Obama on Foreign Policy
Obama starts his Essay on Foreign Policy, in the July/August issue of “Foreign Affairs”, the same way John Edwards and to some extent Hillary Clinton did. They all seem to be stuck in the past and opines about what was done like it is, in some way valid and should be done that way in today’s world climate. Don’t get me wrong there are some lessons to be learned form these past greats, but very little of what was done in the World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam can be applied in today’s terrorists world and diplomatic environment.
It is also ironic that they mention the Presidents that they were barely old enough to remember, rather than site the accomplishments of the more recent ones of their Party that they would have been old enough to remember. They never mention Ronald Reagan who changed the post World War II direction of the world and had more lessons to be learned which could be applied in today’s world environment.
I will however, give Obama a lot more credit for at least describing and understanding today’s world climate better than Edwards, or Clinton. After telling us all about his past heroes he said the defining statement, of course they have to throw in the “warming planet” thing to place some of the blame on the current administration.
“Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.”
The Democrats are the best second string quarter backs, its like to they must have a Caucus in their party headed by the MoveOn.org talking points that continually look at reruns and tell us how this should have been done but not how they would have done if they were in the same shoes at the same time President Bush was. It sounds like John Kerry thinking all over again. Barrack now gives his words of, that of an arm chair quarterback, wisdom:
“Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions”.
Again he would make a better second string quarter back. He must have been a consultant for Bill Clinton because that is just what he did. Bill Clinton is the one who pictured the attacks, on his watch, as state based as well as police actions. President Bush new he faced a World War on Terror and he also new he had to contain any future action within the Middle East. Obama was the one the denounced the war on terror and called it a bumper sticker slogan.
Obama says, “this was a tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq”, “that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged.”
I thought the 9/11 response was in Afghanistan and Iraq came later, and by the majority of the experts now say that Iraq was the right thing to do now that we know the Intelligence was accurate.
He goes on to say: “in the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles”.
He really means the world through the eyes of the Democrat leadership who wants us to surrender, the world has lost trust.
Another Clinton euphuism, let’s check the poles first, then the UN, then Europe, then Russia.
Now, he does not mention the number of meetings and proposed UN resolutions that were stoned walled by the China, France or Germany because their interests in the area or the number of resolutions and time given to Iraq before any thing was done or the complete disregard of UN support after we secured Afghanistan enough for the UN to take control. We had to get NATO to support and take over the security of a country not even in their realm.
This is where Barrack should have taken Clinton’s way of handling the crisis which he totally new was coming. He could have stopped 9/11 years prior, if it wasn’t for his other priorities. He could have put bin Laden down when he had him in his sights but because of cowardice he thought it was in his best interest to leave it for the next President.
He gives credit to Roosevelt for “building the most formidable military the world had ever seen”, but doesn’t mention Clinton’s raping of the military’s manpower, limiting development of advance defense systems or not maintaining a ready well manned and equipped, armed forces for situations such as 9/11 again which he new could come at any minute that he now blames Bush. Now we know why the Democrats do not mention Clinton as one of their greatest. I would not be fair if I didn’t mention the Clintonian method of placating the Nuclear Korean crisis, or Jimmy Carter’s handling of the little conflicts, hostages and the worst economy we saw in, at least my lifetime, during his administration.
Obama is really not coherent in is statements which does shows he knows nothing about how he is going to defend America or respond in a crisis the size of 9/11.
He goes on to talk about the thousands of lives lost and the billions of dollars spent and says we should retrieve fundamental insights of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy:
“Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity”.
He’s off again on trying resolve current events and the problems of the world with the insights of a generation he was barley old enough to remember. If he and the Clinton administration had done just one thing to build America’s defense and intelligence that those greats did, he had mentioned, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. I wonder why he doesn’t mention Ronald Reagan, who built a force to be reckoned with and new we couldn’t sit on our duffs while the world was plotting to attack us.
“Our servicemen and servicewomen have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. “But” it is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution.
The “but” factor”
Obama’s view of the war on terror is that we are fighting a civil war in Iraq. We are fighting a religious war of the same religion with many different sects. It’s like if the Methodist, Baptist, Protestants, and the Catholics, all part of Christianity, were fighting amongst to see who is top dog of the Christian faith. Context is everything when it comes to foreign policy and Obama is way out of it. Everything he talks about is first premised by the phasing out the troops. It’s like this is a new thing and he should take credit for it. In fact President Bush’s plans from the beginning was when Iraq is stabilized troops would start to come out. With the new SURGE strategy, which is now working very well, we will be able to leave Iraq, in fact some already have with some level confidence the Iraqi Government will have some breathing room to get their issues settled but no date should be stated.
Obama comes up with the one and only way to end the involvement, which again is not his own, and wants done before the end of President Bush’s term. If this is taking responsibility for something that is this important, he is just the right person to become President, he is not. This has become a common thread with all of the Democrats running the President.
“The only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.
The Iraq Study Group was not far off on their assessment, however the March date is for political purposes only and not reasonable or sane. You can’t change direction and leave a country with a date in mind. It’s like saying to an opposing Football team if we can’t be far enough ahead in 20 minutes we will give up the ball.
Now his next statement, you can tell is an after thought. Because every Democrat wants the whole world involved to make decisions for the Iraqis, but in the statement before he said “But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country”.
“At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative, to help broker and end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq.
Also in a previous statement he said, “The only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group”. Now he states: “We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda”.
“The morass in Iraq has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region -- and it has made many of those problems considerably more dangerous”.
“Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians”.
Senator Obama, the dynamic and the military direction has changed despite your patriotic party calling the General who changed the way the war is being prosecuted, a “betrayer” and Senator Reid declaring it lost before one new boot was on the ground. Now Obama tells an outright lie, he says the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is “-- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years. I guess he feels the trips that Secretary Rice has made, to broker peace, means nothing”. What about all the meetings at the Whit House???
You can tell that Senator Obama has no knowledge of the meaning of foreign policy. These are all words that have been said as well as been done and must be out of some Democrat hand book. I have read the rest of this essay and it is just as bad so. Too tell the truth it sounds like he copied Edward’s paper. I am not going to “water board” myself any longer. Now we have to contend with the “O” factor. “O” and “Buts” a good title for article in the “O” Magazine.