Posted on 03/18/2014 1:59:46 AM PDT by markomalley
What happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 may eventually be discovered, but there is something else that has been missing for much longe,r and its “disappearance” has far greater implications for America. It is our foreign policy. Can anyone say what it is?
With Russia's Vladimir Putin behaving like a modern Catherine the Great in his efforts to annex Crimea and possibly all of Ukraine, what is our policy toward Russia, which is behaving increasingly like its former, supposedly dead, communist self?
In a New York Times op-ed column last week, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain wrote: "Crimea has exposed the disturbing lack of realism that has characterized our foreign policy under President Obama. ... For five years, Americans have been told that ‘the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values. This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative.”
Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a “strong response” by the United States and severe economic sanctions against Russia if Putin proceeds as he has threatened in Ukraine. Whose threats are more credible? Obama has retreated on everything from Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran's nuclear program and his “red line,” which Syria crossed and paid no price when it used chemical weapons against its own people. He has even retreated on domestic policy issues, most glaringly on the individual mandate in the misnamed Affordable Care Act.
Not only does the “emperor” have no clothes, he appears to the world as having no backbone and no guts. It’s not just a question of military power. It is about formulating, articulating and implementing a consistent foreign policy that is credible and produces results in support of U.S. interests.
Somewhere between Ron Paul's isolationism and neocon interventionism is what the U.S. should be modeling to the world. Somewhere between John F. Kennedy's noble but impractical ideal of “pay any price, bear any burden” in the defense of liberty and George McGovern's “Come home, America” is a foreign policy we should pursue. It's up to the president to articulate that policy and then make it credible by consistently acting on it. Kennedy also noted, “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.”
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton spoke last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He said, “Our biggest national security crisis is Barack Obama.” Bolton suggested the president allowed the murderers of America's ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three others to “get away scot-free” after he repeatedly promised they would be brought to justice.
Tyrants, terrorists and dictators watch an indecisive president and take note. Action matters far more than words.
President Obama, perhaps our most self-absorbed chief executive, has said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history.”
Leaving aside his hubris and a debate over whether retreat from the world and pressuring Israel to give up more land to its enemies are accomplishments, what should be concluded from such a ridiculous statement about America's foreign policy?
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has observed: “No foreign policy — no matter how ingenious — has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.”
American foreign policy in 2014 hasn't been born, because under this administration, it does not even appear to have been conceived yet.
Victor Davis Hanson:
".......There will be no Obama Doctrine. More likely we will see a doubling down on reducing U.S. influence — with the end of reshaping a too-prominent global profile, which itself was supposedly a result of unfairly acquired advantage."
Full article: With his presidency in a tailspin, Carter radically changed course. Will Obama do the same?
To lead from behind by weakening the US; militarily, economically and morally.
The left has been saying for 20 years that America is evil and our power, influence and economic impact on the rest of the world must be reduced. Is it really a shock that once in charge they would seek to do just that?
The thing the left expected was that once they were in charge all foreign problems would vanish because those problems were the direct result of America’s power, influence and economic impact. Since those problems have not gone away they conclude that America is still too strong and still has too much influence.
Good article. Thanks for posting, MarkO.
The Obama regime has never had a clue regarding what the foreign policy should be, beyond Obama saying something like ‘if the winds change, I will side with the Muslims’ during his first term apology tour.
He’s selected Hillary as SoS, and she gets a grade of F because she has no positives during her term and permitted the killings in Bengahzi by not providing security.
He now has John F’n Kerry as SoS who has no respect by other countries and continues to oppose Israel’s rights.
Why has this idiot POTUS placed several homosexual Ambassadors in Mulim countries? The one in Lybia is obvious, but later a lezbian was appointed somewhere in the Middle East as well. Others appointed to countries had no knowledge of those countries... they were just big money donors to his campaigns. Obama sucks.
“The left has been saying for 20 years that America is evil and our power, influence and economic impact on the rest of the world must be reduced. Is it really a shock that once in charge they would seek to do just that?”
Could you imagine how strange this must seem to any countries with which we have strong relationships? All of their contingency plans must be adjusted for the absence of the US in any action required.
Who woke Cal up?
“Could you imagine how strange this must seem to any countries with which we have strong relationships? “
Obama has made the world a much less stable place by yanking the American reactor rod out of the pile. If you ran South Korea, Japan, Taiwan or a dozen other countries that depended on the American nuclear umbrella, after Obama’s “response” to the sinking of the Chonan wouldn’t you be developing nuclear weapons? I know I would. Don’t be surprised if China attacks something and suddenly there are simultaneous demonstration tests around the world to demonstrate that now, the various threatened nations can defend themselves.
As I recall, when Obama came to power the academics in charge of the doomsday clock backed it up. I laughed.
Yes, those three countries in particular should set aside their differences and ally themselves to contain Red China. We hardly recognize Taiwan at this point (and that started long before Obama was in the picture).
“APPEARS WEAK”? hahahahahahahahaaha
He IS WEAK and VERY, VERY dangerous to our country.
“Yes, those three countries in particular should set aside their differences and ally themselves to contain Red China.”
I once worked for Tadiran, the Israeli GE. It’s an American owned company now, but the guys I worked with talked about their weapons sales. I strongly suspect that Israel is quietly dealing with some or all; India, Taiwan, Japan and Korea. With their combined expertise and technology they could locally build awesome weapons. Israel has (according to Jimmy Carter) 500 nuclear weapons. It could instantly neutralize China’s power by either helping them develop or giving the technology to them. Israel is motivated by needing to replace its former American ally with new trading partners and reliable allies.
Our president is a pussy.
“I strongly suspect that Israel is quietly dealing with some or all; India, Taiwan, Japan and Korea.”
I thought they were openly dealing with some (India, for example).
“Israel is motivated by needing to replace its former American ally with new trading partners and reliable allies.”
They’ve always known the alliance (on paper) was weak to begin with; I believe it is limited to issues in the Sinai with Egypt. They know American leaders have historically steered clear of putting “boots on the ground” there, and have every reason to doubt any ever would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.