefitted by far the most in Oil for Food? Who, in fact, set it up?
And on and on and on and on.
These sh*thole little states perched atop a sea of tribes really cannot be regarded as anything but foreground props in the vast Potemkin crisis whose architect is Russia – either by design, or through co-option by means it has long ago mastered. Russia will take Clinton’s and Obama’s snivelling pompous little offers, pretend to accept them, pretend to engage in diplomacy, and gut our interests with a fish knife in the media’s gigantic blindspot. And that’s what’s going to happen. They won’t make the Carter mistake of doing something obnoxious like invading Afghanistan again. But a year from now things are going to look better from Moscow’s perspective than they have in a long time (unless of course the Fates intervene).
With Obama’s foreign policy is best summarized in this clever satire:
Swedish scientists prove Obama should not be compared to a chimp
I’m having a hard time believing that the Obama administration has yet figured out that the campaign is over and it’s time to govern. The Peregruzka incident by Hillary, the decision to go into Afghanistan, the overture to the Iranians and Syrians — all seem calculated first to make a statement to a domestic political audience and only secondarily to be about international relations and grand strategy. When will they learn that politics stops at the water’s edge and that blaming GWB for all the things going wrong is every day less believable? I didn’t see anywhere near enough emphasis in the Stratfor piece on the influence of domestic politics in America’s international affairs. I suspect this will continue until the “test” Biden promised, at which point things will change dramatically. One can only hope we will not have insulted so many of our allies by then that they root for the other side. F
It looks like the economy, Russia, and China are inside our OODA loop, and al Queda/the Taliban, Venezuela, Iran, and the Mexican drug cartels are trying to get there.
“So far, Obama has demonstrated that he can talk the diplomatic talk. The real question is whether he can walk the geopolitical walk.”
Another way of putting this is that Obama has already thrown so many Americans under the bus, none of our allies or our enemies are willing to trust anything he or his representatives might say.
In the ‘Star Wars saloon’ where today’s international diplomacy takes place, his credit is no good.
Hmmmm. I must be pretty slow on the uptake tonight — I somehow neglected to point out that Stratfor’s analysis completely ignores Latin America, and more particularly Mexico. Given the way things are disintegrating there, I hope Stratfor’s oversight does not imply that the Obama administration is similarly ignoring our southern neighbor. I have seen speculation that Obama will relax restrictions on Cuba (that’ll cost him votes next time around) so it appears someone in Washington is thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean, but I don’t hear much about plans to stem the tide of people trying to escape the breakdown of civil order just across the border from El Paso. F
DW:
you should have said that ALL THREE countries are currently being ruled by people who are demented.
Excellent catch!! I stand corrected.
Two things strike me about the Stratfor piece:
(1) the sheer number of moving parts – and they didn’t even mention China, or Israel vs. Iranian nukes
(2) Obama et al seem to have gone out of their way to intentionally set as many of these pieces in motion as possible, and as quickly as possible
Lots of moving parts means very high demand for both bandwidth and compute cycles from the key people, and lots of opportunity for mistakes and unintended consequences. No design margin again.
Hubris.
The situation in Mexico needs the complete and undivided attention of the entire Administration. Nowhere else is as important (unless Canada were to suddenly go Taliban on us). Civil War/Revolution is in the wind down there. That happens and millions upon millions of refugees start streaming north. What then? Watch that space.
In my view the most likely thing to happen near term is an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuke sites. What Obama does when the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz will determine events for a considerable period of time.
Walt said:
“In my view the most likely thing to happen near term is an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuke sites.”
I agree. Excluding a black swan (lots of those flapping around), the Israeli attack will happen soon and it will kick over the apple cart (particularly if they use a nuke).
Walt also said:
“What Obama does when the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz will determine events for a considerable period of time.”
Obama along with the Europeans and the Arab world will publicly scold Israel while being secretly relieved that the Iranian nukes were destroyed. The Israelis will either laugh amongst themselves and play along with the farce or else make the obvious reply that they were doing what the United States should have done months ago.
“I’m having a hard time believing that the Obama administration has yet figured out that the campaign is over and it’s time to govern.”
Campaigning is the only thing he has *ever* known how to do. In his entire political career he has not one substantive accomplishment to his credit. Palin is a giant in comparison.
23. Tarnsman – The drug gangs armed militia forces now number over 100,000!
—
Peter Bergen
Deals with the Taliban
–the ultimate McLuhan meets Warhol, self-referential medium-as-message. “Yes We (soup) Can!”
doug, did you note SCOTUS threw out a 2nd Amendment challenge yesterday? and that O supported that? Why would O so violate party orthodoxy? Peace feeler toward the right? Americorp ain’t gunned-up yet? Just following clear language in the constitution?
The Obama administration labors under two disadvantages when it deals with foreign affairs: 1) it has no clear conception of the US national interest; 2) it has no clear conception of the interest of foreign ruling cliques.
If you come up the ranks a left liberal you tend to denigrate the “national interest” because it is easily confused with the interests of the “ruling class” and therefore is at odds with the interests of the great unwashed (who it is your self appointed job to care for and about) — as well as what we might call the interest of the planet (you know, sea levels and stuff). This allows them to make the national interest subservient to their own political interest (their political interest become confused with the national “people’s” interest and even the interest of the planet). The thing to remember: in most cases they are not being cynical; they are being sincere. Our hope is that President Obama is cynical, because he may then learn from the mistakes they are now making.
What is needed is a clear conception of what is in the interest of the US (national self interest, properly understood) and what is in the interest of various ruling cliques in adversary nations — as well as what is in the interests of the nations they lord over. Hillary gave the Russians a “fool me again — re-naive” button. I think they already know how to push the left’s buttons.
I think they already know how to push the left’s buttons …in the same way that you and i remember being ten years old, our left is a children’s Kremlin.
Another element of their national interest confusion is their union influence, which would like to not compete globally at all. That way, when the free market seeks out the low cost producer, it’ll be the low cost producer in the 50 states. great for a few hundred union bosses, not so hot for the other 300 million. Can you say, $100,000 Ford Pinto?
hdgreene said:
“If you come up the ranks a left liberal you tend to denigrate the “national interest” because it is easily confused with the interests of the “ruling class” and therefore is at odds with the interests of the great unwashed … This allows them to make the national interest subservient to their own political interest … The thing to remember: in most cases they are not being cynical; they are being sincere. Our hope is that President Obama is cynical, because he may then learn from the mistakes they are now making.”
This is a perceptive analysis.
I have little doubt that Obama is cynical. My major concern is that Obama is so cynical that he sees his own political advancement as more important than the natonal interest.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/11/2009 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Eggplant…
BHO is so self-centered there can be no doubt that absolutely nothing is more important to him than him.
As commander in chief, it’s scary what a gonnabee just might do if an alien challenge was seen as a PERSONAL smackdown. The terrible infant-tyrant would then explode into view.
The whole ‘reset button’ gag highlights BHO’s desire to abandon history, traditions and norms.
This reboot is to be more along the lines of a core-values dump.
At the intellectual plane BHO is a total lightweight with a probable IQ topping out at 120… and I’m being extremely generous.
That his IQ is so modest is best evidenced by his extemporaneous remarks on the campaign trail. Time and again he couldn’t string words together. He’s very, very much more challenged in this area than any of his predecessors.
I know I’ve posted this point before here but it is worth repeating in response to the post:
When will Poland test its first nuclear weapon?
Its leaders need to be thinking of defending themselves against the Eastern Invaders again. I suppose they have given up on cavalry as a proven anachronism and realize that modern military technology is needed. A credible deterrent might work.
The Russians need to know that proliferation can work both directions.
F, hdgreene and others:
You are assuming Obama wants to represent America’s interests, which is still an open question.
There are only two explanations at this point for O’s behavior:
A. He is a completely incompetent out of touch marxist/ lefty who believes all the crap his fashionably marxist University friends and pastors spout, and therefore cannot deal with reality of what is happening in the world.
B. He means America great harm.
( There is a C; He is both A and B)
I find it hard to believe that all O’s advisors in this Administration are that incompetent and out of touch, and so I must go with door C.
I think Obama and leftists in general feel safe and secure in reaching out to Iran because in their shameless hearts they count on the Israelis taking out any and all Iranian nukes for them.
C it is, but only for *some* of America. The part that first feels the wealth destruction. that the part that feels it last, feels it worst, must be known to 0. What ‘s the plan, i wonder, if the base scenario comes to the money economy? will he make a speech, and say this has all gone too far, it was meant only to go a little ways for a few months, and “now, in order to save the people from civil war, i must ritually commit hari-kiri” –?
It is very likely, if you read between the lines, that Obama cares VERY little about foreign affairs. I have forgotten the cite, but infamous “unnamed sources” inside the Beltway have said they wished Obama would at least present a facade of interest in Foreign Policy rather than make it obvious it bores him.
The political maneuver of placing the Clintons in the State Department sealed this reasoning for me. Obama is more interested in using the Saul Alinsky model to remake domestic America. Foreign Policy is a bother, and is only important to him in that it will affect his political clout. He doesn’t feel threatened by the Clintons in that area because it is the equivalent (to him) of Steve Jobs letting someone else handle the catering.
Perhaps I am overstating the case.