LA Times
 
 WikiLeaks wakeup call
 
In the end, what these documents confirm is that President  Obama's foreign 
policy is a mess

 
By Jonah Goldberg  
November 30, 2010
 
Washington is reeling from the latest WikiLeaks document dump. The foreign  
policy wonks insist that there are few, if any, major surprises. "Much of 
what  we've seen thus far," opined Richard N. Haass, president of the Council 
on  Foreign Relations, "confirms more than it informs." And, in the end, 
what these  documents confirm is that _President  Obama_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic)
 's foreign 
policy is a mess.

Even if you're supportive of  Obama's foreign policy efforts, the WikiLeaks 
dump is a bigger deal than the  know-it-alls are suggesting. It's one thing 
to believe something as a  generality; it's another to dispel plausible 
deniability for all  concerned.

Everyone may know that the Saudis are worried about the  Iranian bomb. But 
knowing that isn't quite the same as learning that the Saudi  monarchy has 
implored the U.S. to attack _Iran_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/iran-PLGEO0000011.topic)  and  "cut off the 
head of the snake," in the words of a 
Saudi envoy. Egypt and other  Arab states have called the Iranian program an 
"existential threat" and have  begged the U.S. to use military force to stop 
it (of course, if the U.S. did  take out the program, these same regimes, 
not to mention countless domestic  critics of _Israel_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/israel-PLGEO0000010.topic) ,  would insist 
that the U.S. was 
doing the bidding of the Israel lobby).

 
____________________________________
 _Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to  your 
inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/extras/events/lp/AUD/10AUD236/register.html)    
____________________________________


Around the globe, diplomats, dignitaries and potentates feel betrayed  and 
exposed. Certainly, the news that _Secretary  of State Hillary Rodham 
Clinton_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433.topic)
  ordered American diplomats at the _United  Nations_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/
topic/crime-law-justice/international-law/united-nations-ORCUL000009.topic)  to 
spy on other delegations will make lunchtime at the _Turtle 
 Bay_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/new-york/new-york-city/manhattan-(new-york-city)/turtle-bay-PLGEO100100804013300.topic)
  commissary a bit 
awkward.

Politically, the one advantage for the  _White  House_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/white-house-PLCUL000110.topic)
  is the sheer volume of the leaks. If these stories came out one by  one, 
there'd be room for them to flare up as full-fledged controversies, but  
with a quarter of a million documents, each story robs oxygen from the  next.

Still, the (relative) lack of surprises is hardly an exoneration  for 
anybody — not for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has declared himself  
an 
enemy of the United States, nor for the Obama administration, which seems  
utterly lost about how to deal with him.

The administration's formal  response to the revelations was to have _State 
 Department_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-department-of-state-ORGOV000000150.topic)
  attorney Harold Koh pen a tersely worded 
cease-and-desist letter  to Assange, asking him to pretty please stop 
publishing thousands of state  secrets. With the important and complicated 
exception of Afghanistan, such  high-minded legalism is par for the course.

Ever since his bizarre  campaign stop in _Berlin_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/germany/berlin-(germany)-PLGEO100100602011391.topic)
   and his 
primary debate promise to meet with Iranian _President  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-PERLL0018
99.topic)  "without preconditions," Obama has consistently stressed  his 
preference for soft diplomacy and gauzy platitudes about international  
cooperation. For instance, the _fall  of the Berlin Wall_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/berlin-walls-fall-(1989)-EVHST0000223.topic)
  and 
the unification of Germany proved, according to  then-candidate Obama, that 
"there is no challenge too great for a world that  stands as one" — an 
incomprehensible claim that would earn an F from any high  school history 
teacher.

Since then, on issue after issue, Obama's  rhetorical globaloney has met 
the grinder. Perversely, his best moment was when  he accepted the _Nobel  
Peace Prize_ 
(http://www.latimes.com/topic/science-technology/nobel-prize-awards-8006070.topic)
  and felt compelled to explain why he didn't deserve it — 
yet —  and give a legitimately stirring defense of military action.

It is  certainly true that Obama inherited many of his foreign policy 
challenges. Iran  was pursuing nukes back when he was in the Illinois state 
Senate, and North  Korea has been crazy since before he was born. But Obama 
insisted that his would  be the better way. Engagement, dialogue, kumbaya would 
all win the  day.

And yet they keep losing. A month after his inauguration, the North  
Koreans tested a ballistic missile. Since then, they've revealed yet another  
nuclear program and attacked South Korea just weeks after Obama's embarrassing  
failure to win a trade deal from Seoul during an official visit. Meanwhile,  
according to WikiLeaks and other sources, the North Koreans have been 
selling  ballistic missiles to the Iranians.

The irony is that Assange represents  a purer form of Obama's own idealism. 
According to Assange's dangerous  utopianism, in governance purity must 
define means, not just ends. He is  convinced that he has revealed the 
hypocrisy and corruption of U.S. foreign  policy, when in reality all he has 
revealed is that pursuing foreign policy  ideals is messier and more 
complicated in 
a world where bad people pursue bad  ends. We can hope that Obama has been 
learning that lesson. Assange, meanwhile,  is simply blind to it.

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to