Why jump on Obama’s fantasy foreign policy?
[Posted by Karl]
Yesterday, after noting that Pres. Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure with adversaries and allies alike, one commenter suggested it was much too early to lodge such criticism. The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl did not seem to think so, but it is a question worth addressing on its own.
Pres. Obama’s election continues a post-WWII 16-year cycle favoring relatively inexperienced Democrats preaching the gospel of Hopenchange. Their foreign policy experiences are instructive.
JFK’s handling of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Vienna summit convinced Khrushchev that Kennedy was feckless, which helped precipitate the Cuban missile crisis.
Jimmy Carter prided himself on a humble foreign policy that worked to the advantage of a mass-murdering Iranian theocracy, Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and the popularization of suicide bombings in the Mideast.
Bill Clinton paid insufficient attention to the growing threat of Islamic terrorists at the outset of his presidency, with ultimately catastrophic results.
The Clinton era is mentioned — though not by name, natch — as a precedent in Dana Milbank’s David Ignatius’s must-read account of how Obama’s unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods is already degrading US intelligence collection:
One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called “risk of capture” interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and “pocket litter” were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I’m told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn’t even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as “liaison.” A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: “There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they’ve done in the past.”
Joe Biden recognized that presidents are often tested by an international crisis early in their terms. It becomes all the more likely if America’s adversaries think the president is an easy mark. Accordingly, the sooner that Obama realizes his foreign and national securitiy policies are dangerously naive, the better.
–Karl
[…] [Cross-posted at Patterico.] […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Why jump on Obama’s fantasy foreign policy? (e2f069) — 4/22/2009 @ 8:41 amKarl, I’m of the opinion, mistakenly perhaps, that Obama will never recognize the extent that his foreign policy is dangerous because in his mind, any attack will be because of the evil bushitler of the last 8 years. Scary thoughts about our security intrude daily.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 4/22/2009 @ 9:04 amI detest Obama, but I admire a man who does not threaten or bluster. Who, if you are his enemy, lets you believe that he wants to be your friend, invites you to his house for dinner, and puts a bullet in the back of your head as you walk through the door. It’s the Chicago way. And I have no problem applying it to our foreign policy. I’ll wait for Ahmadinejad and Chavez to disappear in an Indiana cornfield (figuratively speaking) before concluding judgment, though.
nk (3e53ec) — 4/22/2009 @ 9:17 amMeanwhile:
The DHS Secretary blames Canada for letting in the 9-11 hijackers (all of whom entered via US airports).
President Obama promises the Mexican President (to his face) to stop US guns from going to Mexican drug dealers (like we could), even though almost all their guns come from other sources.
Not to mention wanting to renege on NAFTA.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 4/22/2009 @ 9:39 am“Accordingly, the sooner that Obama realizes his foreign and national securitiy policies are dangerously naive, the better’ – BO will never realize that there are any problems with his foreign policies and nat. sec. policies. The appointments to second level positions certainly prove that. And BO is too arrogant to see that he might ever be wrong. If he ever says he has been wrong, it will be for political purposes, not the actual truth.
LYNNDH (975d26) — 4/22/2009 @ 9:46 am“…the sooner that Obama realizes his foreign and national securitiy policies are dangerously naive, the better.”
And how long will that take? And can we, as a country, afford the cost of Obama’s “tuition” as he becomes schooled in the workings of the real world?
Remember, Carter didn’t really “get it” until the double whammy of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the Soviet Invasian of Afghanistan.
Prior to this, Jimmy’s naivete had survived the Revolution In Nicaragua, The Overthrow of the Shah, and revelation of the presence of a Soviet Combat Brigade in Cuba.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/22/2009 @ 10:02 amNk – Are you trying to get the Secret Service to visit me ? 😉
JD (b5a4c1) — 4/22/2009 @ 10:07 amThe options are A) talk to them, or B) don’t. if we choose “B”, then what?
JEA (53fe4f) — 4/22/2009 @ 10:21 amJEA…are you willing, like say Daniel Pearl, to talk to the islamofascists? You are being as naive as Obama.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:02 amThe CIA never recovered from the Church Committee. Now, it has taken a second bullet from Obama. I fear we will be hit with something bad during his term or soon after, like Clinton. To give him the credit for operating in “The Chicago Way” is to give him far too much credit. He is the stooge but the people behind him are not serious people, unless they are enemies.
We still don’t know him.
Mike K (8df289) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:06 amForeign policy should be “Talk softly and carry a big stick”, not “Mewl and carry a wet noodle”.
tmac (f9e092) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:08 am” Accordingly, the sooner that Obama realizes his foreign and national securitiy policies are dangerously naive, the better. “…this presumes that he has the ability to discern his atrocious mistakes, unfortunately he doesn’t. I’m not willing to risk your life on this fallacy, I’d like that you would return the favor.
Edward Lunny (331570) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:38 amRemember, Carter didn’t really “get it” until the double whammy of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the Soviet Invasian of Afghanistan.
I don’t see any recognition in Carter that his policies were at fault.
He constantly blames every problem on others:
Israel, Bush, Israel, Cheney, Israel, Rumsfeld, Israel…
I’m starting to detect a pattern here.
The only difference I see between Jimmah and Duh-1 is the later’s overly immense ego (hubris) that would lead him to be even worse than Jimmah in this regard.
AD (c6623a) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:53 amIn addition to the piece cited by Karl, Jackson Diehl has written a measured but generally positive evaluation of the Obama administration’s approach in Afghanistan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201526.html
Tim McGarry (2774d5) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:56 amObama’s problem is not Afghanistan but Pakistan and those problems are probably insoluble. Iraq was much easier because Iraq is more accessible and a rich country in both mineral assets and an educated, relatively secular population. Afghanistan has none of this and Pakistan is not much better. From today’s Startfor report:
A spokesman for Pakistan’s military said Tuesday that the peace agreement between the government and Islamist militants in the Swat region has given the Taliban an opportunity to regroup, after having been flushed out by army operations some months back. Elsewhere, the information ministers of both the federal government and North-West Frontier Province warned the Taliban group in Swat, the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-Muhammadi (TNSM), to uphold its end of the peace deal and disarm, or face government action.
These comments followed statements made during the weekend by TNSM leader Maulana Sufi Muhammad: He denounced Pakistan’s constitution, parliament and Supreme Court as un-Islamic and called for Sharia to be imposed throughout the country. In a related development, the rebellious imam of Islamabad’s Red Mosque, Maulana Abdul Aziz — who led a bloody rising in July 2007 — was released on bail. He told followers to be ready to make sacrifices to ensure that Islam is enforced through the entire country.
As expected, the Swat “Sharia for peace” deal appears to be falling apart — within a week of being ratified. The collapse is yet another manifestation of a weakened Pakistani state being manipulated by Taliban rebels. But a far important point is that the current situation is untenable.
Pakistani government leaders cannot remain on the path of negotiations while the Taliban are going for the jugular. The entire rationale behind the peace agreement was that the insurgency in Swat could be ended if Sharia was enforced in the restive area. The Taliban not only have shown that they are unwilling to disarm, but their ambitions are escalating from a local to a national level.
This leaves the government with two choices: Either continue down the current path — allowing the jihadists to advance their cause while trying to avoid confrontation — or draw the line. In either case, conflict would be inevitable.
Get ready for a rough ride Obama is not prepared for.
MIke K (8df289) — 4/22/2009 @ 12:37 pmI have a feeling (and a strong hope) that the military is going to tell Obama that we’re going to have to perform many Predator airstrikes in the Swat Valley over the ensuing months, or else stand by and watch Pakistan fall to the Islamists. Since this “peace agreement” has predictably fallen apart (they moved quickly to establish Islamic law over the citzens there, who resisted quite strongly), we have a strong incentive to take action now – and most Pakistanis will be happy to allow it to happen.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/22/2009 @ 2:09 pmNarcissists never recognize they are wrong. It would destroy their fragile self image.
LarryD (feb78b) — 4/22/2009 @ 2:31 pmJEA – Some might suggest that the best way to talk to them does not include recognizing terrorists, bowing to assholes, and a public self-flagellation and apology orgy. YMMV.
JD (ae4db3) — 4/22/2009 @ 2:43 pmWell,at least Obama’s relationship with Canada is going well, thank to his Homeland Security chief. Arizona was so happy to see her go that they kept quiet about what an idiot she is until they were sure she was gone.
Mike K (8df289) — 4/22/2009 @ 3:03 pmThe current administration has done more to embarrass me in 100 days than the previous one did in the first four years. Consistent and endless mortification.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 4/22/2009 @ 4:39 pmLinky didn’t work, Dr. Capt. Mike K.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (a4b02e) — 4/22/2009 @ 5:18 pmAmen, VL. Amen. And with their now expressed desire to regulate venture capital, and now the apparent political witch hunts on waterboarding, and trillions of dollars in deficits, and more money spent on TARP than in an annual budget, and on and on and on …
JD (ae4db3) — 4/22/2009 @ 5:23 pmO Canada.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/22/2009 @ 5:28 pmWhat do you do when the President is the crisis?
narciso (996c34) — 4/22/2009 @ 5:48 pmWhat do you do when the President is the crisis?
Blame Bush
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/22/2009 @ 6:12 pmJohn has the story I linked to except my link was to a Canadian newspaper.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/22/2009 @ 7:07 pmThis just in – Israel tells Obama and Rahm to go fark themselves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103998.html
Thank goodness Bibi and his party recognize the pure fecklessness of our wonderful leader, and are acting accordingly. So let’s tally up Obama’s scorecard after his worldwide “apology tour,” shall we?
Germany – your stimulus plan won’t work and we’re not going to emulate it, either.
France – ditto to what Germany just said, and Sarko thinks you’re kind of an idiot.
Iran – we still hate the Joos, and take your extended hand of friendship and put it up your backside.
Venezuela – My name’s Hugo, and I think you should read this book about the evils of the US – also see the works of Howard Zinn, who I discussed a few years ago at the UN. That’s the one where I called Bush both evil and a Nazi, so I’m sure you’ll love the vid.
El Salvador – Hi, I’m Daniel Ortega, and I like the cut of your jib.
Just wonderful.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/22/2009 @ 7:08 pmObama really doesn’t care all that much about foreign policy, and just seems to be going by what he learned from hanging out with people on the left like Bill Ayers while setting up his political career — i.e. what passion he has for far left ideas is on the social/economic side of domestic policy.
On key foreign policy matters like Afghanistan, he and his staff defer to the Bush policy (even as they attack it in the media), because they know any terrorist strike on U.S. soil in the next 2-3 years would ruin their domestic spending hopes. But when it comes to lower-level problems like a Hugo Chavez, Obama and his team are just happy to go along with the boilerplate leftist dogma, since they don’t see doing so as a possible threat to their hold on power.
The only way Obama figures this out — other than an actual successful attack on U.S. soil — is for David Axelrod to grab him somewhere down the line and tell him if he doesn’t change, he won’t get re-elected in 2012. That might just be ‘strategically’ figuring it out only to make voters happy, but the voters (and the administration’s beloved polls) are the only things capable of making Obama change his course.
John (692c5c) — 4/22/2009 @ 7:39 pmJohn has the story I linked to except my link was to a Canadian newspaper.
There are not words strong enough to condemn Napolitano’s ignorance and arrogance. This administration and its ineptitude keeps getting more depressing and infuriating.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/22/2009 @ 7:49 pmI love Bibi FWIW. Just a fargin bahl busta.
HeavenSent (637168) — 4/22/2009 @ 8:08 pmYup, the GIVE Act is now law, and it’s 50k words of bad blood.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/22/2009 @ 8:35 pmDam# Karl,
You are ruthless with the truth.
Painfully accurate.
Let’s remember what Obama’s staff had to say about his own Secretary of State,
“Mrs. Credibility” Hillary Clinton:
Senator Clinton’s Claims of Foreign Policy Experience Are Exaggerated
By Greg Craig
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clintons_exaggerated_experienc.html
To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
Now she’s in charge of “smart power”.
Is this considered “smart power”:
70 miles from control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
How does “Mrs. Credibility” want to handle the jihadist from seizing control of nuclear arms.
Wow!!!!
Speak out more forcefully.
Sh!t,why stop there.
Get real tough and write them a letter of condemnation,
or better yet,
get George Clooney to give a speech at the UN.
It has done wonders for Darfur.
“Smart Power”….What a joke!
Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 4/22/2009 @ 11:27 pmSimilar to the 16 year cycle concept mentioned above, remember how the MSM portrayed the ’06 midterms as a referendum on Bush and a complete refutation of his policies?
As you might recall, the Republicans managed to lose 30 House seats in ’06. Sounds like a big deal until you realize that it’s pretty much in line with other 2-term administrations of either party when midterm elections are held during their 6th year. FDR coughed up 71 seats in the House; Eisenhower lost 47; Kennedy/Johnson lost 47; Nixon/Ford lost 43; Reagan lost 5 and Clinton gained 5. In the Senate it was Bush at -6, FDR -6, Eisenhower -13, Kennedy/Johnson -2, Nixon/Ford -5, Reagan -8, Clinton -2. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough history to be able to tell if any of those other elections stuck us with anything as bad as Pelosi/Reid running Congress, but I can’t imagine that they could have.
Dave (d51df8) — 4/23/2009 @ 12:13 amIf we were attacked tomorrow I am 100% sure that all dwellers of this blog would immediately, undeniably, unforgivingly, and irrevocably blame Obama forever for the mishap, while the Bush Administration’s culpability in the event would never even be considered as a remote possibility.
I find it amusing – in a disturbing way – that the writer still openly blames Clinton for 9/11 while it happened not 100, but 235 days into Bush’s presidency, and that nobody here questions that notion. Well, I, for one, do question it.
It seems to me very clear that Bush supporters are unable to lay any blame on his administration for 9/11. Does anybody here is open to consider – like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days might have something to do with 9/11?
oderfla (79a5a0) — 4/23/2009 @ 12:28 amThis doesn’t pertain to foreign affairs, but if someone is ass backwards in one category — eg, a person who becomes soft-hearted towards fanatic rulers in South America and the Middle East, but has less patience with, and feels a need to apologize for, imperialistic, greedy, big-polluting America!! — he’ll probably be no better anywhere else, foreign or domestic.
So, no surprise, when such a person is a spendthrift galore in the worse way imaginable, and also a tightwad in the, yep, worse way imaginable.
Mark (411533) — 4/23/2009 @ 12:47 am“It seems to me very clear that Bush supporters are unable to lay any blame on his administration for 9/11.”
Sorta like you libby-wibbies not laying the blame for 12/7 on your mightiest hero, FDR.
And, unlike Bush, FDR was supposedly a great president…or so I’m constantly being told.
He’d been president for years, not for a few months, and yet, despite his lengthy tenure, our allegedly great president was unable to prevent a surprise attack by, not a few terrorists in disguise, but by damn near the whole Japanese fleet.
I figure it’s gotta be easier to notice hundreds of ships and aircraft coming at you, then it is to notice a few disguised terrorists, especially since we’d cracked some of the Japanese codes…but, apparently it’s not.
Dave Surls (37e584) — 4/23/2009 @ 1:09 am#35- Uh, this the same George Will who last week demonized dungarees, insulting every American who ever enjoyed the friendly comfort of denim duds… including Ronald Reagan, who’d roam his ranch in his Wrangler’s.
Next week, George turns on baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/23/2009 @ 1:15 amLiberals are always alert! No one could ever hit us with a surprise attack when the mighty Dems are in command!
“The Ardennes Offensive (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) was a major German offensive launched towards the end of World War II through the forested Ardennes Mountains region of Belgium…”
“The Germans planned the offensive with utmost secrecy, minimizing radio traffic and conducting the movement of troops and equipment under cover of darkness. Although ULTRA suggested a possible attack and the Third U.S. Army’s intelligence staff predicted a major German offensive, the Germans still caught them by surprise…”
“…With over 800,000 men committed and over 19,000 killed, the Battle of the Bulge became the single biggest and bloodiest battle in U.S. history.”–wiki
Getting caught off guard by a few terrorists is understandable, getting caught off guard by a half million German troops…IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR…now, that takes some doing.
But, of course, none of this is FDR’s fault, ’cause everyone knows he was a great president.
Dave Surls (37e584) — 4/23/2009 @ 1:43 amDoes anybody here is open to consider – like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days might have something to do with 9/11?
The planning and operational development for 9-11 began some five years before the act. I see your 235, and raise you 1,591.
Mars vs Hollywood (788077) — 4/23/2009 @ 2:06 amDoes anybody here is open to consider – like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days might have something to do with 9/11?
How many of those 235 days were tied up with Goracle’s legal finagling so that all cabinet positions were delayed.
krusher (cafb56) — 4/23/2009 @ 3:38 amJust a wee bit of perspective about 9/11 – We were quite familiar with the whole hostage-taking style of hyjacking an airplane. We were also familiar with the whole drive-a-truck-to-a-building-to-blow-it-up. What few expected was the bringing together of Al Qaida’s combination of two of their favorite pass times, after raping and killing women, that is.
FDR, however, had at least 6 years to know the way the Imperial Japanese operated as it was clearly on display in the Pacific. There was an ACTIVE World War going on at the time.
What we did know pre-9/11 was that bin Laden was absolutely determined to kill Americans, all Westerners in general and any Muslim with whom he took exception. Clinton knew that, he CHOSE to let bin Laden go. That, my friends, is an equation for culpability.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 4/23/2009 @ 6:23 amDoes anybody here is open to consider – like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days
You should ask Clinton why he refused the Yemeni govt’s request for the US to please take OBL off their hands way back when – or why he negelcted to respond to AQ’s attacks on the Cole, which almost sinked that ship, along with the murders of our sailors. Or ask him why he didn’t respond to the bombings of our embassies in Africa, etc, etc.
And you call Bush naive?
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/23/2009 @ 6:45 amBut Clinton definitely responded forcefully that one time, when we lobbed ONE cruise missile into a milk factory that was supposedly housing Bin Laden. Brilliant, just as effective as our doomed mission in Somalia – what a awesome display of resolve by our Commander – in – Brief.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/23/2009 @ 6:48 am“If we were attacked tomorrow I am 100% sure that all dwellers of this blog would immediately, undeniably, unforgivingly, and irrevocably blame Obama…”
Nice hyperbole, but… It all depends upon a lot of factors as to whether or not the current POTUS would be held to be culpable. Among these factors are:
-Actionable intelligence. Were we in possession of such and why didn’t we act? Please describe actionable intelligence prior to 9/11 on which the Bush Admin failed to act. A Dick Clarke memo doesn’t move the dial.
-Was the act perpetrated by one of the clowns (i.e., Iran, Paki ISI, NK, etc) that we are currently trying to tolerate or accomodate?
-Was failure to act driven by misguided political calculation(s)? Clinton SecState Albright vetoed taking out OBL for fear that it would disrupt a M.E. Peace Deal. No doubt, a Nobel Peace Prize was at stake.
If the answer to all of these is “no” then I’ll consider placing someone else in the Chain of Blame.
belloscm (cf0c5e) — 4/23/2009 @ 10:56 amDoes anybody here is open to consider – like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days might have something to do with 9/11?
According to liberal hero Richard Clarke,you don’t know what you are talking about:
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in ’02
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.htmlget_a(300,250,”frame1″);
WASHINGTON —
RICHARD CLARKE:
for a couple of years and get them decided.
According to Clarke,Bush started in January to address the failures of the Clinton Administration
Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 4/23/2009 @ 12:28 pmin regards to al-qaeda.
like a hint of a possibility, at least – that Bush administration’s colossal naïveté regarding Al Qaeda for 235 days might have something to do with 9/11?
naivete describes the democrats approach to the War on Terror well:
Bill Clinton’s own intelligence man Michael Scheuer
(head of the Bin Laden Unit and no fan of Bush’s)blames Clinton for the fact Osama is able to launch attacks:
Harry Smith Taken Aback as CBS Analyst Blames Clinton for bin Laden Failures
By Michael Rule (Bio | Archive)
September 25, 2006 – 10:28 ET
http://newsbusters.org/node/7871
Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:
Scheuer acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around for not getting bin Laden, but asserted that Clinton bears most of it:
Scheuer continued his response and accused President Clinton of lying to the American people:
“
We would not even be worry about the events of 9/11 if the democrats had taken the threat seriously.
Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 4/23/2009 @ 12:39 pm[…] of Latin America. Obama’s unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods is already degrading US intelligence collection around the world. That might be game-changing, but not of the sort Obama wants the press to […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » 100 days: What Obama does not want you to read (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:23 am