444 Days Was Enough
Letter Series, obama, one term 11:18 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
Dear President Obama:
Though it's more than a little unnatural feeling to offer you free advice, here it is:
Don't take the bait from any side on the Iran issue.
The American Right is trying to bait you into speaking out against Ahmadinejad by asking you to stand up for free and fair elections everywhere. That's actually bull. We can't police the world, and we can't allege voter fraud just because the election results weren't what we expected. We really didn't know what to expect because the polling data was all over the place. In much of the polling that put Ahmadinejad tied with or behind his lead challenger, nearly half of the Iranian public was still undecided. That is to say nothing of the fact that Iranian public opinion is notoriously difficult to measure because of cultural taboos and difficulties of sampling in poorer, more rural areas where the people are more conservative (and more likely to have voted for the incumbent).
The American Left wants you to feel lulled into a false sense that you can wash your hands and stay above the fray on the issue of the election. That's not going to work either. The signs that the protesters are holding for the cameras are in English. They're sending out their messages on Facebook and Twitter. They want the American people and the American government to see crystal-clearly that they are asking us to speak up for them. If we do nothing, we will have squashed the hopes of a people clamoring for freedom by simply not showing up. That's a terrible message. We are their target audience, and they are begging us to help them. The problem of course is that these people may well represent a minority opinion after all the tallies are counted and recounted. Just because they're louder doesn't make them more important. In elections, often times the other guy wins.
Finally, the Iranian regime clearly wants the US to get suckered into the fight so that we own the outcome of the revolution. No single move would do more to please the Iranian government. They would love to say with evidence and conviction that they have to strike down these protests on the grounds that they are American-led, and therefore meddling with internal affairs and so-called free elections. We cannot be seen as forcing regime change in Iran YET AGAIN.
Defending the unpopular Shah in 1979 brought about a revolution and put on hold the lives of 52 Americans for 444 days. Let there be no doubt, while 52 people were held captive, our entire nation's interests were hostage because of our actions and commitments. Regime management failed us with the Shah, and it failed us when we promoted the government reforms that ironically led to Ahmadinejad coming to power in the first place. The same tendencies got us in trouble in Iraq and landed Saddam Hussein into power. How many times must we touch the stove before we realize it burns us?!
Oddly enough Mr. President, it's incumbent upon this writer to speculate that your current policy on the situation in Iran is appropriate given the complexity and sensitivity of the circumstance. Speaking out decisively and curtly for free and fair elections while avoiding the appearance of any meddling with the results of a flawed but presumably representative election is the only way to walk the tight rope without falling flat on our faces.
After all, if Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah stay in power, it will be them we have to play nice with on the world stage. Better we don't show our teeth before we're sure if it's Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde answering the door in Tehran. If you underestimate the severity of the situation in Iran or if you choose to take the bait and own the results of these elections, our nation will be held hostage by Iranian meddling once more. Only another 1980 election could save us then. That's no joke.
Respectfully yours,
Concerned Citizen
Dear President Obama:
Though it's more than a little unnatural feeling to offer you free advice, here it is:
Don't take the bait from any side on the Iran issue.
The American Right is trying to bait you into speaking out against Ahmadinejad by asking you to stand up for free and fair elections everywhere. That's actually bull. We can't police the world, and we can't allege voter fraud just because the election results weren't what we expected. We really didn't know what to expect because the polling data was all over the place. In much of the polling that put Ahmadinejad tied with or behind his lead challenger, nearly half of the Iranian public was still undecided. That is to say nothing of the fact that Iranian public opinion is notoriously difficult to measure because of cultural taboos and difficulties of sampling in poorer, more rural areas where the people are more conservative (and more likely to have voted for the incumbent).
The American Left wants you to feel lulled into a false sense that you can wash your hands and stay above the fray on the issue of the election. That's not going to work either. The signs that the protesters are holding for the cameras are in English. They're sending out their messages on Facebook and Twitter. They want the American people and the American government to see crystal-clearly that they are asking us to speak up for them. If we do nothing, we will have squashed the hopes of a people clamoring for freedom by simply not showing up. That's a terrible message. We are their target audience, and they are begging us to help them. The problem of course is that these people may well represent a minority opinion after all the tallies are counted and recounted. Just because they're louder doesn't make them more important. In elections, often times the other guy wins.
Finally, the Iranian regime clearly wants the US to get suckered into the fight so that we own the outcome of the revolution. No single move would do more to please the Iranian government. They would love to say with evidence and conviction that they have to strike down these protests on the grounds that they are American-led, and therefore meddling with internal affairs and so-called free elections. We cannot be seen as forcing regime change in Iran YET AGAIN.
Defending the unpopular Shah in 1979 brought about a revolution and put on hold the lives of 52 Americans for 444 days. Let there be no doubt, while 52 people were held captive, our entire nation's interests were hostage because of our actions and commitments. Regime management failed us with the Shah, and it failed us when we promoted the government reforms that ironically led to Ahmadinejad coming to power in the first place. The same tendencies got us in trouble in Iraq and landed Saddam Hussein into power. How many times must we touch the stove before we realize it burns us?!
Oddly enough Mr. President, it's incumbent upon this writer to speculate that your current policy on the situation in Iran is appropriate given the complexity and sensitivity of the circumstance. Speaking out decisively and curtly for free and fair elections while avoiding the appearance of any meddling with the results of a flawed but presumably representative election is the only way to walk the tight rope without falling flat on our faces.
After all, if Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah stay in power, it will be them we have to play nice with on the world stage. Better we don't show our teeth before we're sure if it's Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde answering the door in Tehran. If you underestimate the severity of the situation in Iran or if you choose to take the bait and own the results of these elections, our nation will be held hostage by Iranian meddling once more. Only another 1980 election could save us then. That's no joke.
Respectfully yours,
Concerned Citizen
Posted by Nick Stone
on 11:18 AM.
Filed under
Letter Series,
obama,
one term
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
I like how this whole post is basically dedicated to telling Obama to do exactly what he has been doing. Foreign policy experts on both sides of the aisle have said he's struck exactly the right temperament. Unfortunately partisan hacks, on both sides, have decided he needs to do more or less.
It would be nice if you could actually compliment him for once, on what has been a perfect tone.
It sounds like you're fishing for a little praise for yourself too while I'm at it?
Here's my compliment:
Dear Mr. President:
Your foreign policy usually sucks even worse than your domestic policy. That's why you've had to backtrack on almost all your foreign policy campaign pledges, and have been bitchslapped by reality on the ones you've tried to keep. On the issue of the Iranian election (though not on your pansy-ass stance against their nuclear program), you might actually have struck the right chord. Good job, sucker.
-Concerned Citizen
Is that better?
you don't need to be so obnoxious about it. i was just saying on this issue, you could at least make it clear that you agree with the tone he has taken. a major foreign policy issue and he didn't cave to either side, instead, he handled perfectly.
rather, you use it as another opportunity to once again be divisive. many republicans are praising obama's pragmatic approach to foreign policy so far. certainly the extreme right wing has its issues with him, but many moderate republicans are surprised at how he's handling things. take joe scarborough, for example:
"I am very pleased with his foreign policy... I do think the president is the first foreign policy realist we have had in office since George Bush "41."
yes, he's changed his mind on some issues, but i'd far rather a president listen to intelligence briefings, experts and other key individuals, then make his decision. rather than the last president who simply filled the room with those who agreed with him.
also, where do you get that he's backtracked on "almost all" of his pledges? He promised to open a dialogue with the Muslim world. Check. He promised to close Guantanamo. Semi-Check (it's underway). He promised to put Military Tribunals on hold until a review of them was completed. Check.
Sigh. Here we go again with the selectively picking quotes and half-truths to make a case.
If you want to go quote for quote, here's Joe Scarborough as well: "I knew by the second day (of the Obama Administration) that America was less safe."
So, forgive me if I obnoxiously point out that Scarborough may not be the card carrying Obamaniac you might wish he were.
And my final thought: Obama COMPLETELY did a one-eighty on military tribunals, promising to ban them in favor of American courts. He promised to close Guantanamo by January 2009 without a real plan. He promised to have troops out of Iraq lickity-split, and then had to listen to his generals. That's great, except that he never actually listened to the generals until AFTER he made the naive promises that sounded good in stump speeches.
What. A. Tool.