(This has been diaried already over here but I don't think this received enough attention.)
(X-posted at The Albany Project)
With idiot conservatives questioning the point of making a stirring, beautiful speech to win over the hearts and minds in the Muslim world, it looks like those efforts to nudge public opinion are already bearing fruit:
NY Times: U.S.-Backed Alliance Appears to Win in Lebanon
An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.
more on the flip
Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.
So wooing minds in the Muslim world has helped tip an election towards a pro-western coalition in a notoriously divided Lebanon.
When I try to sometimes wrap my head around what about conservative thinking bothers me so much, it comes down to this:
conservatives care more about means than ends.
This case is the perfect example. The end in this particular foreign policy issue is weaken the strength of violent extremest forces in islamic countries. Obama thinks that by opening up dialogue with the region and improving America's image in those countries is the best way to achieve that end. The same parallel can be made with the torture debate; for Conservatives, torture was never about getting good intelligence- it was about satisfying a gut emotional reaction for revenge after 9/11 by inflicting pain on people who look like the ones on the planes.
But conservatives aren't really interested if that end is achieved. They are more interested in having means that look cool on TV and that satisfy a gut emotional craving to just do something, goddamit, like making the Bagdad sky light up with the force of American airpower. Anything short of that just isn't getting the job done, because something in their minds lacks the capacity to make the cognitive leap that soft power can sometimes be much better at achieving the end they profess to care about.
Obama just achieved a significant end, and conservative heads are exploding because they just cannot compute how. I can't wait to see their reaction when the Iranians toss out Ahmadinejad in a week.
Thankfully, Obama has the ability to see the big picture, and a small part of that picture just got a whole lot brighter today.
UPDATE: Is it happening in Iran also?
The presidential campaign, now in its final week, has reached a level of passion and acrimony almost unheard-of in Iran.
In part, that appears to be because of a surge of energy in the campaign of Mir Hussein Moussavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad in the election, set for Friday. Rallies for Mr. Moussavi have drawn tens of thousands of people in recent days, and a new unofficial poll suggests his support has markedly increased, with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Update 2 Wow, rec list- thanks all! Also to respond to several commentators who are skeptical that Obama created some massive shift in the Lebanese electorate, I just want to clarify that I don't think Obama created some seismic shift. This election was polling Bush-Gore close, and all that was needed to tip the balance either way was 1 or 2 percentage points, and that's all I'm possibly attributing to Obama. But in an election this close, it may have well been decisive and that's a good thing.
Also I'm certainly no fan of parts of the coalition that won- the pro-western element in Lebanon also has several skeletons in their closets, but I just think on balance they are better than Hezbollah.
Update 3 I'm flattered to recieve a shout-out by an Akido master!
Update 4 I know a lot of you are skeptical about the effect Obama may or may not have had, but I'm not the not the only one saying this:
It is hard to draw firm conclusions from one election. But for the first time in a long time, being aligned with the United States did not lead to defeat in the Middle East. And since Lebanon has always been a critical testing ground, that could mark a possibly significant shift in regional dynamics with another major election, in Iran, on Friday.
With Mr. Obama’s speech on relations with Muslims still fresh in Lebanese minds, analysts point to steps the administration has taken since assuming office.
Washington is now proposing talking to Hezbollah’s patrons, Iran and Syria, rather than confronting them — a move that undermines the group’s attempt to demonize the United States. The United States is also no longer pressing its allies in the Lebanese government to unilaterally disarm Hezbollah, which, given the party’s considerable remaining clout, could have provoked a crisis.
“Lebanon is a telling case,” said Osama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies here. “It is no longer relevant for the extremists to use the anti-American card. It does look like the U.S. is moving on to something new.”
And for all you who accused me of "Rah-rah triumphalism," if you think it's in the world's interests to have Hezbollah running Lebanon and the US is the problem, I think it's time to check your heads.