Obama backtracks (?) on diplomacy

Call it flip-flopping if you must, but I, for one, am glad to see Obama clarifying/revising his position on meeting with foreign leaders:

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to emphasize, as he and his aides have done continually over the last few days, the difference between avoiding preconditions for talks with nations like Iran and Syria, and granting them automatic discussions at the presidential level.

While Mr. Obama has said he would depart from the Bush administration policy of refusing to meet with certain nations unless they meet preconditions, he has also said he would reserve the right to choose which leaders he would meet, should he choose to meet with them at all.

The issue presents one of Mr. Obama’s biggest political and policy tests yet as he appears headed toward a general-election contest against Senator John McCain of Arizona: How to continue to add nuance to a policy argument that he views as a winning one, without playing into a fierce round of accusations that he is either shifting positions or appeasing the enemy.

The "appeasement" charge is crap, as I've noted before. But, as I also said in that same post, "it's perfectly fair to debate whether Obama's stated willingness to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I'm not at all sure it is[.]" What I am sure of is that important foreign-policy decisions should be made based on contemporaneous good judgment, not slavish adherence to spur-of-the-moment campaign promises. Obama's apparent recognition of this fact is distinctly a good thing.

Comments

[Sean Braisted]

I've read a lot of commentary on the matter, but I'm struggling to find the difference between this position and the one articulated in the debate right after the "Youtube debate," in which he laid out his "preparations not preconditions argument".

I think a lot of the source of contention seems to be that many people thought Obama was saying that he would definitely meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc...in the first year; whereas the question was would you be "willing" to meet without preconditions, in which case the answer is still yes.

[yea]

I agree Sean. I think this is more a case of people not paying attention to Obama's actual viewpoint rather than Obama backtracking on anything. It just shows how intense the scrutinty gets on a candidate as the election gets closer.

[Jim]

The problem also is that McCain doesn't know that Amadenahjad is not necessarily the person Obama would meet with.

[Brendan]

I was thinking the same thing, Sean, when I re-read the exact quote from the debate. I didn't want to get into what might look like Clintonian word-parsing if I could avoid it, but yeah, to be "willing" to do something is not the same as a "pledge" to do that thing.

[JT]

I also find it intersting that all these arguments refer to Ahmadinejad when the Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamene'i. Someone with a better understanding of Iran can clarify on this but my understanding is that the Supreme Leader controls all policy and that Ahmadinejad is pretty much a glorified press secretary. I believe Jim is referring to a conversation McCain had with a reporter where McCain mocked the reporter for explaining this distinction to him. Are there any Iran experts here that can clarify?

[Jim]

I don't know that I'm an 'expert' on Iran (well, okay, I do know... I'm not!) but yes, your distinction is correct. He has no power to nuke Israel, or change their nuclear policy.

[Jim]

Oh, and yes, I was referring to the conversation with the reporter.

[Jim]

Oh, and yes, I was referring to the conversation with the reporter.

[Pasquale]

How is it clarifying his position if he is saying he does'nt know what he is going to do. I might meet with them or I might not.That's great, I have no idea what your policy is going to be. Totally useless answer...SAME OLD POLITICAL TWO-TALK.

[David K.]

Pasquale,

I dunno, I think i'd rather have a President who will wait til he has the facts and be willing to consider options, rather than a President who comes in to office with a plan and nothing including contradictory evidence will convince him otherwise

[Ed]

It matters not whether one can parse his debate terminology.

BHO continues to berate GWB for not engaging Iran in talks. When he does this, he never qualifies his criticism. It is a flat denunciation. This necessarily puts BHO squarely in the unconditional/no-precondition negotiation camp.