more diavlogs
|
|
Worldwise: Reasons to Be Happy You’re in Pittsburgh
Recorded: September 25, 2009  Posted: September 27
jharonfe wrote on 09/27/2009 at 08:54 PM
Politics and Tactics with Iran, and Multilateralism
Some interesting points here and there in the dialogue. Both Hurlburt and Drezner are clever to avoid giving opinions in the main, and instead prefer to give their opinions at the margin. But still, they make some points that provoke controversy.
Would say first, its not obvious Iran domestic politics are a big factor in forthcoming nuclear negotiations. These negotiations are pretty insulated. Would hazard to guess that if the sides can agree to a permanent format for negotiations, they can be carried on without too much interference from Iranian domestic politics. Only once you get to later stage implementation steps, do domestic politics become more relevant. So Hurlburt and Drezner are getting over anxious about late stage steps. That's far from where things are now. Recall that in 2003 and 2004, the EU3 got agreement from Iran on nuclear issues. Iran agreed to suspend enrichment and voluntarily permit more intrusive inspections. The EU3 got those concessions despite the weakness of the Khatami government. The problem for the current negotiations is not the weakness of Ahmadinejad's government. The problem is Ahmadinejad himself (recall after he was elected in 2005, he had the prior
kidneystones wrote on 09/27/2009 at 09:44 PM
Condi Clinton Powell
jharonefe writes...[...]
Good points all. Notice, however, how little authority the current Secretary of State currently wields; and how infrequently we hear the Secretary of State mentioned in dvs about US foreign policy or in the press. The WH has effectively set up an alternate State Department with country specialists who answer directly to the WH. Remind you of anyone? (
PreppyMcPrepperson wrote on 09/27/2009 at 10:52 PM
Re: Condi Clinton Powell
I actually agree with Althouse on this (sometimes it happens to the best of us)--HRC has been given responsibility for 'women's issues'--women's rights, reproductive health issues, girls' education etc, and officially, oversees all these special envoys, but it's clear that policy isn't being coordinated by her to the degree she might like.
jharonfe wrote on 09/27/2009 at 11:56 PM
Re: Condi Clinton Powell
Raises a good question about the influence of Secretaries of State. Sort of a digression, but I can't resist a response.
Question of Clinton's influence is really two issues masquerading as one. The first issue is: is Clinton the most influential person in the Obama admin on foreign policy, besides Obama himself? Put another way: in the game of politics about who's in and who's out, which is Clinton? Is she in? Or is she out? That is the first issue. The second issue is bigger: has the office of Secretary of State as a whole been diminished in its role in foreign policy? Are recent Secretaries, like Condi, Powell, Albright, Baker, and so on, as powerful in foreign policy-making, foreign policy execution, as they were in the time of Acheson? Or has there been a fundamental diminution?
To answer the first question: I frankly am not sure. It is hard to judge from outside the mechanics of an administration. There are some reasons to think she has, and some to think she has not. And it sometimes happens that an admin members fortunes rise and fall. So her influence now may not be the same as it will in two years (assuming
kidneystones wrote on 09/28/2009 at 12:10 AM
Re: Condi Clinton Powell
jharonfe and preppy write...[...]
Hope you'll allow me to offer one reply to both of you.
First, preppy, I agree. But isn't that really the worst sort of insult?
Second, jharonfe, preppy does a good job of describing the limited duties of this Secretary. I've no problem stating that HRC isn't just out, she's way out. Again, I refer you to recent dvs on fp. I disagree, btw, with your basic division. The individual gives weight to the office; even if that individual may not always or ever be right. Note Dan's reference to John Bolton, for example; not a particular senior official in the Bush administration, but one who very much had the ear of those who count.
The vice-president is clearly no longer just cutting ribbons. It remains to be seen how much influence Biden will actually exercise. Everything I read suggests Axelrod is far and away the most important person in this administration, much the way Rove was in the last.
cragger wrote on 09/28/2009 at 12:52 AM
Re: Politics and Tactics with Iran, and Multilateralism
I think you are correct regarding the diminished role of the State Department, and of course the Secretary. This has come as power and the role of setting agenda and policy has shifted primarily toward the DOD, and possibly as you suggest the NSC.
To some degree this probably reflects the fact that the Pentagon and DOD are always there, pushing their priorities while administrations change, and the various political appointments may come and go even more more often. It is also and I think primarily a function of a political environment insisting that we have been in a state of permanent crisis and war since WWII, encompassing decades of the various "hot" wars against the constant backdrop of the Cold War which was smoothly transposed into the "Global War on Terror" which we are assured will continue for decades or generations to come.
Given a constant state of war, it isn't surprising that the Department of War/Defense (name changed after WWII since we were no longer at war, which seems a bit ironic in retrospect) and related agencies would assume a primary role in setting foreign policy, with
|
|
look: Matthew Yglesias is...Serpico!
Bokonon: Jim invokes the Powell Doctrine in the war against Alzheimer's.
look: What do Bob and Byron have in common?
rcocean: Cats LOL.
ledocs: Bob’s use of praeteritio here could have been more subtle.
Bokonon: I think this little snippet shows just how much Bob has grown since he read my post.
listener: I’ll be here all week, folks. And don’t forget to tip your waitress!
Bokonon: We’ve been suspecting this for quite a while now.
graz: Hey … preach it if you feel so inclined!
sapeye: Apparently John doesn’t completely agree with Maureen Dowd.
Bokonon: The Self-Reflexive Scandal.
uncle ebeneezer: New Talking Mickey Kaus Doll! Just pull the string and it says....
Simon Willard: My big chance to engage Bob in a substantive discussion, and this is what I get.
chamblee54: The acronym for this is wiz.
Bokonon: Bob throws down the gauntlet with a very techie euphemism in the wankfest war.
graz: The video equivalent of the godfather kiss of death.
Ocean: I couldn’t refute Michelle G’s description of parenthood.
propagandhi: The ev psych dissection of Chris Bosh.
Bokonon: The origin of Norman Bates.
T.G.G.P : Methinks she doth protest too much. Did that laugh sound forced to anyone else?
uncle ebeneezer: McChrystal ... or Phil Jackson?
uncle ebeneezer: No wonder we’ve all been acting so impulsively since Bob asked us not to use sarcasm!
bjkeefe: Censorship! or, the new BhTV tagline?
graz: A telling slip.
listener: FDR: The real Miracle Worker.
|
collapse links
