Political Backtracking is Risky; In Diplomacy, It is Fatal

On the defensive for his willingness to meet global sponsors of terrorism, the Obama campaign sent out Obama and his surrogates to do damage control. Tom Daschle, Susan Rice and Bill Richardson made the rounds on the networks. Daschle worked the morning shift, Rice the day shift and Richardson the evening shift. Obama just dug some more. Let’s just hope none of these people ever get that 3:00 AM phone call.

ABC News reports on Obama’s backtracking:

The Obama campaign is now offering a more nuanced approach that would not necessarily include a presidential meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — and that stresses diplomatic work that would take place before any such meetings take place.

Asked about Obama’s original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate — and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

“I would not say that we would meet unconditionally,” said Daschle. “Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. … ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.”

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama’s meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

“He said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be,” Rice said on CNN. “It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time — not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”

Really? The appropriate leaders? You mean like the Ayotollahs perhaps? Perhaps Iran’s spiritual leader instead, the Ayotollah Khomeini? Who is Rice kidding? The Ayotollah Khomeini may rule Iran but it is the President of Iran who runs the day-to-day government. Unless Obama becomes an Inam, the Ayotollah Khomeini is unlikely to meet him. And do Obama’s advisors think that in any meeting that does place between the President of the United States and the Government of Iran is somehow going to bypass Ahmadinejad? They are more out of touch than I thought. Perhaps no one will catch this, but this is another gaffe by Obama’s surrogates.

As per Daschle’s “of course, there are conditions.” You mean like the time and place? Or how much we have to bend over? Why anyone listens to Daschle is beyond me. He can’t win a Senate seat, so he pins all his hopes on Obama. What job does Daschle want? My guess is Chief of Staff in an Obama Administration. Let’s hope it is not Secretary of State.

Here’s the question and the answer from the the Citadel Debate in Charleston, South Carolina last July:

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them–which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration–is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.

Rice is parsing and backtracking for her boss. Why now is the question. It must be hurting his numbers. For nine months, Obama has held firm on this point. In recent campaign events, he continues to press his case. Even yesterday to Jake Tapper of ABC News, Obama said this:

“I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything,” Obama said. “They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation.”

So the surrogates spin while Obama digs his own political grave. And yet immediately thereafter he adds this:

“I think this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important,” he said. “I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.

“Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don’t even know how much power he is going to have a year from now,” he added. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran. And my expectation, obviously, would be to meet with those people who can actually make decisions in terms of actually having them stand down on nuclear weapons or stopping funding [of] Hamas or Hezbollah or meddling in the affairs of Iraq.”

The problem for Obama is that in the nomination process, Iraq was the focus and while that may be a focus in the general election, Iran and Venezuela are bound to come up more frequently. And McCain has the advantage because he has nine months of gaffes including his recent “Iran is a grave threat versus Iran doesn’t pose a serious threat” debate with himself.

And just as historical side note, Reagan did meet with the Soviets. He didn’t meet publically with Libyans nor the Iranians (well at least not after taking office). But probably just escaped you that back-channel diplomacy is a common practice. The Swiss handle our interests in Tehran for example. It is hard to believe that Obama actually sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Here’s what the Baltimore Sun has to say on the subject:

Good luck with that backfilling, senator. The problem for Obama here is that he probably erred by accepting the premise of the question from a voter at last July’s CNN/YouTube debate, that is, a meeting without preconditions in the first year.

Even people without foreign-policy credentials knew Obama’s answer would expose him to the very argument McCain is making now.

Obama had the misfortune of being asked the question first, which didn’t give him the time to play off the answer of one his fellow presidential contenders. If you reread the exchange, you can see that Clinton realized immediately that Obama had stepped in it and foreshadowed the McCain campaign.

Poor Obama, he had to answer the question first. He couldn’t parrot what seasoned foreign policy experts would said the answer Clinton gave:

CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy.

And what’s more galling to me is that Obama continues to contend that when it comes to foreign policy he has the most expertise. That foreign affairs are his core competency. If so, then why is he in this mess with McCain pounding away and scoring points and perhaps knock out blows in May, five months before the election, amongst core constituencies that Obama has to win in order to have a chance such as the Jewish vote.

But the damage is done, in my view. Ahmadinejad and Chávez already know that if Obama is elected and Obama will talk to them then what reason do they have to modify their behaivour. Having not even secured the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama’s gaffes have already set back American foreign policy. And backtracking in politics is never really good, it is rather risky after all a gaffe is a gaffe but in diplomacy, bactracking is fatal.