A Leauki's Writings
Where are those successes?
Published on May 21, 2010 By Leauki In International

Charles Krauthammer explains the problems with Obama's foreign policy:

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/21/the_fruits_of_weakness_105676.html

How is this better than George W. Bush's "cowboy" foreign policy?

Obama is correct about one thing: the US cannot do everything alone. But his current policies destroy the alliances the US has and are an insult to the US' most reliable allies. And, America, you need those allies. You are not that powerful alone. Your power base is not your military alone but the cultural influence you have in the world, most notably through your allies.

Poland, the UK, South-Korea and Israel are allies that the US cannot afford to lose. (And in two of those cases I mean this quite literally. There is a chance that they will actually be lost.)

Of course losing the US as an ally has even worse consequences for those four countries, especially for South-Korea and Israel (and more so for South-Korea than for Israel). And while the UK can afford to be without an alliance with the US, the other three cannot.

We'll see how the elections in November go. But I'm afraid the Republican Party is being eaten up by the Paulians the the "Tea Party" and might not have many moderate candidates to run. Perhaps the right wing of the Democrats has a chance at their primaries. I can imagine that many Democrats are upset with Obama and his ilk.

 

 


Comments
on May 21, 2010

...

on May 21, 2010

Just one minor issue with Charles.  I think Venezuela takes the crown as the most virulent "anti-American" country.  But other than that, pretty dead on.

It is sad that he has managed to do this in less than a year and a half.  It is easier and faster to destroy than it is to build.  It is going to take a long time to repair the damage Obama has done.  Just as it took many years to repair the damage that Carter did.

on May 21, 2010



Just one minor issue with Charles.  I think Venezuela takes the crown as the most virulent "anti-American" country.  But other than that, pretty dead on.



The Iranian regime is worse.

However, the Venezulean regime might have more support among the local public, I don't know.




It is sad that he has managed to do this in less than a year and a half.  It is easier and faster to destroy than it is to build.  It is going to take a long time to repair the damage Obama has done.  Just as it took many years to repair the damage that Carter did.



I am not happy. I am really worried.

As you know, I do not necessarily disagree with the left or even Obama about too many issues. But these foreign policy issues are becoming a real problem not just for America's allies but for the US itself. If you are attacked again, you might stand alone. And while you have the military to fight the world, you do not diplomatic and intelligence support, particularly from the UK and Israel (the latter). America really cannot afford to lose allies like that. It's not just a question of doing the morally wrong thing (abandoning friends) but doing the strategically wrong thing (not having any friends but needing them).

Bill Clinton somehow managed to be left-wing but not screw up foreign policy this badly. What happened to that wing of the Democrats.

I have seen Hillary abandon everything she said she stood for, from feminism to sensible foreign policy. I cannot imagine voting for Hillary any more. When she was still running, she was totally an option for me. But it turns out that was Bill, not Hillary...



on May 21, 2010

However, the Venezulean regime might have more support among the local public, I don't know.

No, neither has a lot of support.  Iran is too busy fighting 2 enemies - Israel and the US.  Venezuela has but one, the US.  That is why they are the most anti-US.  It has nothing to do with the people (if the leaders stopped tomorrow, the people would not care within 6 months).

I have seen Hillary abandon everything she said she stood for, from feminism to sensible foreign policy. I cannot imagine voting for Hillary any more. When she was still running, she was totally an option for me. But it turns out that was Bill, not Hillary...

Couple of things first.  Clinton was left of center, but no by much.  And he was a very savvy politician that earned his striped (in other words, he lived in the real world). Obama is far left of center and has never earned anything.  His election was not a vote FOR him, but against republicans.  Unfortunately, he took it as a mandate FOR him (if it was FOR him, he would have won in a landslide instead of squeaking a victory out).

As for Hillary, watch her in January.  If she is like I suspect, she will resign soon after the new year (probably some excuse about the elections and Obama cleaning house).  At that time you will see her revert to the Hillary you love (and I still do not like, liver coated with ketchup is still repulsive).

on May 21, 2010

As for Hillary, watch her in January.  If she is like I suspect, she will resign soon after the new year (probably some excuse about the elections and Obama cleaning house).  At that time you will see her revert to the Hillary you love (and I still do not like, liver coated with ketchup is still repulsive).

No, don't like her any more.

I am hoping, for a Bush-like Republican or a Lieberman-like Democrat to run next time.

Basically I want a President who is for the US and Israel, for NATO and the west, against terrorists and states and people who support them, against racism and segregation, against genocide, moderately against abortion, for a secular state, for teaching evolution and other scientific theories at schools, and for economic policies somewhere between capitalism and some socialism. (I don't care if he is for or against gay marriage.) And he should attend religious services in a NORMAL church/synagogue/mosque/temple regularly. That's whom I would vote for.

My best hope would be a Mormon Republican or Jewish Democrat, I am sure.

 

on May 21, 2010

No, don't like her any more.

It does my heart good!

I am hoping, for a Bush-like Republican or a Lieberman-like Democrat to run next time.

Lieberman, yes.  Bush?  On foreign policy, I can see why you like him. On domestic policy, he was barely better than Obama.  I am hoping for a fiscally conservative candidate, regardless of party.  Either that, or we can join Greece in the toilet.

Basically I want a President who is for the US and Israel, for NATO and the west, against terrorists and states and people who support them, against racism and segregation, against genocide, moderately against abortion, for a secular state, for teaching evolution and other scientific theories at schools, and for economic policies somewhere between capitalism and some socialism. (I don't care if he is for or against gay marriage.) And he should attend religious services in a NORMAL church/synagogue/mosque/temple regularly. That's whom I would vote for.

Let's take these one at a time.  US, Israel, NATO, the west, against terrorism and the states - all foreign policy and yes, after Obama, I think most of the world is going to be for that (except Oslo).

Against Racism, segregation - no one that supports it is going to get near the presidency.  Unless they are Senate president Pro Tem.

Against Genocide - That one is tough.  I agree with you, and I suspect that most candidates will mouth support for it, but few will do anything about it unless it threatens the US directly.

Moderately Against Abortion - Irrelevant.  The president will not/cannot make law on that issue.

For Socialism - You got Obama.  It will be a long time before we get another in office.

Teaching Evolution - Again Irrelevant.  Local governments dictate education, not the feds (they just suck up money like a black hole).

Economic Policies between Capitalism and Socialism - That may be your biggest pipe dream.  The world is seeing what is happening there in Europe and the US with Massive deficits.  See Socialism above.

I will settle for a president who actually concentrates on what he can do, leaves alone what he cannot do, and strengthens both our foreign policy (so allies can again trust us) and domestic policy (so we are not running multi-trillion dollar deficits.

on May 21, 2010

Against Racism, segregation - no one that supports it is going to get near the presidency.  Unless they are Senate president Pro Tem.

Obama wants segregation in Jerusalem but I think Jews and Arabs living together in the same streets is actually good for peace. When I said "against segregation" I didn't mean "in the US". I meant that the President should ideally be against it on principle and under all circumstances. That is, it should never be regarded as an option, not even if some Nazi demands it in exchange for peace talks. The President should just rule it out per se without considering the upsides and downsides.

Obama's beloved pastor is a known racist, yet Obama was elected President. (So why couldn't an actual racist make it?)

 

on May 21, 2010

Obama wants segregation in Jerusalem but I think Jews and Arabs living together in the same streets is actually good for peace.

AH, PC.  I missed that when I was thinking about your list.  Yes, unfortunately you have just ruled out the entire democrat party (with a few exceptions, none in Washington at this point since Lieberman is an independent).

Obama's beloved pastor is a known racist, yet Obama was elected President. (So why couldn't an actual racist make it?)

Simple - PC again.  Obama is a racist.  But since he "cares" he is excused. No one preaching racism (is what I should have said) is coming close to the Casa Blanca.

Meta
Views
» 386
Comments
» 8
Category
Sponsored Links