Blogs and Stories
Stalled Out All Over the World
Jim Young / Reuters
Our Afghan ally lacks legitimacy. The Mideast peace process is stuck. Iran flouts our wishes, and Iraq is falling apart. Leslie H. Gelb on how Obama can get foreign policy back out of the ditch.
Despite America’s best efforts, President Hamid Karzai is the declared winner after the runoff election was canceled Monday, leaving little hope for a legitimate government in Afghanistan. Now what?
Despite Washington’s pressures, Israeli and Palestinian leaders can’t agree on terms to resume negotiations. Now what?
Despite reasonable negotiating efforts by the Obama administration, Iran rejects the very fair idea of sending most of its uranium abroad to be turned into medical research chips for Iran. Now what?
If the various leaders of these countries and movements are determined to persist in their murderous, corrupt, and self-destructive ways, Obama’s overwhelming logic won’t convince them otherwise.
And President Obama can hardly forget about an Iraq where the country seems headed again toward civil war, as U.S. troops continue their withdrawal as mandated by the Iraqis. Now what?
Barack Obama has arrived at a terrible moment of truth in foreign policy. He has done little to make these four crises less critical. Americans knew that electing Obama, a man without any real experience in foreign affairs, was a risk. But the widespread feeling was that he couldn’t do worse than George W. Bush, who had bequeathed him all these miserable situations. Well, he hasn’t done worse than Bush, but he hasn’t accomplished much either. And now we will see whether he and his team can pull themselves together and fashion a strategy that allows the United States to head off, or at least better roll with, the inevitable international punches-until conditions ripen for the effective application of American power.
And the body blows will inevitably come. We are dealing with people in all these and other cases who hate their fellow citizens and/or the United States so much that they’d much rather kill each other and destroy themselves than accept America’s genuine attempts to improve their lives and give peace a chance. Obama has to learn that Washington’s sweet reason means almost nothing to such people. If the various leaders of these countries and movements are determined to persist in their murderous, corrupt, and self-destructive ways, Obama’s overwhelming logic won’t convince them otherwise. American troops can mute the horrors, but only so long as they are present in force. Take them away and killings resume as usual. And with or without these sacrificing troops, the peace they fight for always hides beyond the horizon.
• Tina Brown: Hillary Finally Doffs Her Burqa
• Peter Beinart: Hope Amid the Rubble in Pakistan
• Howard Altman: Al Qaeda’s Man in Afghanistan
• Lee Siegel: Generals Can’t Be TrustedJust stare at some blatant facts that Americans generally don’t like to look at, facts about what Washington can and can’t do in a world drowning in conflicts both internal and external.
—Karzai, who is almost totally dependent on American support, tells us to go fly a kite when we encourage him to conduct honest elections and then do a fair runoff election. And Abdullah Abdullah, the great opposition hero in certain American circles, refuses the runoff himself. How on earth does this great Afghan patriot think the Obama administration, which wants to help Afghanistan, can possibly do so without some semblance of a legitimate government in Kabul? Does he foolishly believe we can hand the government over to him? There is no way any nation with half a brain would—or certainly, should—stay in Afghanistan and fight and lose lives and throw away billions of dollars under these circumstances. The sooner Mr. Obama apprises our Afghan friends of this reality, the better for us—if not for them. We will survive it; they probably won’t.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Obama's Dangerous China Game
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Speech Had Potential
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
New Doubts About Afghanistan
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
octavio
Nov/2/2009/1:17 A.M.
"The US can not and should not walk away from international
problems"
This statement by Mr.Gelb makes sense only if the US simultneously correct the domestic problems.
We have too much corruption in the US government
that needs to be corrected ( taken care of ) .E,g;the lobbysts
from the US large corporations are corrupting ( big-time )
the US politicians.We need to replace the crooked senators and congressmen in Washington as soon as possible.
Stop lobbysts from corrupting the USA politicians.
E,g; The stinky USA Health Care Industry lobbysts own
the whores ( most of the politicians ) in Washington,D.C.
It will make sense if we clean the corruption at home
and simultaneously go and take care of the problems in Afghanistan,Iraq et cetera.
Pass the single payer,government run Public Health Care Bill as soon as possible and make it effective immediately.If we do not do this.The crooks in the health care industry will continue to screw the USA taxpayer.
Prosecute Bush/Cheney and it is about time that we
start prosecuting the crooks in the stinky USA Health Care Industry.Anyone charging $ 18,000 for a simple tonsil extraction needs to be prosecuted.Right now medical doctors are charging $ 250,000 for some chemo/radiation therapy.
1/3 of the USA population will get cancer in the future.Multi-
ply 120,000,0000 cancer patients per $ 250,000 that is how
much the crooks are stealing from the USA tax payers.Also,
stay away from the unethical dentists they are charging
$ 2,300 for a simple root canal and $ 340 for a simple cavity
filling.
bgeasyas123
easy octavio, i agree with you, but those numbers at the end don't necessarily help your case because they are very inflated and in some ways out of context.
TheRSVPNetwork
Octavio clearly was sarcastic on the numbers at the end, while humbly pointing out the true issues.
This report is BS, another attempt to sway the masses towards McCains mentality aswell as his ex-sponsors, bka those evil entities withint The Republican Party. Obama is having a hard time trying to fulfill his own Agenda and the Agenda of The People that voted for him.. this is tough.
Make sure you wash your hands.
Pierretrudeau
I've become tired of reading comments like this while Canadian soldiers fight and die in Afganistan. Yet this author ignores that and paints the sad sorry picture of the US fighting alone, unsupported by its allies
For 6 years we've borne the brunt of the fighting in the South around Khandahar, an area in which the Taliban is particularly strong. We've lost almost 150 soldiers which if put on a population proportional basis, is similar to the US losing 1500. That does not include the deaths of foreign service officers and aid workers.
Never is this mentioned in the US press or for that matter by government officials. When the war began, the NY Times ran picture of two soldiers with a captured Taliban leader. The caption read "US soldiers capture Taliban Chief" The were in fact Canadian solders from JTF2, our commando regiment. Who wants to be your allies anyway?
cptsully
Hello, Pierre-
I spent a year in Afghanistan, and lived on the Canadian base when it was outside Kabul at Camp Julien. Because I was an ETT, and not part of ISAF, I didn't work with them much, except when I volunteered to accompany them on an operation or patrol. As they were there on six month rotations, I was fortunate enough to work with both the PPLI, and another outfit, whose name escapes me right now.
I'll be the first to admit that when I first got there, I had my doubts about them as a fighting force, fearing they had lost their edge due to years of UN "peacekeeping". However, I was pleasantly proven wrong!.
Let me be the first to commend the Canadian Army on extraordinary professionalism and courage. They fought valiantly, and successfully, and kicked quite a lot of Taliban and Al Qaeda ass while I was there, to include engaging in some of their biggest battles since WWII, if I am not mistaken. Plus, the record for longest confirmed sniper kill ever was scored by a Canadian marksman in Afghanistan at 2,430 meters (1.509 miles) using a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) McMillan TAC-50 rifle. (One down, a billion to go!)
So- you may feel unappreciated, Pierre, but that is the soldier's lot in life. As Kipling said-
"It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?
But it's the thin red line of heroes when the drums begin to roll!"
reardongalt
"But the widespread feeling was that he couldn't do worse than George W. Bush"
Ah yes, back when we were optimistic. Now we know that the G.W. Bush era was the pinnacle of American Greatness. Richard Milhous Obama is taking us down an ever increasing spiral from bad to worse.
melissamsouza
"pinnacle of American greatness"--are you delusional? What kind of drugs are you on? G.W. Bush will be remembered as the guy who pushed this country into decline. His tax cuts for the wealthy, according to all statistics, coupled with an obscenely irresponsible escalation of budget-busting, horribly mismanaged and unnessecary wars, is what greatly contributed to the country's economic debacle. In no other point in History, not even since the Vietnam War, has America been so detested and disrespected worldwide ( I live abroad--I can attest to that). I suggest you travel around some, get to know some other cultures, learn to look at your country from another perspective, before you go babbling off such obscenities as this. Let's remember what W. inherited--an exuberant country, a budget surplus, great worldwide respect, and peace. Look at what he did with this--only very blind, very unreasonable, very intransigent and stubborn minds can find this "great", or even acceptable.
granthighland
Ah, yes. W. inherited peace. I suppose only in Melissa Land can the incineration of nearly 3,000 people on U.S. soil be considered a pacifist act. And since when did U.S. foreign policy become a popularity contest? Nations act in there own interests, not out of love for one another. But then, I guess in Melissa Land where death=peace, love can equal foreign policy reality.
LeftCoastRightBrain
Right. All the problems trace back to "tax cuts for the wealthy". How about spending increases?
granthighland
Melissa, the US won't survive if both sides of the aisle continue to finger-point. I'm assuming you hold Clinton up on a pedestal, so let's try to look at his record fairly:
1) He took over at a time of strategic drift for the US. The Soviet Union had collapsed, leaving us the sole superpower. No one in the foreign policy establishment was really ready for this scenario, and so Clinton had the difficult task of trying to define what America's role in the world would be.
2) He focused on the economy and had some successes in that arena. The passage of NAFTA, tax cuts for small businesses, the balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and a burgeoning dot com economy all played a role in the prosperity enjoyed during the '90s.
3) Foreign policy: He inherited Somalia from George H.W. Bush, but rather than call UNITAF a success and move on, his administration, in coordination with the UN (who was also seeking to redefine its role in the post-Soviet Union world) decided to try and build governance within Somalia from the ground up. This resulted in the blackhawk down incident in Mogadishu and precipitated (due to Republican pressure in congress) our hasty withdrawl from the Horn of Africa. We're still feeling the effects of that failure since it's a moment to which Bin Laden still refers, has bred the piracy problem we now face off the east coast of Africa, and has created a lawless area where Al Qaeda, et al, can freely operate and train.
The interventions in Bosnia and then Kosovo I think can arguably be called a success, though U.S. forces still operate in the area, and Bosnia is still a fractured and terribly unstable state. Our proferred reason for going into the Balkans was to end the ethnic cleansing initiated by the Serbs, but at the same time the atrocities committed by the Hutus against the Tutsis went unanswered -- a firm example of my argument that nations only act in their national interest, not out of altruistic desires.
Finally, while you claim Clinton was aggressively pursuing terrorists and erecting an anti-terror/counter terror architecture in order to end the threat, the score card on that front isn't too supportive of that claim:
a) 1993 -- The AK-47 attack outside of CIA headquarters by Pakistani Mir Aimal Kansi, killing 2.
b) The 1993 World Trade Center attack.
c) In 1995, a bombing of the Saudi Air National Guard building that killed 5 Americans.
d) 1996 -- Bin Laden's first fatwa against U.S. presence in the "Holy Lands"
e) In 1996, Khobar Towers is bombed, killing 19 U.S. service members.
f) 1998 -- Bin Laden's second fatwa against the U.S. and all Americans.
g) In 1998, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
h) 1999 -- The Millenium plot to bomb LAX is thwarted at the Canadian border by an alert border guard.
I) October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed in Aden, killing 17 sailors.
It is alleged that the Sudanese government offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996, 1998, and 2000, all of which were turned down by the Clinton administration. The 9/11 Commission found no supporting evidence to this effect, though we may never be sure of the facts given former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's destruction of several classified documents prior to the commission's hearings on the matter.
At any rate, I would argue neither the Clinton or Bush administrations clearly understood the magnitude of the threat prior to 9/11 and, as with most things in our past, it took a punch to the nose before we could muster the will to act decisively.
With respect to your assertion that we should have leveraged the outpouring of global goodwill following the 9/11 attacks, I wonder how, specifically, we were supposed to broker Middle East peace between the Israelis and Palestinians when said Palestinians were dancing and cheering in the streets following the attacks? They were energized! They were on top of the world, and I submit any attempt to bring them to the table would have been viewed as bargaining from a position of weakness.
With regard to your other assertions, I'm all for weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, but I want the nation to do so thoughtfully and in a measured manner. Does nuclear fit into your vision of green energy in this matter? It certainly would help bridge the gap between fossil fuel and next generation (cold fusion?) technology. And you lost me on the health care argument. Seemed like a non-sequitur to me.
Anyway, I've droned on long enough. We need vision and leadership in this nation, not acrimony and blame mongering if we're to survive. I'm a firm believer in the (at least) two party system and the balance between competing world views they represent, but at the end of the day it's the nation and its people that matter, not political points or power mongering. Let's have healthy and spirited debates on the issues, but let's never lose sight of what is really, truly important.
osea65
George W. Bush was a great president and he is missed daily by millions all around the world. The sooner you get over that fact, the better you will be able to adapt to the real American society!!!!!
rtchap2
You are 100% correct. Obama was suppost to fix it all, according to all the Liberal Left that played him as some kind of Savior.
melissamsouza
TO GRANTHIGHLAND AND LEFTCOASTRIGHTBRAINA AND RTCHAP2: Yes, we DID inherit peace and prosperity from Bill Clinton, as well as dire assessments and hundreds of pages of reports, including a fairly detailed one warning of terrorist attacks involving airplanes on our soil that made its way to the desks of Bush and Co. The following months of the incredibly mediocre first year of Cheney and W. saw increased warnings of terrorist attacks, including a report which sat unheeded on their desks one month before September11th. Cheney didn't want anything to do with terrorism--he wanted to dismantle the entire anti-terror aparatus which had been put into place by Clinton (just because it was Clinton's). Cheney was interested in reviving the Cold War and moving along with excruciatingly expensive, unnessecary pieces of science fiction such as the Missile Shield, and the like. Just read the 9/11 reports--talk to the experts. The worst terrorist attack of this nation's history happened under W., and IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, or at least minimized. And then, when it happened, instead of moving the world in our direction and attempting to use the global clout and sympathy generated by 9/11 in a positive manner (moving towards peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, moving towards a green economy and away from foreign oil, getting health care reform domestically), W. chose to invade an Arab country on manufactured and false intelligence. And we all know where that has led and continues to lead us. So, Sirs, if you want to continue to be blind, just go ahead. Make China's day--for they will sooner rather than later assume the mantra of the world's leading power if you continue to have your way and your failed GOP of failed catastrophic policies regains power. The U.S. won't survive, that's for sure.
urbancowgirl
Hahahahahahha oh man. Thanks for that laugh, reardon. It was needed.
neverlate
I guess "happy face" foreign policy hasn't worked that well? :)
melissamsouza
Obama has been less than a year in office. Diplomacy and negotiation take a verry long time, which is what so many people, including Mr. Gelb, whom I admire, are not recognizing in this nanosecond day and age. It took several years for Nixon to negotiate our way out of Vietnam and almost a decade for Sadat to move from being Pro-West to Peace with Israel. It is very unfair and immature to render verdicts on foreign policy, which plays out over years, when the President has barely gotten started. In a few years' time we'll be able to see how this all is playing out; if the stalemate (s) continue, then, and only then, will we be able to start pointing fingers.
neverlate
I agree. I think he positions himself as a referee between the US and the world too often, as if he isn't our president, but we should give it time.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--genomegkmelissamsouza
Mr. Gelb, excellent as usual. The message we seem to be getting from the rest of the world (and don't forget Hillary Clinton's harrowing visit to Pakistan, in which the public threw several verbal tomatoes at her--"daily 9/11's", "American troops only increase hostility", etc.) is: LEAVE US ALONE. As Tom Friedman recently pointed out, and as you so aptly allude to in your article, America can not help those who do not want to be helped, nor reason with those who lack it. I think the flavor of the moment is Marine Matthew Hoh's (the foreign service officer and soldier who recently resigned from the State Department) resignation letter, in which the idea is, that in this incredibly complex, multi-polar (or non-polar, if we accept Richard Haas' argument) world, American meddling with troops, aid, arms and bases is the problem, not the solution. The irony is that these countries that want "sovereignty", a. k. a Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, etc., are the ones most dependent on American aid. As you suggest in your article, it is time for America not only to reevalute its engagment in the world, but the kind of sustanence we give to these incredibly obnoxious, recalcitrant players. If they want to be left on their own to pursue their dangerous and self-destructive behavior, then they should also be left on their own financially, militarily and politically. It is no longer in our interest to keep on feeding these tigers ( or should I say cubs?) when they keep on biting our hands. It is time for the Adminsitration to give serious consideration to its aid policy. If these countries do not cooperate with us, then our tax-payer dollars should not line their pockets, period.
Glenda1976
Smart power at it's best!
PinkoLefty
Well done, Glenda. A post consisting of six whole syllables and you managed a spelling error. Keep up the good work.
Allow me to extrapolate from your post and guess at a few of your personal characteristics:
1) You consider yourself to be conservative leaning toward libertarian.
2) Your main news source is FOX
3) You're white.
4) You're against abortion.
5) Your credit rating is sub-680.
6) You consider yourself to be a christian.
7) You don't "believe in" evolution.
8) You live in a suburban area.
9) You drive an SUV, van, or truck.
10) You don't hold a passport.
11) You're against gay marriage and think that marriage is a "christian" institution.
Please let me know how I scored.
amanda07070
I'm waiting too Pinko! Think you nailed it.
granthighland
The only thing Pinko nailed was smug, sneering condescension packaged in templated stereotype. Although it took far too long for him to highlight his close-mindedness and ignorance, let's play the same game:
1) You consider yourself to be liberal leaning toward totalitarianism (that way the unwashed masses don't have a say against your enlightened and obviously superior intellect).
2) Your main news source is MSNBC, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, et al. because, really, is there much difference between any of them?
3) You're white. And racist.
4) You're for abortion. And the death penalty, because how could you support one and not the other?
5) You're credit rating is impeccable, though who the hell cares?
6) You consider yourself to be a secular humanist and far superior to christians.
7) Darwin rocks your world.
8) You live in an urban setting and are single. Pathetically so.
9) You don't have a driver's license, or children, and so scoff at those who drive SUVs for the child and gear hauling capacity they represent.
a) The planet is more important than people to you.
10) You don't hold a passport either. If you do, it has only one, maybe two stamps.
11) You're gay.
Wow, stereotyping is fun. And so much easier than actually engaging on a meaningful level. Thanks for the shorthand toward a better world, Pinko!
candyman101
granthighland, hat-tip to you. that was outstanding
winston1
PinkoLefty Is the return of RitaBeast incognito.
JackDavis1
Re: Glenda--brevity is the soul of wit.
Re: your post--misuse of colon after "characteristics"; missing period after FOX; Christian should have had an uppercase "C"; quotation marks unnecessary in #7; #9--erroneous use of comma after "van"; "have" a passport, not "hold" a passport; #11--Christian should have had an uppercase "C"; #11 quotation marks unnecessary around "Christian."
Me thinks that YOU should go back to English 101. Perhaps you'd learn something the second (third or fourth) time around.
winston1
PinkoLefty Sounds like RitaBeast incognito.
PinkoLefty
granthighland,
This is fun! Let's see how you did...
"1) You consider yourself to be liberal leaning toward totalitarianism (that way the unwashed masses don't have a say against your enlightened and obviously superior intellect)."
I am a liberal. Good guess. Not even close to totalitarian though.
1/2 point.
"2) Your main news source is MSNBC, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, et al. because, really, is there much difference between any of them?"
I do watch MSNBC occasionally. I can't stand CNN, NPR bores the crap out of me and I never watch any network news. I do read NYT, LAT, WP, and the BBC.
1/4 point there.
"3) You're white. And racist."
I am white. My black wife will be very disappointed about my racism. I am, however, descended from racists. My grandparents were racists. My great-great-grandfather was an officer in the Army of Virginia. He was wrong. Note to self: carve large set of breasts on relief of General Lee on side of Stone Mountain.
1/2 point.
"4) You're for abortion. And the death penalty, because how could you support one and not the other?"
I'm in favor of legal abortions up to a point. I think abortions are always a sad course of action to have to take, but I don't feel like I or the government should get between a woman and her doctor when making the decision.
I have nothing against the death penalty in principle, but I'm against the death penalty as it is currently applied. I think there has to be a higher standard of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" that suffices for simple conviction.
1 point.
"5) You're credit rating is impeccable, though who the hell cares?"
Yes it is. 1 full point. Well done.
"6) You consider yourself to be a secular humanist and far superior to christians."
I consider myself an antitheist, but not superior to christians. I think my views on the subject are better informed, but that doesn't necessarily make me a better person. My mom is a christian and she's great.
1/2 point.
"7) Darwin rocks your world."
Darwin was a great scientist and I owe him my gratitude, but it's really guys like Galois, Leibniz, Cantor, Gauss, Gödel, and Einstein that I admire most. What's most shocking about Darwin to me is that something so obvious had to wait for him to come along and discover it. Europeans should have been onto evolution shortly after seeing the first great apes.
1/2 point.
"8) You live in an urban setting and are single. Pathetically so."
Urban: yes. Single: no.
1/2 point.
"9) You don't have a driver's license, or children, and so scoff at those who drive SUVs for the child and gear hauling capacity they represent."
I do actually have a license and a couple cars. No kids. That I know of!
1/2 point.
"a) The planet is more important than people to you."
No, I think people are pretty cool in general. We are the most evolved life forms on the planet and we could potentially live on other planets if we ever stop squabbling long enough to get there.
0 points
"10) You don't hold a passport either. If you do, it has only one, maybe two stamps."
I have 2 passports.
-1 point.
"11) You're gay."
Again, my wife is going to be really upset. Since I'm generally uninhibited I would think that I would have had some clue about this before now. I'm the type of person that if I were in fact gay then I'd be riding the front float on Pride Day. I'm not gay, so I sleep with hot women and enjoy the hell out of some lesbian porn.
0 points.
Total: 4.25 out of a possible 11.
You get an F.
eurydice9276
Interesting, but doesn't live up to the blurb "how to fix it". Imposing unambiguous conditions isn't the problem, sticking to them is.
subframer
Pinkolefty, congratulations on your bigoted, intolerant, elitist idiocy of a post. I'm white, I'm jewish, I have a graduate degree, my credit rating is 805, I drive a BMW, I live in NYC, My IQ is 140, and I've traveled more (for business and pleasure) than you ever will. And I'm conservative, and my main source of news is FOX, simply because all other MSM outlets are impossibly skewed by the 85% Obama voters populating the ranks. I know what FOX is, and I still prefer it to the idiocy provided by NBC, CNN, MSNBC, et al.
Thanks for perpetuating the "myth" of the arrogant intolerant liberal elite.
voyager5k
subframer, Bravo!! Excellent job putting these arrogant left-wing elitist loons in their place. Please help us though. Why do Jews keep voting for Democrats? Do they want to see Israel destroyed? Obviously you have wised up.
Garvagh
voyager5k: Are you suggesting the Democrats "want to see Israel destroyed"? Isn't Israel's largest problem its inability to act in its own best interests, and get out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights?
voyager5k
Sorry Garvagh, getting out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights is NOT in Israel's best interests. (and they know that) Without control of those areas, the country is indefensible.
Israel's largest problem is that the Arab countries will not step up to the plate and resettle the Palestinians within their borders. The Arabs like using the Palestinians as pawns, so that Israel can be used as a scapegoat for not fixing the problems within their own countries.
oliverckerr
I thought we were all fired up and ready to go.
michaelslevinson.com
Johnnyappleseed
Mikey, congratulations! a one sentence response, means the therapy is working.
bgeasyas123
touche
oliverckerr
Why are you such an insulting ignorant troll. What therapy? Am I tired of the continuous toilet mouth hiding behind thecreen name johnnyaplleseed? Your toilet mouth, stuffed as it is, hardly qualifies as therapy.
When you have nothing to say you and your fascist co-horts might try saying nothing. You offer nothing! Fascistry. That is all. A confusion of reality.
You might try my name instead of this abboration you keep pushing as salutation. It's called respect for your elders. One prob limb: respect for anything is beyond the scope of the fascist imagination.
michaelslevinson.com
Johnnyappleseed
Just have the big "O" give them one of his talks, they will come around.
sdale80
I fully respect Leslie Gelb's opinions, but living in Italy, I have to say that Obama is worshipped here. Right or left, I have neither read nor heard a single negative opinion. Maybe it is because Italy has Berlusconi and we look great in comparison, but Obama clearly has no "problem" in Europe. Or do you mean that he simply hasn't walked on water?
ThinkAgain
We got that you Europeans worship him, apparently he's brought you peace. He hasn't done a damn thing for us.
eurydice9276
They love him in Greece, too, but give it time. Right now it's fashionable to like Americans, but we'll go back to being the bad guys, just as we have been under every other administration in the past several decades. Then it won't matter if all of us can walk on water.
voyager5k
They love him in Europe?? Well, please let all those naive Europeans know that he will probably turn out to be the most useless President we have ever had! And, if they like him so much, they are welcome to him.
Boyaca
So the USA is spending all of this blood and treasure only to help these poor people have a better life. What fucking planet heve you been living on for the past 40 years or so? Not one mention of oil or pipelines etc.
If you are talking about murderous regiems as well then how about the millions of innocent people murdered by the American Military since the end of the Second World War? You need to grow up and take off those rose coloured glasses.
johnstafford
Leslie Gelb writes forcefully and reasonably about our "four crises." Yet, there's an undercurrent to what he says that's troubling.
=For one example: "He [Obama] has done little to make these crises less critical."
Of course, just not being George W. Bush is progress--to stop pouring gasoline on a raging fire is a positive step. But, President Obama has done much more than that. He's also engaged our adversaries in a new, constructive way that, over time, can bear fruit.
==For another: "The United States can't and shouldn't walk away from these problems. Futility and neo-isolationism are contrary to American interest."
Sounds good. But, what if some or all of these crises don't meet Gelb's "unambiguous condition"--that those we seek to help demonstrate their own willingness to change? Can we/
should we then "walk away"?
The important point to make, I think, is that deciding, after years of effort and sacrifice on our part, that a military solution will not work (e.g., Afghanistan) is not "neo-isolationism";
and, suspending aid to allies (e.g., the Iraqi government)
who refuse to bargain in good faith with their political
adversaries is the opposite of "futility."
Is Mr. Gelb willing to let the United States enforce his own
unambiguous condition?
osea65
Obama , I'm very sorry to tell you, has to prove himself to us rational people. You, the insanely liberal press, and recently the Nobel Peace Committee, have given him so much, till now, undeserved credit, that frankly there is no way he will be able to live up to it. He is just another politician, that's all, so all we can hope for, is that he doesn't mess up too badly!!!!
SteveStone
The best thing Obama can do is completely ignore Mr. Gelb.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.