Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Un-Warren-ted action
I keep thinking about President-elect Obama's decision to invite evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the Inauguration convocation. Most of the ire that greeted this announcement focused on Warren's ill-founded and offensive views on homosexuality, and especially his outspoken support of Proposition 8 in California. But was Obama aware of Warren's recent foray into foreign policy when he invited him to play such a prominent role on Inauguration Day?
Appearing on Fox News on December 3, Warren openly endorsed host Sean Hannity's declaration that "we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out." As one might expect, Warren invoked the Bible as his justification, saying that it says that "evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped....The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers."
I'm all for inclusiveness, but this bit of foreign policy advice is more than a little disturbing. One expects bloodthirsty bombast from Hannity, but Warren is a Christian pastor supposedly committed to certain core principles of love, humility, and forgiveness. Yet here they are casually discussing the murder of an elected foreign leader, simply because they have determined he is an "evildoer." I agree that some of Ahmadinejad's public statements are deeply offensive, ignorant, and stupid, but what exactly is the "evil" he has committed that warrants our "taking him out?"
There is in fact a well-established norm against the assassination of foreign leaders -- including all-time "evildoers" like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the like -- and good reasons to keep that norm intact. Indeed, given recent American behavior, this is one Pandora's Box we do not want to open. According to a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, some key Bush administration officials bore "major responsibility" for detainee abuse (read torture) and may have broken U.S. laws in doing so. And few now deny that Bush & Co. invaded Iraq on false pretenses and botched the occupation, leading directly to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, forced migration, ethnic cleansing and abundant human suffering. Whatever their aims may have been, this sounds like "evil-doing" to me. But surely Warren and Hannity don't think that some other country would be justified in "taking them out," even its leaders brandished the Bible as their justification.
President-elect Obama has repeatedly stated that we need to work out our differences with Iran through tough-minded diplomacy, yet the convocation prayer at his inauguration will be given by a man who apparently thinks we ought to assassinate Iran's president.
Once inaugurated, let's hope Obama runs U.S. foreign policy with a bit more consistency. In the meantime, Rick Warren should be more careful when he opines about foreign policy. In return, I promise that this blog will remain quietly discreet on matters of theology. In the meantime, the President-elect might ask himself why he has such questionable taste in preachers.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images









Radicals of all stripes
Sadly, the dominate religion in the United States, evangelical Christianity, can be as radical as the worst of the radical Islam. The only difference is that the U.S’s radicals have access to the greatest military force in the world, while the Islamists rely on less expensive measures.
The Family
Professor Walt:
I recommend reading a book called "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power."
It is about the evangelical desire to shape foreign policy.
Diplomacy Starts at Home
At the end of the day, even if many of us believe that Warren’s talking crazy, there are just as many if not more who think he’s spot on. But continuing a policy of “I’m right, you’re crazy” makes for a tough road to consensus. Maybe Obama’s testing out some of that tough-minded diplomacy here at home – we certainly have plenty of differences to work out amongst ourselves.
As for Warren thinking twice before offering up more wisdom when he shouldn't…well, I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one.
Don't Know What's Worse...
Don't know what's worse about the Realist crowd, moral neutrality (aka moral cowardice) or moral equivalence.
In any case, I'm curious to hear the Realist answers to two questions:
1. After Obama's "tough-minded diplomacy" fails to achieve any substantive results, and the FP novice finally understands that Iran and US have real, opposing national interests, what then?
2. Realism presupposes rationality. What if Iran isn't rational?
Answers
The answer to the second question is easy. Rational choice theory and realism are not the same, and are often looked upon as separate roads of political science. Rational choice does not equate to rationality of the everyday or philosophical usage. Rationality in the political science world is the assumption that every country has preferences they wish to achieve (security, death to the Great Satan) and constraints that would prevent them from doing so (other countries, internal pressure). When one establishes these preferences, no matter of seemingly irrational they may be, one can anticipate and deal wit ht he steps that country will take to get them. Example: North Korea looks like a basket case, but the objectives of its leaders (supreme power and security) is gained by rational steps (isolation to keep populace down and the development, but not use of, nuclear weapons).
Racist or Bigoted
Cab.
You are either a racist who thinks thinks that Persians are inherently likely to be irrational; or you are a bigot who thinks that Muslims are inherently likely to be irrational.
Pick your stupidity.
It appears to me that Iran has behaved far more rationally than the United States over the last thirty years.
Take for example the way Iran AIDED the United States in deposing the Taliban given the way the Taliban had previously killed Shias in Mazar-e-Sharif.
This seems eminently rational behavior - you work with the big angry guy to get rid of the little gnat in your back yard.
Iran has also behaved rationally by engaging in an oil pipe-line deal with Pakistan and India (a Sunni and a Hindu state).
It clearly seeks to maximize power. And maximization of power - or selfishness - is the most rational thing there is.
Cab asked "What if Iran isn't
Cab asked "What if Iran isn't rational"? The last NEI on Iran said Iran was rational on nukes and foreign policy. We invade a nation that was no threat to us, while giving Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda a Get Out Of Jail Free card at Tora Bora. We occupy Iraq with no plan, and no idea of what to do.
Now, which country is not acting rationally?
Do you think our country is not acting rationally?
Surely you must know that not all the Occupied Territories are in the Middle East! So it made perfect sense to decimate Iraq, Israel's strongest foe, and sow the seeds of strife between Sunni and Shia throughout the Arab World. That'll keep them busy for generations while Israel creates more "facts on the ground." It just doesn't make sense if you assume that America's foreign policy is dictated by people who have America's interest first and foremost.
Realpolitik is Dead
Professor Walt:
You should touch on the larger question.
Real Politik is dead. Our FP is governed by Ideology.
Warren fits into that picture.
Well maybe he doesn't care
Well maybe he doesn't care about Warren's foreign policy views, since no one else really does. It's unreasonable to expect everyone Obama interacts or works with to share all his foreign policy views, especially when they are not themselves at all involved in foreign policy.
I doubt all his foreign policy associates agree with all his positions on domestic policy. Would you praise, or criticize, Obama if he refused to deal with a foreign policy realist because he didn't also believe in a welfare state, or support his stimulus package?
not just Iran -- Africa too --
Max Blumenthal has written about what he's doing and who he's supporting there -- http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/
(that's at daily beast -- i don't know if links work here)
And he's apparently also involved in the schism in the Anglican Church too.