Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 2:08 AM

I know I declared a mercy rule on Herman Cain, but two developments have created a one-time exception. First, Cain sent up the first signal that he might drop out of the race. Second, he delivered a foreign policy speech while adding a "paper" and a "brochure" to his campaign website. And I just can't quit Herman Cain -- the man has provided way too much fodder for this blog to simply let him fade away. So, for old time's sake -- one last post!!
There's little in the way of an overarching strategic vision or discussion of cross-cutting issues (though, to be fair, that could have been in the speech itself which, according to NRO's John J. Miller, "was curiously light on substance."). The paper is really just a list of twenty countries, the labels Herman Cain applies to them, and then a paragraph or two of whatever his interns could find on Wikipedia description. Some examples of the labels:
Mexico: "Friend and Partner"
Canada: "Friend and Ally"
Brazil: "Friend"
Russia: "Rival"
Iran: "Adversary Regime"
Afghanistan: "Strategic Partner"
Pakistan: "Danger and Opportunity"
India: "Strategic Partner"
China: "Competitor"
I'm only disappointed that the Cain campaign wasn't more thorough and imaginative with its countries. Some suggestions:
Chile: "Strategic, mountainous ally"
Turkey: "Sultry Minx"
Saudi Arabia: "Ask John Bolton"
Lebanon: "Good kebabs"
Hawaii: "This one's ours, right?"
Uzbekistan: "Wait, that's a real country?"
As for the countries Cain does talk about, well, some highlights suggest that outdated Wikipedia entries Cain's staff might have needed another draft:
Germany is a key figure in Europe’s economy. It has risen to the daunting challenge of keeping the euro afloat in troubled financial times – no small feat....
Russia’s insistence on the New START Treaty has put the U.S.A. at a distinct disadvantage, not only relative to Russia, but also to the world’s other nuclear powers.
Mr. Cain sheds no tears for Colonel Gaddafi, who personally ordered the killing of Americans. However, the White House launched the war in Libya under the Obama Doctrine of the “responsibility to protect.” The question now is: “protect whom?” The Libyan rebellion-turned-government has been aided by al Qaeda, and it is dominated by Islamists that have not been friendly to U.S. interests. Also, despite the fact that Libya is more of a vital interest to Europe than it is to America, (Europe buys 90% of Libya’s oil and it would be Europe that would be overwhelmed in any refugee crisis), President Obama spent more than a billion dollars on this adventure and led the initial military action. As president, Mr. Cain will work to bring clarity to the Libyan situation....
Under President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt was a friend. With Mubarak shoved out by Arab Spring protests -- with help from President Obama -- Egypt could be a nightmare unfolding.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which was determined to be a terrorist organization under Mubarak, is poised to pick up a sizable number of seats in Parliamentary elections. Though in office too long, at least Mubarak maintained peace with Israel, which polls show 90% of Egyptians oppose. Now we’re seeing the results, with cross-border attacks on Israeli civilians, the ransacking of Israel’s embassy in Cairo, opening up the border to a terrorist organization in Gaza, and open season on Coptic Christians, with churches being burned and mobs on killing sprees.
Egypt is an example of the pressing need for the clarity that Mr. Cain will bring to U.S. foreign policy....
Mr. Cain’s overall strategy for our chief economic competitor is this: Outgrow China. His economic policies will unleash the growth potential of the U.S. economy and transcend the threat from China. (emphasis added)
There's more, but you get the drift. As you can see, for a number of countries, Cain's paper lists concerns and then says Cain will bring "clarity" to the issue -- without saying exactly what that means in terms of policy. In other words, Cain keeps calling for carity in an unclear manner.
In other places, the paper simply gets its facts wrong (cough, Germany, cough) or proposes fantastical solutions (cough, China, cough). There are plenty of other mistakes (check out the Yemen section), but I'll let the readers find them in the comments.
To conclude, Herman Cain managed to hire some of the worst campaign interns ever to produce this dud of a document.
Herman, I swear....
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
I would suggest that Mr. Cain drastically rethink that part on Egypt. In the order of misleading or blatantly wrong:
1. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood isn't much of a terrorist organization, has been consistently peaceful for decades and was the only 'tolerated' opposition in Egypt prior to 2011 where it did actually lead some disagreement with Mubarak (and was occasionally repressed). Some portions of the group are fairly conservative, but to be honest I don't see much difference between those conservative elements and some far-right elements of the Republican party.
2. The attacks on Israelis have not been shown to have any real links (to my knowledge) with the Muslim Brotherhood.
3. The attacks on Coptic Christians occurred before 2011, were effectively ignored by the Egyptian government prior to 2011 as well and I don't know of anything clearly linking the Muslim Brotherhood to them.
The said part is that I know several recent graduates who actually could write something better than that.
I'd fail you both; what you're giving is simply the leftist interpretation of the Muslim Brotherhood. Official US policy until this year was to suspend ties with the Brotherhood because of their suspected terrorist activity. That is simple fact. You can say that we should not have done this, but that is opinion. They have also discussed ending the peace treaty with Israel. On the other hand, we are going to have to work with them, so it's simplistic of Cain to say they are just terrorists and move on.
Looks like we're going to have a real-world test, as it seems the Brotherhood is going to be running Egypt in the near future; unfortunately, history shows that the leftist interpretation of these movements in nearly always wrong (cf. the 'moderate' Ayatollah Khomeini).
Gingrich is the second coming of W.T. Fields, the bulb-nosed saloon-scene-gent of Hollywood's 1920's...aed
There goes my dream of free pizza Fridays countrywide...
Herman Cain signed up to run for President. If he is, fundamentally, an idiot, the GOP primary voters really need to know. If Cain withdraws, he can get all the mercy he wants from the electorate. (His wife, OTOH, might be a different matter.)
I mean, really, a LIST of countries with a cheat sheet description? I don't think this would be acceptable as a sixth grade social sciences paper.
Yeah, a lot of it is stupid and willfully ignorant. But taken as a whole, I think it is no more willfully ignorant than the James Surowiecki column you criticized in the previous post.
when someone can't hack it in a race with some of the most insane, useless and outright retarded candidates ever put on a ballot.
The Cain Train was light on the brain and is now going down the drain. Who am I to complain?
when someone can't hack it in a race with some of the most insane, useless and outright retarded candidates ever put on a ballot.
The Cain Train was light on the brain and is now going down the drain. Who am I to complain?
The United Kingdom is described as "our closest ally for nearly two centuries" - just wow. Now maybe we have a different meaning of "nearly," but seriously - two hundred years takes one back to 1812.
I guess that whole burning of Washington DC was what, foreign assistance with redecorating?
The Battle of New Orleans an example of friendly fire?
Maybe the whole British assistance to the Confederacy was just a form of tough love?
The "special relationship" isn't called that until 1946, although is somewhat valid to push back almost 150 years to the 1870s, certainly no earlier than 1859. I don't know about the everyone, but 50 years is a pretty significant chunk of time to me.
We also had issues with Britain after the Civil War. There was talk of war with Britain in the 1890s when Britain threatened Venezuela. At the time, Lodge and Teddy Roosevelt wanted to invade Canada.
But hey, maybe Cain has another definition for the word ally.
I also notice that he wants four dozen Aegis warships to deal with Iran and four dozen Aegis warships to deal with North Korea. Is that the same four dozen in two places at once or two sets of four dozen?
My point was that on that simple a point (he had heard of the War of 1812, one hopes) he was so clearly ignorant, lazy, or deliberately misleading.
On the Civil War period - yes, deploying British forces to Canada to invade the US is, I suppose a "special relationship," but not one I would think we want to foster.
I do think back on Tom Lehrer's intro to MLF Lullaby (1965) where he mentions the idea that a NATO-held nuclear deterrent would be fine because it would include "...our current friends like France and our traditional friends like Germany."
Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen
"President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been battling Iranian-backed rebels in the north."
Oh really, I thought Saleh and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad were golfing buddies. Hasn't Saleh been one of the most outspoken supporters of Iran's nuclear power program? Didn't Saleh go running to Iran when the Sunni minority starting kicking up their heels in Sana'a.
Poor Hermy...so confused.
Sorry Claw's, you are just plain wrong. As poor an analysis as Cain presents on Yemen, that part is right. Although Saleh is a Shi'ite, he has battled the northern Houthi insurgency for years. The group is Zaydi Shi'a, and although the exent of the relationship is unclear, we do believe Iran is its primary foreign sponsor. Saudi Arabia and Iran constantly battle for influence in the country... (take note of where the Shi'ite Saleh went for treatment, recovery, and to sign his transition agreement following the assassination attempt on him in June) and the Houthis are Iran's primary client in combatting Saudi influence in Yemen.
Funny that an obscure black Democratic candidate a few years ago never had his foreign policy smarts subjected to any kind of heat by a slobbering liberal-bias news media, huh? Double standards? Not HALF.......
Don't get me going on the double standards surrounding sexual allegations for Democratic versus Republican.
3 AM phone call? Lack of experience (in stuff like foreign policy) was the main criticism leveled against Obama. But he had the charisma to give people confidence in his leadership. And he was intelligent, which doesn't hurt. And he went on a tour of Europe without embarrassing himself.
And the double standard with sexual allegations, if it exists at all, has more to do with the fact that the Republican base lives comfortably in moral hypocrisy than any sort of media bias. But all Anthony Weiner (for example) ever did is send pictures of his...you know. No one ever reported it, no one has pressed charges, we've got to assume that was all consensual. Does he have a job now? Sexual Harassment is illegal, and shows some questionable character traits. That's not just extramarital sexual activity (although there's some of that too), that's a sex crime. Big difference.
Dan, I've got to encourage you not to limit yourself on Herman Cain. Reading your takedowns of the Republican candidates is one of the few things that cheers me up about this election cycle.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(16)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE