Story 1: Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy — Obama Bush Doctrine = Obfuscate –Bully–Deceive = Open Borders — 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of America — Part 2 — Videos
Mark Levin on The Obama Doctrine and Scandals
The Obama Doctrine – WSJ Opinion
What will Obama doctrine mean for U.S. military?
Flash Points: What is the Obama Doctrine?
The Obama Doctrine: Undermine allies, embolden enemies, diminish our country
The President’s Speech: The Obama Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine & the Reality in Libya
Obama hints at greater U.S. support in Syria
Obama US will use force when necessary
Karl Rove: Only Thing New in Obama Speech Was the ‘Straw Men’
Obama gets worked up explaining his foreign policy
Watch Obama’s commencement address at West Point
Charles Krauthammer on Obama Foreign Policy
Pat Buchanan on American Foreign Policy
Suicide of a Superpower: Pat Buchanan on the Death of Western Civilization
Paul Ryan: We Are Seeing the Ugly Fruits of Obama’s Foreign Policy Unravel on Our TV Scree
Obama Said Libya Action Was Necessary to Protest Civilians
Analysis: Did Obama lay out doctrine in Libya speech?
Obama never mentions Paul by name. But Paul’s views — described as isolationist by his detractors and non-interventionist by his allies — repeatedly function as a rhetorical device against which Obama argues, and which he clearly means to reject as part of his broad vision of the post-Iraq/Afghanistan/Sept. 11 world and the United State’s role in it.
Let’s go through a few particularly Paul-y passages from Obama.
* “At least since George Washington served as commander-in-chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. Not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges at home, that view is shared by many Americans.”
Obama, like many — Democrats and Republicans — who reject the Paul view of the U.S. in the world, uses the idea that this isolationist tendency is nothing new and, since it has failed to catch on fully in the past, argue that it won’t catch on this time either. Maybe so, but as Obama acknowledges, the Paul view is one held by a major chunk of the American populace. This chart — courtesy of an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll conducted late last month — tells that story powerfully.
* “American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else…..It’s a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it – despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness.”
The direct shot at the Senate and, though not named, Senate Republicans, is as close as Obama got in the speech to calling out the Paul-ist worldview by name. The Law of the Sea Convention died in the Senate in the summer of 2012 when Democrats failed to rally the two-thirds support necessary to end debate and bring it to a vote. Paul was was one of 34 Republican Senators officially on record in opposition to it. Also, just in case you didn’t get what Obama thought of the views of the likes of Paul, the use of the words “retreat” and “weakness” should clear that up nicely.
* “Remember that because of America’s efforts – through diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military – more people live under elected governments today than any time in human history….In Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests – from the peace treaty with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government. But we can and will persistently press for the reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.”
* “Global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. But American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be – a place where the aspirations of individual human beings matter; where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice.”
This reads as a more-or-less direct rebuke to Paul’s insistence on the need for a more realistic foreign policy. “I really am a believer that foreign policy must be viewed by events as they present themselves, not as we wish them to be,” Paul said in a speech at the Center for National Interest in January. Obama makes the case that “realism” isn’t enough — that part of the U.S.’s role in the world is to imagine how things could be and then undertake a set of policy prescriptions to make that image come to life.
Why Obama’s foreign policy has failed
ROBERT ROBB
President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure. Only hard-bitten partisans deny the obvious: The U.S. position has deteriorated every place in the world.
The important questions are: What was the Obama foreign policy? And why did it fail? On this, there is neither clarity nor consensus.
According to neoconservatives, the intent of Obama’s foreign policy was to retreat from international leadership. The deteriorated position is a willed outcome.
But that’s not an accurate description of what Obama’s ambitions initially were. Obama fully intended for the United States to continue to exercise global leadership. But to earn it and exercise it in an entirely different way.
Obama’s foreign policy began with his critique of George W. Bush’s. According to Obama, Bush’s foreign policy was too high-handed and relied too much on military force.
In Obama’s eyes, Bush essentially declared to other countries, we’re the boss. We’re going to do what we want. Join us if you want. Otherwise get out of the way.
According to Obama, that created unnecessary adversaries and resentments even among allies. If the United States played nicer, we’d get further.
So, Obama pledged reconciliation with the Muslim world and a reset with Russia. And declared that the United States would no longer go it alone with coalitions of the willing. Instead, the United States would work through established multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and give greater consideration to the views of other nations.
According to Obama, this would not diminish U.S. influence, but increase it. The United States would continue to exercise global leadership, but with reduced resentment and blowback. And with greater burden sharing, as other counties, more a part of the decision-making process, would be more willing to do more of the work.
Things haven’t turned out that way. Instead, the Obama administration has been buffeted and overwhelmed by international events: the eruption of the Arab Spring, civil war in Syria, Iran’s steady progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, Russia’s land grab and intimidation in Ukraine.
Even where there is not a crisis, the Obama foreign policy flounders. The president is on a trip to Asia as part of a proclaimed pivot to the Pacific. The administration tells the Chinese that the pivot isn’t intended to contain China, while reassuring regional allies that it really is. Unsurprisingly, this has raised questions about U.S. trustworthiness and done nothing to calm rising regional tensions.
According to neoconservatives, Obama’s foreign policy has failed because Obama has been insufficiently bellicose. They would have the United States more militarily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are falling apart. And they would have us militarily engaged in some larger way in Syria, Ukraine, the Baltic states and Libya.
The neoconservatives, however, ran foreign policy during the Bush administration, and it was also a failure. Moreover, it was repudiated by the American electorate in the elections of 2006 and 2008.
Say this about the failure of Obama’s naïve internationalism: it has been less bloody and costly than the failure of Bush’s neoconservatism.
There are some hard facts on which American foreign policy should be based. The first is that other countries aren’t that interested in U.S. leadership. They have their own national interests to pursue.
Some allies find it convenient that U.S. taxpayers are willing to pay for the only military with truly global reach, to conduct international hygiene operations and humanitarian relief missions. But having the only military with global reach doesn’t buy that much in diplomatic influence anymore.
Multilateral organizations are either useless or figments. The U.N. is the former. NATO is the latter. There are only coalitions of the willing. And, at present, other countries, even those willing, aren’t capable of contributing much.
The ability of the United States to influence events elsewhere in the world is limited and declining. That’s not defeatism. That’s understanding the economic rise of other nations and the inexorable consequences of it.
Bush proved that you can’t overcome these hard facts with brute force. Obama has proved you can’t overcome them with good intentions.
Hard as they are, they can’t be blown up or wished away.
Looking back on President Obama’s foreign policy, many wonder what the “Obama Doctrine” actually means. He is inconsistent and appears to be weak in the eyes of the world. Although his rhetoric tries to state otherwise, al-Qaeda is re-emerging, Iran seems to have its way with this administration, and the president has allowed Russia as well as China to become obstructionists. American Thinkerinterviewed intelligence experts to comment on this administration’s foreign policy.
In a major foreign policy speech, while running for president in July 2008, candidate Obama outlined his goals: “Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America — once again — to lead … I will focus this strategy on goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century… [and] to engage China on common interests.”
Evaluating these goals, it seems that the president has pretty much failed. Congressman Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, told American Thinker, “You’d be hard-pressed to argue that the [resident has achieved any of the major foreign policy goals he laid out as a candidate. Part of that is a failure of leadership since he assumed office, and part of that was his naiveté as a candidate, with no experience on the world stage other than speech-giving, making promises that simply could not be kept.” The breakdown of his goals can be seen regarding certain areas.
Russia has been allowed to sabotage issues vital to America’s national security. Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed in the New York Times and recently lectured Americans on the necessity of the NSA, clearly taking advantage of the president’s ability to lead from behind. This is from someone who has given asylum to Edward Snowden. All those interviewed felt that Russia might have had a role in helping Snowden because it would be very naïve to think that he would have acted alone.
It seems President Obama does not understand how Putin operates, being able to take advantage of openings given to him by the U.S. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, still considers Russia down and out, yet the Russians attempt to “act as a great power even though they don’t have the wherewithal of a great power. I said recently this guy plays cards really well, since he only has a pair of threes in his hand. Because of our stumbling, we have given Putin the opportunity to act more dominant than he should. For example, in Syria, we gave them the opportunity to become a player in the Middle East again because of our incompetence and inaction. The Syrian ‘red line’ statement and the aftermath was just an embarrassment showing how inept we were. What makes it harder to work with them is the fact that someone like Putin, with his KGB experience, suspects all American actions as a plot to weaken Russia.”
China appears not to respect or fear the US as evidenced by their recent actions in the South China Sea and the Hainan Island. Everyone interviewed is afraid that China is miscalculating the fact that America is still a great power with the strongest military in the world. Hayden cannot understand China’s recent actions because it “alienated everyone in the neighborhood and causes the US to put more weight on that part of the world.”
What is very fascinating is that Americans are extremely concerned and upset with the “spying by the NSA,” but there is not a large outcry about Chinese espionage. Hayden commented, “A consequence of this Snowden thing is that all the pressure is off the Chinese here and internationally. Everyone is blaming us now while the Chinese keep on doing their thing.”
Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, regards President Obama as showing no leadership when it comes to engaging the Chinese economically. “The president is not pushing two agreements, the Trade Promotion Authority, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, that would put formidable pressure and force the Chinese into making a decision. With the implementation of these agreements along with an agreement with the European Union, we would have two-thirds of the world’s economy on board. The Chinese could either join or sit on the sidelines as they watch the other nations have an easier flow of goods to buy and sell.”
In 2008, President Obama spoke of preventing rogue nations from nuclear capabilities but has currently entered into a six-month agreement with Iran that is not credible. He is negotiating from a position weakness. He did not get the Iranians to crank back their nuclear program, did not tighten the sanctions, and appeared desperate to get an agreement. According to Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East advisor, this agreement “kicks the can down the road not just this year, but for the next three. This allows the president to say, ‘I said they wouldn’t, and they didn’t.’ I think psychologically and diplomatically, the Iranians have the upper hand. These partial piecemeal deals will slowly and surely undue the sanctions while they slowly and surely advance the Iranians nuclear program. The Iranians do not have an impression of us as a power to be reckoned with.”
Which is why Abrams and the others interviewed cannot understand why this administration has worked so hard against the Senate sanction resolution. They actually see it as something to use in the negotiations to get Iranian concessions. Abrams is upset because he feels that the Iranians have no desire to restrain themselves. “They have continued their presence in Syria, have been caught shipping arms to Bahrain, and the most atrocious is when the Iranian foreign minister laid a wreath at the grave of a terrorist that killed a huge number of American soldiers. This is a remarkable insult to the US as they stuck a finger in Obama’s eye. In addition, the Iranians continue their vicious and insulting rhetoric toward Israel as they play the public relations game with the West. There is something wrong with this picture. It is obvious they feel triumphant.”
Candidate Obama wanted to end the war in Iraq responsibly. Congressman Rooney sarcastically notes, “The president inherited a successful surge strategy for Iraq, but now al-Qaeda controls large portions of the country, which many of our troops gave their lives to secure. I wouldn’t call that a responsible end to the war.” Congressman Nunes agrees and wonders why the president did not insist on maintaining well-fortified bases on the outskirts with special ops units. He believes that not being able to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement was a way out for this administration, since “they kept saying Iraq was the wrong war and they had pledged to pull out the troops. How stupid was that, considering al-Qaeda is back and the Iranians are now using that airspace to bring weapons to Syria?”
The War on Terror is far from over. The president did not decimate al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Islamist extremists. Congressman Nunes believes that America has dropped the ball regarding this fight. He does not buy into the rhetoric that “core” al-Qaeda was devastated and that there are now splinter groups that must be dealt with. He insists, “To differentiate between these groups is ridiculous. The administration spun these new references to get re-elected and it stemmed from the Benghazi disaster. First this administration said the Benghazi attack was not terrorism, then they said it was terrorism but not al-Qaeda, and now they say it was not core al-Qaeda but splinter groups. They can attempt to change the rhetoric all they want, but everyone knows radical Islam is radical Islam. All the groups are related, work towards the same goal, and believe in the same ideology. It is obvious that al-Qaeda has adapted and changed.”
Hayden feels that the U.S. is losing more influence in the Middle East as the fundamentalist Islamists make more of an impact. He sees them “controlling, dominating, shaping, and creating events. We see how the Fundamentalists have taken over many of the revolutions in the area. Just look at Syria, the Sinai, Libya, and Yemen to name a few. I can’t point to any successes for us here.”
All interviewed would not give Obama high marks regarding his foreign policy decisions and certainly do not think he achieved his goals as outlined in July 2008. Hayden said, “The American brand has suffered. No one knows what this president’s broad strategic vision is that guides policy.” Congressman Nunes ventured to say, “The worst part of his legacy will not be the economy, but what he has done internationally.” Abrams wishes the president would be clear about regimes that are “monstrous and evil. Obama needs to speak clearly and realistically as Reagan did about Russia.” Congressman Rooney stated, “Neither our allies nor our enemies can predict when this administration will want to intervene, when they’ll stand firm, when they’ll back down. Foreign policy under president Obama is ad hoc, contradictory, and unpredictable.”
Perhaps the best way to summarize the president’s foreign policy is that he has failed to achieve his outlined 2008 goals, because he lacks leadership and displays weakness.
On a Moscow train platform, two men smoke and swap rumors in the frozen evening air.
“I hear they’ve raised the Russian flag in Donetsk?” one says.
“I hear Crimea, too.”
So reports freelance journalist Noah Sneider in Slate.
As Russian troops hoisted their flag over Crimea, President Obama’s highly touted “reset” diplomacy crashed and burned. The Russian reset was to have been the crown jewel of Mr. Obama’s statecraft, the start of a new era in which Washington and Moscow worked together to solve the world’s problems. That naïve dream burst when Vladimir Putin ordered his tanks to roll.
But botched relations with the Russians is just the latest and arguably most dramatic failure of White House foreign policy. This administration has suffered a global string of setback. Here are five previous failures the Oval Office hopes most of us never noticed or won’t remember.
• The empty pivot: Mr. Obama grandly announced the U.S. was shifting its focus to Asia. This would allow us to cope better with China’s role as an emerging power, guiding Beijing in a constructive direction. So where’s the beef?
In Hong Kong, Beijing has yet to make good on is its 1997 promise of universal suffrage. Indeed, China is actively working to postpone it indefinitely. The U.S. is silent.
In Taiwan, there is growing insecurity over cross-straits relations, and the Obama administration remains largely indifferent. Its efforts at economic engagement with Taiwan have been anemic and grudging. Regarding security, Obama has not approved an arms transfer to Taiwan in more than two years, violating the spirit if not the letter of the U.S.-Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan desperately needs hardware, especially fighter jets and submarines. Yet, no help is on the horizon.
• North Africa nightmare: In battling transnational terrorism and promoting regional stability, Morocco was a solid U.S. ally. But Washington has so bungled the relationship the countries are now barely on speaking terms.
And everyone remembers “Benghazi,” but few are paying attention to what’s happening in Libya now. It has devolved into a completely failed state, worse than Somalia.
• Middle East Meltdown: Countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council once stood as a reliable firebreak against the expansion of Iranian meddling. Now, the GCC is in the middle of a de facto civil war; Qatar is funding the Muslim Brotherhood to destabilize Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is worse off than when Obama took office. A once dependably pro-Western Jordan overwhelmed with refugees from Syria, is now teetering. And through it all, the administration wastes time “negotiating” with Tehran and brokering a non-existent Palestinian-Israeli peace accord.
• Latin America Civil War: Latin America is in turmoil, too, as socialist states square off against nascent free-market democracies. Venezuela is approaching failed state status. And the administration has been worse than useless. Its top initiative seeks to force Columbia to negotiate with the FARC, a narco-terrorist group that almost destroyed the country and is now moving to fill the power vacuum in Venezuela.
• Antarctic Antics: At the bottom of the world, China is establishing a presence that will allow it to make a grab for that continent’s resources. Fighting over Antarctica’s abundance is still decades off, but ignoring Beijing’s icy “battleground preparations” makes no sense.
Each one of these developments is unfortunate. Taken together, they are tragic–and overwhelming proof of the failure of the Obama Doctrine. That doctrine assumed that all foreign relations problems could be fixed with “smart power.” They can’t.
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 268, May 28, 2014: Story 1: Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy — Obama Bush Doctrine = Obfuscate, Bully, Deceive — Open Borders — 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion — Part 2 — Videos
Posted on May 29, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bombs, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Constitutional Law, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Disasters, Drones, Drugs, Economics, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, MIssiles, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Oil, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Science, Security, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: 28 May 2014, 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens, America, Articles, Audio, Big Government Interventionist Government Statists (BIGS), Bigs, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Bully, Bush Doctrine, Capitalism, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Failed Foreign Policy, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Government Intervention, Growth, Hope, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Knowledge, Liberty, Lie, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Obama, Obama Bush Doctrine, Obama Doctrine, OD = Bully, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Barack Obama, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Retreat, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Run, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 268, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 268: May 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 267: May 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 266: May 23, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 265: May 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 264: May 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 263: May 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 262: May 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 261: May 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 260: May 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 259: May 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 258: May 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 257: May 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 256: May 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 255: May 2, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 254: May 1, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 253: April 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 252: April 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 251: April 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 250: April 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 249: April 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 248: April 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 247: April 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 246: April 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 245: April 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 244: April 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 243: April 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 242: April 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 241: April 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 240: April 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 239: April 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 238: April 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 237: April 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 236: April 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 235: March 31, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 234: March 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 233: March 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 232: March 26, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 231: March 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 230: March 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 229: March 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 228: March 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 227: March 19, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 226: March 18, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 225: March 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 224: March 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 223: March 6, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 222: March 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 221: February 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 220: February 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 219: February 26, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 218: February 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 217: February 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014
Story 1: Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy — Obama Bush Doctrine = Obfuscate –Bully–Deceive = Open Borders — 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of America — Part 2 — Videos
Mark Levin on The Obama Doctrine and Scandals
The Obama Doctrine – WSJ Opinion
What will Obama doctrine mean for U.S. military?
Flash Points: What is the Obama Doctrine?
The Obama Doctrine: Undermine allies, embolden enemies, diminish our country
The President’s Speech: The Obama Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine & the Reality in Libya
Obama hints at greater U.S. support in Syria
Obama US will use force when necessary
Karl Rove: Only Thing New in Obama Speech Was the ‘Straw Men’
Obama gets worked up explaining his foreign policy
Watch Obama’s commencement address at West Point
Charles Krauthammer on Obama Foreign Policy
Pat Buchanan on American Foreign Policy
Suicide of a Superpower: Pat Buchanan on the Death of Western Civilization
Paul Ryan: We Are Seeing the Ugly Fruits of Obama’s Foreign Policy Unravel on Our TV Scree
Obama Said Libya Action Was Necessary to Protest Civilians
Analysis: Did Obama lay out doctrine in Libya speech?
Obama’s Foreign Policy Approval Plummets, Americans Oppose Unilateral Syria Intervention
Former CIA Analyst Exposes Syrian War Lobbyists – Michael Scheuer #N3
Obama’s Libyan Lies
Michael Scheuer Slams CNN Host Over Libya: ‘You’re Just Carrying the Water for Mr. Obama’
Judge Jeanine BLASTS Obama’s Foreign Policy Failures
President Obama’s Foreign Policy Makes Jimmy Carter Look Like Winston Churchill
Obama in the World: The President and Foreign Policy – Annual Review of the Presidency – 2014
In Aiding Rescue of Kidnapped Schoolgirls in Nigeria, Will U.S. Expand Military Foothold in Africa?
Is Obama’s foreign policy doctrine working?
Krauthammer’s Take: Obama’s Foreign Policy ‘Psychology Demobilized the Country’
SA@TAC – Why Foreign Policy Matters Most
SA@TAC – Obama is a Threat to National Security
SA@TAC – Bush Trumped Conservatism
SA@TAC – Obama Adopts the Bush Doctrine
SA@TAC – The War in Afghanistan is Crazy
RE: Marco Rubio: “Bush Did A Fantastic Job”
Glenn Beck: How Do We Bring Libertarians Together ?
The Fix
by Chris Cillizza
Read one way, President Obama’s big-think speech on foreign policy delivered at West Point on Wednesday amounts to a point-by-point takedown of the worldview espoused by Kentucky Sen. (and all-but-announced 2016 presidential candidate) Rand Paul.
Obama never mentions Paul by name. But Paul’s views — described as isolationist by his detractors and non-interventionist by his allies — repeatedly function as a rhetorical device against which Obama argues, and which he clearly means to reject as part of his broad vision of the post-Iraq/Afghanistan/Sept. 11 world and the United State’s role in it.
Let’s go through a few particularly Paul-y passages from Obama.
* “At least since George Washington served as commander-in-chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. Not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges at home, that view is shared by many Americans.”
Obama, like many — Democrats and Republicans — who reject the Paul view of the U.S. in the world, uses the idea that this isolationist tendency is nothing new and, since it has failed to catch on fully in the past, argue that it won’t catch on this time either. Maybe so, but as Obama acknowledges, the Paul view is one held by a major chunk of the American populace. This chart — courtesy of an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll conducted late last month — tells that story powerfully.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/28/president-obamas-west-point-speech-reads-like-a-takedown-of-rand-paul/
* “American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else…..It’s a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it – despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness.”
The direct shot at the Senate and, though not named, Senate Republicans, is as close as Obama got in the speech to calling out the Paul-ist worldview by name. The Law of the Sea Convention died in the Senate in the summer of 2012 when Democrats failed to rally the two-thirds support necessary to end debate and bring it to a vote. Paul was was one of 34 Republican Senators officially on record in opposition to it. Also, just in case you didn’t get what Obama thought of the views of the likes of Paul, the use of the words “retreat” and “weakness” should clear that up nicely.
* “Remember that because of America’s efforts – through diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military – more people live under elected governments today than any time in human history….In Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests – from the peace treaty with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government. But we can and will persistently press for the reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.”
Paul conducted a high-profile attempt to cut $1.5 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt and redirect it to American infrastructure improvements last summer. While Paul’s amendment — he was trying to add it to a transportation bill — was tabled, he did get the votes of 12 other Senators including tea party favorites liked Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted Cruz (Texas). “All I can see is the billions of American tax dollars that he chooses to send overseas,” Paul said of President Obama in a speech on the Senate floor before the vote. “The president sends billions of dollars to Egypt in the form of advanced fighter plans and tanks while Detroit crumbles. In our hour of need in our country, why are you sending money to people that hate us?” Paul has also been outspoken on U.S. aid to Israel, calling it “welfare to a wealthy nation” in 2011.
* “Global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. But American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be – a place where the aspirations of individual human beings matter; where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice.”
This reads as a more-or-less direct rebuke to Paul’s insistence on the need for a more realistic foreign policy. “I really am a believer that foreign policy must be viewed by events as they present themselves, not as we wish them to be,” Paul said in a speech at the Center for National Interest in January. Obama makes the case that “realism” isn’t enough — that part of the U.S.’s role in the world is to imagine how things could be and then undertake a set of policy prescriptions to make that image come to life.
Why Obama’s foreign policy has failed
ROBERT ROBB
President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure. Only hard-bitten partisans deny the obvious: The U.S. position has deteriorated every place in the world.
The important questions are: What was the Obama foreign policy? And why did it fail? On this, there is neither clarity nor consensus.
According to neoconservatives, the intent of Obama’s foreign policy was to retreat from international leadership. The deteriorated position is a willed outcome.
But that’s not an accurate description of what Obama’s ambitions initially were. Obama fully intended for the United States to continue to exercise global leadership. But to earn it and exercise it in an entirely different way.
Obama’s foreign policy began with his critique of George W. Bush’s. According to Obama, Bush’s foreign policy was too high-handed and relied too much on military force.
In Obama’s eyes, Bush essentially declared to other countries, we’re the boss. We’re going to do what we want. Join us if you want. Otherwise get out of the way.
According to Obama, that created unnecessary adversaries and resentments even among allies. If the United States played nicer, we’d get further.
So, Obama pledged reconciliation with the Muslim world and a reset with Russia. And declared that the United States would no longer go it alone with coalitions of the willing. Instead, the United States would work through established multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and give greater consideration to the views of other nations.
According to Obama, this would not diminish U.S. influence, but increase it. The United States would continue to exercise global leadership, but with reduced resentment and blowback. And with greater burden sharing, as other counties, more a part of the decision-making process, would be more willing to do more of the work.
Things haven’t turned out that way. Instead, the Obama administration has been buffeted and overwhelmed by international events: the eruption of the Arab Spring, civil war in Syria, Iran’s steady progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, Russia’s land grab and intimidation in Ukraine.
Even where there is not a crisis, the Obama foreign policy flounders. The president is on a trip to Asia as part of a proclaimed pivot to the Pacific. The administration tells the Chinese that the pivot isn’t intended to contain China, while reassuring regional allies that it really is. Unsurprisingly, this has raised questions about U.S. trustworthiness and done nothing to calm rising regional tensions.
According to neoconservatives, Obama’s foreign policy has failed because Obama has been insufficiently bellicose. They would have the United States more militarily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are falling apart. And they would have us militarily engaged in some larger way in Syria, Ukraine, the Baltic states and Libya.
The neoconservatives, however, ran foreign policy during the Bush administration, and it was also a failure. Moreover, it was repudiated by the American electorate in the elections of 2006 and 2008.
Say this about the failure of Obama’s naïve internationalism: it has been less bloody and costly than the failure of Bush’s neoconservatism.
There are some hard facts on which American foreign policy should be based. The first is that other countries aren’t that interested in U.S. leadership. They have their own national interests to pursue.
Some allies find it convenient that U.S. taxpayers are willing to pay for the only military with truly global reach, to conduct international hygiene operations and humanitarian relief missions. But having the only military with global reach doesn’t buy that much in diplomatic influence anymore.
Multilateral organizations are either useless or figments. The U.N. is the former. NATO is the latter. There are only coalitions of the willing. And, at present, other countries, even those willing, aren’t capable of contributing much.
The ability of the United States to influence events elsewhere in the world is limited and declining. That’s not defeatism. That’s understanding the economic rise of other nations and the inexorable consequences of it.
Bush proved that you can’t overcome these hard facts with brute force. Obama has proved you can’t overcome them with good intentions.
Hard as they are, they can’t be blown up or wished away.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2014/04/24/obama-foreignpolicy/8123071/
Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy: An Utter Failure
Looking back on President Obama’s foreign policy, many wonder what the “Obama Doctrine” actually means. He is inconsistent and appears to be weak in the eyes of the world. Although his rhetoric tries to state otherwise, al-Qaeda is re-emerging, Iran seems to have its way with this administration, and the president has allowed Russia as well as China to become obstructionists. American Thinkerinterviewed intelligence experts to comment on this administration’s foreign policy.
In a major foreign policy speech, while running for president in July 2008, candidate Obama outlined his goals: “Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America — once again — to lead … I will focus this strategy on goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century… [and] to engage China on common interests.”
Evaluating these goals, it seems that the president has pretty much failed. Congressman Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, told American Thinker, “You’d be hard-pressed to argue that the [resident has achieved any of the major foreign policy goals he laid out as a candidate. Part of that is a failure of leadership since he assumed office, and part of that was his naiveté as a candidate, with no experience on the world stage other than speech-giving, making promises that simply could not be kept.” The breakdown of his goals can be seen regarding certain areas.
Russia has been allowed to sabotage issues vital to America’s national security. Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed in the New York Times and recently lectured Americans on the necessity of the NSA, clearly taking advantage of the president’s ability to lead from behind. This is from someone who has given asylum to Edward Snowden. All those interviewed felt that Russia might have had a role in helping Snowden because it would be very naïve to think that he would have acted alone.
It seems President Obama does not understand how Putin operates, being able to take advantage of openings given to him by the U.S. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, still considers Russia down and out, yet the Russians attempt to “act as a great power even though they don’t have the wherewithal of a great power. I said recently this guy plays cards really well, since he only has a pair of threes in his hand. Because of our stumbling, we have given Putin the opportunity to act more dominant than he should. For example, in Syria, we gave them the opportunity to become a player in the Middle East again because of our incompetence and inaction. The Syrian ‘red line’ statement and the aftermath was just an embarrassment showing how inept we were. What makes it harder to work with them is the fact that someone like Putin, with his KGB experience, suspects all American actions as a plot to weaken Russia.”
China appears not to respect or fear the US as evidenced by their recent actions in the South China Sea and the Hainan Island. Everyone interviewed is afraid that China is miscalculating the fact that America is still a great power with the strongest military in the world. Hayden cannot understand China’s recent actions because it “alienated everyone in the neighborhood and causes the US to put more weight on that part of the world.”
What is very fascinating is that Americans are extremely concerned and upset with the “spying by the NSA,” but there is not a large outcry about Chinese espionage. Hayden commented, “A consequence of this Snowden thing is that all the pressure is off the Chinese here and internationally. Everyone is blaming us now while the Chinese keep on doing their thing.”
Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, regards President Obama as showing no leadership when it comes to engaging the Chinese economically. “The president is not pushing two agreements, the Trade Promotion Authority, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, that would put formidable pressure and force the Chinese into making a decision. With the implementation of these agreements along with an agreement with the European Union, we would have two-thirds of the world’s economy on board. The Chinese could either join or sit on the sidelines as they watch the other nations have an easier flow of goods to buy and sell.”
In 2008, President Obama spoke of preventing rogue nations from nuclear capabilities but has currently entered into a six-month agreement with Iran that is not credible. He is negotiating from a position weakness. He did not get the Iranians to crank back their nuclear program, did not tighten the sanctions, and appeared desperate to get an agreement. According to Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East advisor, this agreement “kicks the can down the road not just this year, but for the next three. This allows the president to say, ‘I said they wouldn’t, and they didn’t.’ I think psychologically and diplomatically, the Iranians have the upper hand. These partial piecemeal deals will slowly and surely undue the sanctions while they slowly and surely advance the Iranians nuclear program. The Iranians do not have an impression of us as a power to be reckoned with.”
Which is why Abrams and the others interviewed cannot understand why this administration has worked so hard against the Senate sanction resolution. They actually see it as something to use in the negotiations to get Iranian concessions. Abrams is upset because he feels that the Iranians have no desire to restrain themselves. “They have continued their presence in Syria, have been caught shipping arms to Bahrain, and the most atrocious is when the Iranian foreign minister laid a wreath at the grave of a terrorist that killed a huge number of American soldiers. This is a remarkable insult to the US as they stuck a finger in Obama’s eye. In addition, the Iranians continue their vicious and insulting rhetoric toward Israel as they play the public relations game with the West. There is something wrong with this picture. It is obvious they feel triumphant.”
Candidate Obama wanted to end the war in Iraq responsibly. Congressman Rooney sarcastically notes, “The president inherited a successful surge strategy for Iraq, but now al-Qaeda controls large portions of the country, which many of our troops gave their lives to secure. I wouldn’t call that a responsible end to the war.” Congressman Nunes agrees and wonders why the president did not insist on maintaining well-fortified bases on the outskirts with special ops units. He believes that not being able to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement was a way out for this administration, since “they kept saying Iraq was the wrong war and they had pledged to pull out the troops. How stupid was that, considering al-Qaeda is back and the Iranians are now using that airspace to bring weapons to Syria?”
The War on Terror is far from over. The president did not decimate al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Islamist extremists. Congressman Nunes believes that America has dropped the ball regarding this fight. He does not buy into the rhetoric that “core” al-Qaeda was devastated and that there are now splinter groups that must be dealt with. He insists, “To differentiate between these groups is ridiculous. The administration spun these new references to get re-elected and it stemmed from the Benghazi disaster. First this administration said the Benghazi attack was not terrorism, then they said it was terrorism but not al-Qaeda, and now they say it was not core al-Qaeda but splinter groups. They can attempt to change the rhetoric all they want, but everyone knows radical Islam is radical Islam. All the groups are related, work towards the same goal, and believe in the same ideology. It is obvious that al-Qaeda has adapted and changed.”
Hayden feels that the U.S. is losing more influence in the Middle East as the fundamentalist Islamists make more of an impact. He sees them “controlling, dominating, shaping, and creating events. We see how the Fundamentalists have taken over many of the revolutions in the area. Just look at Syria, the Sinai, Libya, and Yemen to name a few. I can’t point to any successes for us here.”
All interviewed would not give Obama high marks regarding his foreign policy decisions and certainly do not think he achieved his goals as outlined in July 2008. Hayden said, “The American brand has suffered. No one knows what this president’s broad strategic vision is that guides policy.” Congressman Nunes ventured to say, “The worst part of his legacy will not be the economy, but what he has done internationally.” Abrams wishes the president would be clear about regimes that are “monstrous and evil. Obama needs to speak clearly and realistically as Reagan did about Russia.” Congressman Rooney stated, “Neither our allies nor our enemies can predict when this administration will want to intervene, when they’ll stand firm, when they’ll back down. Foreign policy under president Obama is ad hoc, contradictory, and unpredictable.”
Perhaps the best way to summarize the president’s foreign policy is that he has failed to achieve his outlined 2008 goals, because he lacks leadership and displays weakness.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/barack_obamas_foreign_policy_an_utter_failure.html
Five Ways Obama’s Foreign Policies Have Failed
James Carafano
On a Moscow train platform, two men smoke and swap rumors in the frozen evening air.
“I hear they’ve raised the Russian flag in Donetsk?” one says.
“I hear Crimea, too.”
So reports freelance journalist Noah Sneider in Slate.
As Russian troops hoisted their flag over Crimea, President Obama’s highly touted “reset” diplomacy crashed and burned. The Russian reset was to have been the crown jewel of Mr. Obama’s statecraft, the start of a new era in which Washington and Moscow worked together to solve the world’s problems. That naïve dream burst when Vladimir Putin ordered his tanks to roll.
But botched relations with the Russians is just the latest and arguably most dramatic failure of White House foreign policy. This administration has suffered a global string of setback. Here are five previous failures the Oval Office hopes most of us never noticed or won’t remember.
• The empty pivot: Mr. Obama grandly announced the U.S. was shifting its focus to Asia. This would allow us to cope better with China’s role as an emerging power, guiding Beijing in a constructive direction. So where’s the beef?
In Hong Kong, Beijing has yet to make good on is its 1997 promise of universal suffrage. Indeed, China is actively working to postpone it indefinitely. The U.S. is silent.
In Taiwan, there is growing insecurity over cross-straits relations, and the Obama administration remains largely indifferent. Its efforts at economic engagement with Taiwan have been anemic and grudging. Regarding security, Obama has not approved an arms transfer to Taiwan in more than two years, violating the spirit if not the letter of the U.S.-Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan desperately needs hardware, especially fighter jets and submarines. Yet, no help is on the horizon.
• North Africa nightmare: In battling transnational terrorism and promoting regional stability, Morocco was a solid U.S. ally. But Washington has so bungled the relationship the countries are now barely on speaking terms.
And everyone remembers “Benghazi,” but few are paying attention to what’s happening in Libya now. It has devolved into a completely failed state, worse than Somalia.
• Middle East Meltdown: Countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council once stood as a reliable firebreak against the expansion of Iranian meddling. Now, the GCC is in the middle of a de facto civil war; Qatar is funding the Muslim Brotherhood to destabilize Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is worse off than when Obama took office. A once dependably pro-Western Jordan overwhelmed with refugees from Syria, is now teetering. And through it all, the administration wastes time “negotiating” with Tehran and brokering a non-existent Palestinian-Israeli peace accord.
• Latin America Civil War: Latin America is in turmoil, too, as socialist states square off against nascent free-market democracies. Venezuela is approaching failed state status. And the administration has been worse than useless. Its top initiative seeks to force Columbia to negotiate with the FARC, a narco-terrorist group that almost destroyed the country and is now moving to fill the power vacuum in Venezuela.
• Antarctic Antics: At the bottom of the world, China is establishing a presence that will allow it to make a grab for that continent’s resources. Fighting over Antarctica’s abundance is still decades off, but ignoring Beijing’s icy “battleground preparations” makes no sense.
Each one of these developments is unfortunate. Taken together, they are tragic–and overwhelming proof of the failure of the Obama Doctrine. That doctrine assumed that all foreign relations problems could be fixed with “smart power.” They can’t.
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/12/five-ways-obamas-foreign-policies-failed/
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-268
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )