Definition of A Precondition

Precondition: “An expression that has to be met before the task can be executed.

Sen. Obama apparently doesn’t agree with that definition. He is now simultaneously claiming that he would meet with Iran without preconditions, but that he would only do it if they met certain…uh…preconditions.

If he wants to talk about “guiding principals of diplomacy – Essentially, here is Sen. Obama’s new plan:

No talks with Iran until they end their nuclear-weapons programs, progressively tougher sanctions until they comply with international non-proliferation regulations and UN Security Council resolutions.

Note that this is exactly what the Bush administration has done since 2003.

Sen. Obama’s grasp of foreign policy is very odd to me. The more I hear, the more it appears to me that he simply doesn’t have a plan. Consider this next clip from a speech in Oregon the other day where he claims that Iran, Syria, etc do not pose a serious threat to the US:

That’s a messed up grasp of history. The reason we could talk with the Soviet Union was because they already had loads of nuclear weapons and they were a rational state that understood the implications of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranian Mullocracy is nothing like the government of Russia. The governments of Iran and Syria simply do not negotiate in good faith. Ed Morrisey expands on these thought in better words (I’ve added emphasis for skimmers):

Let’s start with the Soviet Union. We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state. When the enemy already has the capability of destroying you several times over, negotiations are needed to keep one side from initiating a war. Only an idiot would think that the negotiations intended on disarming the Soviets, or they us. The same dynamic applies to our engagement with Mao Zedong and Red China; Mao was smart enough to hold himself out as a potential partner in a power balance against the Soviets.

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

Listen to Obama talk about the “common interests” supposedly shared between the US and the Iranian mullahcracy. What interests would those be? The destruction of Israel, the denial of the Holocaust, the financial and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, or the killing of American soldiers in Iraq? And please point out the presidential-level, unconditional contacts that brought down the Berlin Wall. Our “common interests” didn’t exist between the East German and American governments; they existed between the people of East Germany and America in the promise of real freedom. When the Soviet power structure imploded, it was the people of East Germany who tore down the wall, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who watched it happen impotently.

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

This speech reveals Obama to have no grasp of history, no grasp of strategic implications of a nuclear Iran, and no clue how to secure the nation and handle foreign policy.

It is clear to me that when it comes to foreign policy, Sen. Obama fails to grasp some crucial elements. Even worse – he has a very strange reading of history that leave out many crucial facts. I’m reminded of the opening quotation from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Furthermore – Sen. Obama’s fervor over Pres. Bush’s remarks the other day in Israel (Note that the president didn’t make any reference to Sen. Obama, the Democrats, or even Americans…) were very revealing. It could have been his one chance to agree with the president and say, ‘No, we cannot talk without preconditions,’ but instead he decided to take the remarks as a personal attack. What the crap? If Obama doesn’t believe in appeasement (which is what President Bush was talking about) then why take his comments so personally?

I think the reason is because Sen. Obama doesn’t really have a clear stance on foreign policy. (Also, admitting that President Bush has done anything right is clearly off the table). Early on, he was criticizing the Bush Administration for not talking with Iran – and now he is pulling a 180 and basically mirroring the policy that he described as such a total failure.

So what is the plan then? Talk to them – but only if they stop their nuclear program? That’s what’s known as a precondition.

Read the remarkable Part TwoWhere Obama both hypes, contradicts, and criticizes his own policy and somehow blames it all on Bush. Make sure your head it securely fashioned because it may be in danger of spinning off.


2 Responses to “Definition of A Precondition”

  1. Whoops - Obama’s Iran Policy Changes…again… « What The Crap? - Says:

    […] May 19, 2008 — whatthecrap? Well, In case you missed it earlier see the Definition of a Precondition (or just jump down two […]

  2. McCain Will Do The Testing « Ms Placed Democrat Says:

    […] Obama doesn’t have a spine of steel. He has promised to sit down with the likes of Ahminejad, The Castro Brothers, Hugo Chavez and others without “PRECONDITIONS”. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: