The article begins by telling us that Obama’s foreign policy is a mess. It’s a mess, says the author, because Obama’s foreign policy is basically “focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes.” The article then says that “‘Don’t Do Stupid Stuff’ may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.” Wow. Of course, the article points out that this isn’t really Obama’s fault. See, since Obama was forced to spend so much time fixing “the economic mess he inherited. . . it’s understandable that Obama sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.” Hence, it’s not his fault that even six years later he still has done nothing in the foreign policy arena.
Whoa! Hold the phone. That’s completely false.
Obama ran on the idea of closing Gitmo, fixing our foreign relations, and making the world love and respect us again. He promised to stop droning people, to end torture, to stop supporting dictators, to tell China to stop hurting our exports, and to refocus our foreign policy on do-gooderism. That was his promise, not “I’m going to ignore foreign policy while I fix the economy.”
And consistent with that, Obama tried to do precisely this when he first took office... sort of. Specifically, he did the bow and apologize tour and he expected that would fix the Middle East. He declared Bush evil and promised to never act that way again. He hit the reset button with Russia. At the same time, he tried to stand town tiny Honduras and bully tiny Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. He sent people to dance for the Chinese and he promised to lead from behind at Copenhagen.
So the entire premise of this idea that Obama focused on the economy is wrong. The real problem is not that Obama did nothing, it’s that nothing Obama did worked. The bow and grovel tour didn’t change a thing. When nothing got better, Obama expanded droning and he continued to authorize torture until he’s out of office. Oh, and he expanded the droning into Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia. He also got us involved in Syria and Egypt and Libya, and he sent the navy to make sure any pirates near Somalia were OSHA compliant. Now he’s going back into Iraq. Iran is still going nuclear. He didn’t move the Israel-Palestinian thing even an inch, despite repeated attempts to beat the Israelis into submission. He’s also muddled his way through the Arab spring, ultimately siding with dictators in Egypt.
Standing up to Honduras didn’t work either. They ended up flipping us the bird and Obama walked away in a huff, leaving South American to Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba to carve up. Russia has been on a tear ever since the reset button, invading countries, arresting political opponents, extorting Europe, selling arms, and generally causing problems all around the world.
Obama did call out al Qaeda for racism in hiring, but they didn’t really change. He discovered he couldn’t close Gitmo because no one wanted these people back, so he tried to take away their rights and make them non-people. China laughed in his face and proceeded to cause problems in the region which are slowing building to armed conflict between China and Japan and some others.
Even at Copenhagen he discovered what happens when you let other people lead... they do things you don’t like, and he let them all but kill any international effort to fight climate change.
So let’s be honest. Obama did exactly what he swore he would in foreign policy and it blew up on him.
So what would Hillary fix? Well, this is where it gets interesting. See, the first premise was that Obama basically had no foreign policy. We just debunked that, but the author runs with it. He says Hillary must put human rights and democracy above our national interests and must stop dealing with evil dictators. She must support popular uprisings. And she must be willing to use the US military to back these things up.
But that’s exactly what Obama did!!
Moreover, at the same time the author says this, he attacks Bush for his “freedom agenda,” which he describes as “utopian.” The “freedom agenda” was an agenda to put human rights and democracy before our national interests and to stop dealing with dictators. Sound familiar?
Honestly, my head is spinning. So Obama did what Bush did, but it didn’t work, so the author pretends that Obama did nothing. He then tells Hillary to do what both Bush and Obama did, which didn’t work, but he criticizes Bush for advocating the very things he’s now telling Hillary to do! BANG! Arggg. My head!
Einstein's definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and to expect a different result. Think about that.
Thoughts?
31 comments:
I'm just glad to know that Obama has spent the last nearly six years focused like a laser beam on the economy and jobs. Who said "pivot"? I'm sure the president has never used that word.
tryanmax, LOL! Yep. No need to pivot if that's all he's been focused on, right?
I find the analysis insane... Obama did what Bush did, but it didn't work so we pretend he did nothing. Bush was evil and stupid, so Hillary should do what Bush did, not what Obama didn't not do... sort of.
At some point, even leftist heads must explode!
Andrew,
That Yahoo article on America and why it doesn't have a mythology proved that mainstream writers are capable of the most insane leaps of illogic.
Kit, That it did. That guy was totally blind to all the facts that should have been in his article and clearly debunked his point. This guy is similar. Even a cursory glance at the past five years should tell him that his premise is flat out wrong.
My view on American foreign policy 20 minutes after midnight: I think we should try to make the world a freer more open place and I believe that such a world is ultimately in America's best interest but it should be balanced by a healthy dose of realism that understands the complexities of the world.
Kit, I concur.
>>At some point, even leftist heads must explode!>>
If only, AP. If only.
Speaking of the metaphorical exploding of liberal heads - See, this is where I really miss Keith Olbermann...I really wanted to actually see his head explode along with Rachel Maddow and Janeane Garofalo. Btw, whatever happened to Janeane Garofalo?
Eric, Yeah, it was a wishful thought at best.
Bev, That's a good question. I haven't seen her in years now... haven't missed her either. Maybe they won't let her out of the luny bin anymore to appear on television?
Oh, and it is again entertaining this - I am Hillary Clinton and I am exactly same as you little people, but completely different from everybody because well...uh...hmmm, I am a woman? Really, I will be sooooo much better than Bush even though I voted for all the things he wanted and I am REALLY not like Obama even though I was his Sec't of State with that foreign policy stuff and all. No, really, I had NOTHING to do with any of it. Hey, I was a woman so they wouldn't let me do ANYTHING! I was against it all before I had to pretend to be for it and now I am against it...again [until something changes to make me for it again...] And "It" can be pretty much anything the polls tell me to be for...or against. And do I need to remind you that I am the long suffering wife of that serial philanderer Bill Clinton?? IT'S MY TURN NOW, YOU MORONS!!!"
Btw, Hillary is still being slammed months later for her "Bill and I were so poor when we left the WH that we almost didn't get those mortgages for our multiple, multimillion dollar homes. See, I am really just like you." chapter in her book...
Two quotes that also sum up how I think America should conduct foreign policy:
"Speak softly but carry a big stick"
"No better friend, no worse enemy"
Bev, That's Hillary's position in a nutshell. Interestingly, I'm seeing a lot of articles in which leftists now say that Hillary just isn't a good campaigner and maybe shouldn't be their nominee.
Kit, I think those are excellent doctrines, but I can't see our foreign policy establishment accepting either.
Kit - I agree. I see the US as the big strong brother on the playground. All we have to do is stand up with the threat of the big bat and bullies on the playground would back off/down. And the whole "mutual destruction" policy with the Soviet Union. It worked pretty well keeping the bullies of world under control until 2009.
This is exactly why I've stopped reading Politico. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds their posts and reporting delusional, at best.
Poor old HAMAS, the world is now focused on Ferguson and to a degree ISIS, so they are shunted to the background and no one cares if the Israelis kick the stuffing out of them.....boo hoo.
I lived in Arkansas when Hillary was the wife of the governor, and most people didn't care for her...she was essentially a carpet-bagging Yankee who didn't like the locals but was forced to be around them..which explains why she was gone all the time and Bill had free run of the wimmin' folk down there..
Bev, That's the best role for the US.
Writer X, Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I rarely go there, and when I do, I find their articles to be nearly incomprehensible because they are full of just obviously false assumptions and they make amazing leaps of logic.
Critch, It is truly sad when the world is distracted and someone gives you what you deserve when no one's looking. LOL!
Hillary has always struck me as an elitist Northeasterner who was barely able to show her contempt for the little people wherever she went. "Only little people have small mortgages."
This administration has caused us to lose all credibility on the planet...
Critch - I am not so sure that this Administration hasn't caused us to lose credibility with other planets and most galaxies far, far way as well. Have you noticed how the UFO sightings have stopped. Yeah, they've all decided it would just be too easy...like "Mars Attacks" easy.
Critch, That they have.
Bev, LOL! So very, very true! :D
Nicely played!
*Shrugs* Its easy to come up with appealing, reasonable sounding foreign policy goals, but foreign policy is invariably messy.
Due to the fact that Obama is terrible and making friends and terrible at making deals, Obama is a terrible at foreign policy, but quality doesn't matter all that much.
Our influence has always been limited by what we were able to do and what we were willing to do. We were willing to do a lot more in the past (anyone who disagrees should google Lumumba) but for us the stakes were higher then because we saw ourselves as fighting the USSR for the fate of the world.
Nowadays we don't have a similarly situated rival we are playing a global game of chess with, we have Al Queda, the Taliban and ISIS. As I've said for years, despite the chaos that ensues, democratization probably serves us in the long term since dictators tend to stir up their people against foreign enemies (which in the Middle East invariably includes the US and Israel).
watching leftist JOURN-a-Lists spin facts to tout their side is almost comical. The key to spinning well is to try and get the devotees to be able to say to themselves "is there someway, anyway, I can believe the bullshit my side is throwing out there?" Sometimes, the facts are so against, it reqquires the followers to take a leap of faith that would make Kierkegaard (sp?) blanche. Either that or, as you say, develop an acute case of amnesia.
"I can't see our foreign policy establishment accepting either."
How so?
Kit, Our entire foreign policy establishment (including the military) are essentially neocons, and they push the idea of nation building as a matter of dogma. That is how they are trained, that is what they believe, that is the advice they give, that is the policy they follow. Anyone trying to change that faces a serious uphill battle.
But the real question is did the Somalia pirates become OSHA compliant?
I am going to disagree with you on one issue and that is comparing Obama to Bush. He may have done similar things but without any clear plan or understanding on why he was doing and what the final goal was. It is like comparing a moron off the street watching a surgeon perform an appendectomy then when the moron goes in and starts winging the knife around cutting up and killing the patient but still holding the appendix at the end. Ok, Bush may not have been a surgeon at foreign policy but I think he and his team had clear goals and purpose. I think Vlad was worried enough that Bush might just bomb the Russian but Vlad has no fear of the paper tiger and his former tigress.
Koshcat, I absolutely agree that Bush had goals and a strategy and I thought they were good ones. I think the reason they didn't work was (1) Iraq consumed his administration and (2) the Democrats did their best to undermine everything he tried.
Obama then continued Bush's policies for the most part, but didn't have any idea what he was really doing.
So while I wouldn't compare Bush to a surgeon, I would say he was competent enough and what he did might have worked well under slightly different circumstances. Obama is then the moron who tried to mimic what Bush did while criticizing it and not really being prepared for it not to work.
I think we are on the same page.
You know our problem is that we and the rest of the world are so racist we just can't see his incredible wisdom.
Post a Comment