William Kristol and Michael Makovsky want you to believe
they know history and what to do with it. They also want you to believe that
President Barack Obama wouldn't know history or what to do with it even if he bothered
to learn something about it.
If you ask why this would be the case, you'll find the
answer in the latest article they wrote jointly. It came under the title: “The
Costanza Approach,” and was published on April 2, 2016 in the online edition of
the Weekly Standard. In their view, they know two things that Obama does not.
First, they know what would have happened, had Barack Obama not “precipitously”
withdrawn from Iraq .
Second they know what would have happened had Clement Attlee not been Prime
Minister of Britain for a number of years.
The two authors want you to believe that Britain and not America would still be the
superpower of the day. But if not, America
would still be in the driver's seat in the Middle East
today.
Here is what they say about Britain :
“When Churchill returned to power, he restored some measure of Britain 's world position, through reversing
Attlee's anti-Israel policy, restoring closer ties with the United States , and making Britain a
nuclear power. But the damage of the Attlee years was essentially done. But at
least, the United States was
there to take the baton from Britain ”.
And here is what they say about Iraq : “President Obama has sought
from the beginning to reverse many aspects of American foreign policy. He
believes it vital that we seek to reassure enemies while focusing on diplomacy without
resort to threats such as sanctions and military action. The key is to reassure
enemies: In the Middle East it meant a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq ”.
Having reassured the readers they know history and what would
have happened “if only...” they now make their slam dunk philosophical point.
Are you ready for it? Here it is: “In an episode of Seinfeld, George Costanza
concludes that every instinct he's had, every decision he's made, has been
wrong and that he should do the opposite of what he had been doing. He
implements this new philosophy and promptly manages to entice an attractive
woman to go out with him. He then gets a job with the New York Yankees.” Their
view is that President Obama should do the opposite of what his instinct and
intellect tell him to do.
What precisely would that be? Well, they don't exactly say
what that would be, but they refer the readers to the episode of the Seinfeld
show. So we ask: “how did George Costanza manage to entice a woman to go out
with him?” And they answer: “By introducing himself as unemployed and living
with his parents.” And we ask: “How did he manage to get a job with the New
York Yankees?” And they answer: “By telling off its imperious and temperamental
owner”.
Lovely, we say, and we start fantasizing how this can be
implemented in the real world of today. So we ask: Who might be the nations
that would represent the attractive woman? Could they be the Cayman
Islands ? Dubai ?
Singapore ?
Should President Obama try to entice them joining the perfect union that is the
United States of America ?
And who would be the temperamental emperors running their jurisdictions with an
iron fist? Could they be Russia ?
China ?
Iran ?
North Korea ?
Should President Obama tell them off and then ask them for a job when he leaves
the White House? Say, Secretary General of the United Nations?
Enough of that because we need to get serious now. What do
Kristol and Makovsky think Obama is doing? Here is their answer in their own
words: “Obama's doctrine consists of simplistic ideas that emerge from a
shallow and ideological disdain for the American past. Consider this passage
from Obama: 'We have history in Iran ,
we have history in Indonesia
and Central America . So we have to be mindful
of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the
source of other people's suspicions.' Obama has always betrayed a slim and
selective knowledge of American history”.
Well, well, well; do you realize what the two Jewish
characters just said? They said to understand history does not mean knowing
what happened in the past, or drawing conclusions from that. It means to
speculate on “what would have happened if only...” Also to draw inspiration
from TV shows based on “nothing situations”.