On Second Thought: Obama on Foreign Policy
The Facts on the Ground
- With the McChrystal report seeking more troops, the Obama Administration’s commitment to winning the “real war on terror” is wavering.
- The Obama Administration has traded away a controversial Bush initiative to construct a missile defense shield based in Poland and Czech Republic giving way to Russian objections, and angering 2 loyal allies
- Russia reports that the Israeli government has assured Mssrs. Putin and Medveyev that they do not intend to attack Iran
- The Administration is backing the claims of former President Zelaya of Honduras who was removed from office for attempting to overturn the Honduran constitution’s term limit provision, and install himself for a third term.
- Iran continues a policy of snubbing the United States. The Obama Administration has been unable to build an effective deterrent to Iranian nuclear ambitions.
- Libya (with whom diplomatic relations was recently restored) publicly celebrated the release of Lockerbie terrorist Ahbdelbaset Ali Ai-Megrahi as a hero.
- Fidel Castro, from his supposed deathbed has called friendliness between Obama and brother Raul at the Americas Summit as overblown. He will not discuss or negotiate with the Obama Administration on what he considers internal Cuban matters (such as freedoms and civil rights)
- Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has invited the Russian military to use its territory for re-supply and logistics.
- Mexico is descending into narco-anarchy.
Overview
TPP has been slow to jump on the Obama Administration in the area of foreign policy. This has been for two reasons. The first is that as Americans, we can fight among ourselves, but our differences are supposed to end at the water’s edge. There is a tradition in this nation of generally backing the President on his foreign policy initiatives unless they prove to be wrong. The second is that we wanted to see how President Obama’s “new tone” would work out. From the starting gate, Obama had the same message for all – that he sought friendship and a new start with any nation that approached in good will – or, we can keep doing it “Bush-style” if there was no good will. Seemed to be a pretty brilliant strategy – giving the opportunity for those nations who bore us ill will to accept a hand of friendship because the hated GWB was gone.
We are now several months into this strategy and it seems that it’s business as usual in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. Vladimir Putin is more vigorously flexing his muscles, as is China. Europe is essentially pulling back and scaling back cooperation in Afghanistan. Newsbites out of France and Germany report back as Obama being considered a “lightweight” by those countries respective leaders. Gordon Brown and QE2 over in Britain have both been dismayed with what has happened to the “special” relationship between them and the US. Pakistan is no longer a happy accomplice, and India is snubbing Obama on “climate change”. Israel is sending messages of intent out through Russia, and Libya is back with the crazies, as proven by Khaddafi’s rant at the UN. So to recap, our enemies are still our enemies, only worse; and we’ve managed to be dismissed as irrelevant by our allies. This is not what most observers would call a successful foreign policy. One would think that it was time to move ahead with the original plan.
To that end, we think, President Obama gave a speech of platitudes about nuclear proliferation last week at the UN. A resolution passed unanimously seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons. This is nonsensical wishful thinking. Once something has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. Once a weapon is created, it can never be uncreated. It has never happened in the history of the world. While it is a noble idea, people will always protect themselves with whatever is available for maximum possible protection – to deter aggression against themselves. That goes for the merchant who’s store is located in a bad neighborhood, or countries with governments desiring to hold power. To borrow from the NRA – if nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, the only thing keeping it from using it against us is the knowledge that their attack will be visited back on them a hundred times over. This goes for North Korea and even our “buddy” Pakistan. Our concern in nuclear proliferation is our own fear that unsecured nuclear material will end up with the enemy with no borders and no targets to bomb in retaliation. If Iran really wants to go nuclear, and is willing to put up with the sanctions, there’s not a whole lot that we or any other country or group of countries can do about it – short of invading and taking those weapons away. Even that is only a delaying tactic. Hitler rose out of a crushed and disarmed Germany, and caused far more trouble than the Kaiser.
It has been proven countless times that peace is gained by strength. Diplomacy has it’s value – it provides for governments with vested interests but shared concerns to negotiate terms that provide an agreed to settlement between the parties. This can be done between any groups of nations who negotiate in good faith. Many times the threat of war is used as a negotiating tool – it is a very effective one, but only if the party facing the prospect of war believes that war will occur in absence of compliance to the agreed terms. It is wasted on governments that do not believe that war will occur if the agreement is violated. Hitler and Stalin would not be reasoned with – they signed agreements, and then ignored them. Hitler was finally taken on by Churchill and FDR, dragging their respective countries along. Stalin and the Soviets met with a cold war that lasted nearly 50 years, and did little to improve the lives within Soviet borders. It was when the Kremlin (and our European allies) believed that former President Reagan was willing to go to war, that accommodation was made to our concerns. Fortunately, none of our current trouble spots in the world rise to the threat of Hitler or Stalin. No military superpower threatens us - yet; but there are serious threats out there. We all know the players – regional powers looking to up their game, rising potential superpowers, former superpowers looking for a rematch. All can damage our allies and us in their own unique way. All seek to assert themselves, and all have rebuffed the hand that America has offered in friendship through Obama. For further diplomacy to have any results, it must come from a position of strength. There must be real and severe consequences for regimes that threaten the US and what allies we have left. We’re not talking a nasty letter from the UN, or further incremental resolutions. All of the current players have had numerous UN resolutions and sanctions held against them. They do not care because those who hold the power do not suffer for their actions, and they know that the UN is a poor tool for enforcing it’s own resolutions. Unilateral action by the United States, while always received with a sigh of relief among most nations, also draws repeated criticism from those same nations.
Common Sense Dictates
Common sense dictates a new alliance of military powers – based on the same assumptions as the economic alliances of G-8 and G-20. This can take the form of a reconstituted UN Security Council (created as the enforcement mechanism for peace, but seldom effective in that role) or a new outside alliance. It should consist of the top 5 or 6 military powers in the world, and act as a joint police force when trouble arises. This is generally considered to include the United States, China, Russia, India, the UK and Brazil. A general round up of the top 10 would include France, Germany and Japan, but all 3 of those governments shy away from committing troops to battle, and a position of strength would require an understanding to commit troops. Its first task would be to negotiate a solution from a position of absolute and unarguable strength. Its second mission would be to provide a credible enforcement mechanism to negotiated settlements. Its final mission would be to enforce those settlements. The structure would allow for member countries to use regional influence to attain global security goals. Though politics will inevitably enter into an alliance such as this, the organization must maintain the role of “honest broker” to achieve effectiveness. That is the lofty dream goal – maybe attainable, maybe not.
In the meantime, if the Obama Administration wants to be a player on the world stage, it’s time to take the gloves off and get to work on the second part of the original formula. It’s nice to be liked, but it’s more important to be respected. The hand wringing and apologizing for the United States has got to stop. If we have vital interests, the must be pursued without apology. George W Bush may not have been well liked on the global stage, but our allies respected him. Our enemies may not have respected him, but they feared him. With regards to the national security of the United States, that’s not a bad place to be. The vacillation needs to stop as well. If one speech has the President vowing that winning in Afghanistan was vital, and days later he is unwilling to commit troops to accomplish that stated goal, the result will be our apparent weakness and indecision on the world stage. No one wants to follow anyone who appears lost. No one will commit to anyone who refuses to commit himself – in actions as well as words. A perception of weakness does not project strength, the strength that is required to win peace. Common sense dictates that President Obama gets his act together, speak with a sure voice, and act in concert with his words. Only then will he be accorded the respect due an American President on the world stage.
RLB
Categories: National Security, Foreign Affairs, political leadership
Tags: national security foreign policy
I just don't know anymore - apparently he thinks the weight of the Presidency belongs behind Chicgo's bid for the Olympics, but not the Afghan War, mid-east peace, Iranian nukes or Russia expansionism. Looks like he's more into the TV ops than real work.
Reply to this
I was going along with his approach at the beginning - toning down the rhetoric and saber-rattling. Bush and Cheney got a little overboard with that. Being a nice, reasonable guy isn't working out all that well either - especially when he's offering American security issues in trade for Russian or Chinese or Cuban favors. He should have hired some foreign policy people more qualified than Hillary - the lack of experience is showing. McChrysta is a lone voice in the wilderness - and I don't see a savior in either Gates or Obama
Reply to this
I think that after years of the Bush "my way or the highway" attitude, it's going to take awhile for other countries to get the idea that we're serious abut giving respect to other nations. There's nothing wrong in giving it some more time. Like it says, we only have potential threats right now - there's still time to win hearts and minds.
Reply to this
Normally I don't give too much rhought to what's overseas, but so much of our economy rolls around out there. Right now jobs are tight and money is tighter, people are still losing homes and there's no credit to be had unless you don't need it. As I read it China owns most of our debt. If the Chinese aren't taking President Obama seriously they could really flush the country by calling in our debt. That will be even more serious trouble here.
Reply to this
When other countries get confused about our diplomacy, we are the ones who suffer for it. It happened under Carte with the USSR and Iran, under Bush the first in Iraq, and under Clinton in Afghanistan, Somalia and in the terrorist threat. Reagan got bit in Iran-Contra, and even the Soviets didn't know what to make of Nixon's detente. We need to be crystal clear on our policies, or trouble follows. When the waters are muddied we get suprised by the dangers. Obama needs to step it up. We have real enemies out there, and I don't think he believes that.
Reply to this
Well, we did a sit down with Iran today, and the next stalliung session has begun. I hear that there's a congressman who has a bill to introduce the new sanctions first, and talk later. It's a great idea. The last time we talked first, it lasted for 4 years. We got nothing and Iran got the ability to enrich uranium. Seems like a bad deal to me.
Reply to this
I think the thing that has me wondering the most is that since September 11 there was the occasional terrorist plot uncovered, and now we've had 5 in one week. I can't believe that suddenly the FBI got so much better at it's job, so I have to believe that Obama's "hand of friendship" is seen as weakness among the terrorists. Combine that will what looks like an unwillingness to get the job done in Afghanistan, and it has me worried that we're going to lose any of the advantage that we've gained over the past few years. Next thing you know, Iraq will drop into chaos, and Obama won't do anything - then we get attacked again and he goes "Oops - trying my best! It's the last guy's fault!" - Hey, the last guy kept us safe.
Reply to this
Just read a report on AP that said there was an attempted assasination of a Saudi prince who headed up the anti-terroism ministry there. A terrorist calls to turn himself in if the prince will meet with him. He's got a bomb hidden in his underwear and blows it at the meeting. Terrorist dead, prince not so much. But this terrorist went through 2 airport security checks - plastic explosive in a plastic container - no way to detect it with the technology available in most airports. This doesn't look good.
Reply to this
This is "Carter II" - "if we're just nice to them, they'll like us" - we might as well elect Sally Field as president if this is what we're going to pursue as policy. Dangerously naive is an understatement.
Reply to this
Look, you have to talk to them - we've already got two wars going, so we can't use the military to force Iran to stop with the nukes. We have to convince them that they don't need them.
Reply to this
It's not a case of need in Iran - it's a case of want. I don't need a million dollars, but I certainly want it. No one is going to talk them out of anything - as was proved with the talks from 2002 - 2006. Rayneman had it right - they use talking as a diversion while they keep working on the thing that we're trying to discourage. Some people can't be reasoned with - they must be compelled. By force if necessary.
Reply to this
So tne Great O can't even deliver an Olympics to Chicago. Can't wait til he sits across the table from a snickering Kim-Jong Il or Ahmadinnerjacket. Can't wait til the Osama commentary tape comes out... What a farce.
Reply to this
Oh, come on! One thing has nothing to do with the other. What do you suggest he should do - threaten to invade Copenhagen?
Reply to this
Invade Copenhagen? He doesn't even want to up troop levels in Afghanistan! Since I have to clarify a point, there's not another national leader of any nation of standing that has made a personal appeal to the olympic committee and been directly slapped in the face before he leaves town. The olympics themselves are not the important thing. It is the fact that he is not respected abroad. The Europeans think he's a joke, Iran and N. Korea think he's weak. He's already stabbed Israel, Poland and the Czechs in their collective backs. All he does is suck up to gangster regimes and lecture our friends. It's an embarrassment. Bring back Bush. Hell, bring back Bubba. Bring on 2012 and a replacemnt.
Reply to this
I wonder how the President can have such determined commitment to questionable ideas on healthcare and energy, and be so non-committal on matters of national security. The one place that the President has almost unlimited power is as Commander-in-Chief at a time of war. Afghanistan is obvious - if he's not going to give the commanders sufficient troop levels to accomplish the mission that he gave, then he should scrap the mission. To do otherwise is to ask young men and women to die for a half-assed plan. We had that in Vietnam. You would think someone in government might have some experience with that and speak up. Like maybe John McCain. Oh, right - he's to busy making nice with the left. Whatever happened to the war hero?
Reply to this
Maybe he is weighing the decision to go in deeper because he wants to make sure that those he sends into harm's way are going for a mission that will actually work. I know that I'd want to make absolutely sure that the plan in place will work before I send someone's son or daughter out to possible make the ultimate sacrifice.
Reply to this
Not for nothing, but McChrystal is his hand picked general, who had THIS plan when Obama picked him. He already committed to this plan that it seems like he's uncommitting to. Where was all of this careful thought when he put McChrystal in place?
Reply to this
This goes back to something I've been saying for a long time. Obama doesn't do his homework - be it fact checking for speeches, vetting his staff, or commenting on legislation or current events. He just goes off unprepared and this is the result. Had he done his homework on Afghanistan, we might not be facing the need for more troops. If he did his homework on Iran, we might not be powerless to stop their nukes now. If he hadn't been such a "friendly guy" Castro, Chavez and the European leadership might not consider him such a lightweight. It's as if he thinks that now that he's President he can just wish stuff into being. Someone needs to wipe the fairy dust from his eyes. I just hope it doesn't come at the price of American lives. Mr. President - DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Reply to this
So the Big O wins the Nobel Peace Prize? For what? He hasn't done anything. What is wrong with the world?
Reply to this
Ok, I like him and I don't even understand this one. He has some great ideas, but he hasn't accomplished them yet. It seems weird.
Reply to this
In the article that I read on MSNBC, it says the committee awarded him the pirze to encourage his efforts. That's sort of like scoring an "A" for showing up. Bad precedent.
Reply to this
Well, a socialist country will reward a promoter of socialist policies - nothing surprising there. It's sad to see what used to be a great honor suddenly become a joke. It would be different if Obama actually did something - but all he's done is talk and trash-talk. I'll bet Bill Clinton is fit to be tied - he's been busting his butt to get one, and Gore and Obama both show him up. Guess that's the silver lining.
Reply to this
I see it even more basic than that. Obama is being rewarded for taking America down a few notches, so that "old europe" can feel like they still have some power. In truth they are fat, sorry welfare states dependent on the United States to provide their defense because their populations are to busy taking holidays to bother. With the exception of Britain, they haven't been relevant since WWI. I say let them take Obama as president, and let's try again with someone who will put America first. That's sort of the job description for the President.
Reply to this
That's just paranoid and worthy of a conspiracy theorist. I take the Nobel committee at their word - that this is to encourage all leaders to take this approach to engaging with other nations. It happens so seldom that it needs to be rewarded when it does occur.
Reply to this
Yeah, his growth on the international stage leaves a lot to be desired. It's bad enough when you put the prestige of the Presidency on the line for a Climate Change conference or the Olympics, but to go to an official summit and come away with nothing is embarrassing to the country. These things are supposed to be pre-staged to deliver a positive result for all the leaders. He still isn't doing his homework. No wonder we aren't taken seriously abroad.
Reply to this
I don't understand how you can go to a world photo op, where everything is supposed to be pre-negotiated for signatures and not delver something. Either Obama doesn't understand the importance of getting results, or he is just getting constantly dissed by other world leaders. Either way is bad for the USA.
Reply to this
I'm not usually one to just jump on to the Obama bashers. He's let me down in a lot of ways. Still, this is a gathering of 20 countries, out of which we are the only one still billing itself as a superpower. Really, what do we expect China or India to do, kiss our ring? Don't they hold all of our national debt? How willing would you be to put up with an attitude from your unemployed brother living in your spare room and looking for beer money 3 times a day? I'm not surprised they won't do what we INSIST on. I'd tell us to take a hike too.
Reply to this
We know the conservatives see everything in black and white and the liberals always call things good or bad. The world doesn't work either way, and President Obama is finding that out the hard way. There are ideas that he thinks are good, and others disagree. He's trying to promote his vision, but he really lacks the ability to convince people to follow. It's almost like he is stuck in campaign mode and doesn't understand why it isn't working on the other leaders of the world. He needs to get a grip or his Presidency is going to fail.
Reply to this
If, as they say, the President of the United states is the most powerful man in the world, Obama is proving by his lack of results on the international stage to be either naive or totally inept. Both are dangerous to the welbeing of the country.
Reply to this
The ultimate triumph of style over substance, til style meets substance. The way he got bent over, I imagine he'll be standing for the whole flight back on Air Force One.
Reply to this