Posted by: Debby Durkee | February 9, 2011

Obama shuns allies.

Debby's Web Finds
Obama shuns allies.

Jed Babbin says that Obama’s treatment of our allies over the past two years has left our country friendless and powerless and could have repercussions for years to come. If Reagan’s doctrine was “peace through strength,” what’s Obama’s? This is from Real Clear Politics.

What is the Obama Doctrine? After two years of his presidency, President Obama has defined a doctrine aimed at reducing America from “superpower” to “also-ran.”

By shunning allies and empowering enemies, by reducing military strength, Obama is reducing our ability to protect allies and pursue interests abroad. Given his record, it’s no longer possible to accuse Obama of naivete: He is at work pursuing his goal.

Obama revealed this goal in the context of Middle Eastern conflicts, saying, “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them, and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Not that America is justly proud of its ability to protect ourselves and allies, to protect freedom and pursue our interests globally. Not that we are a force for good.

“Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” That dominance has kept much of the world free since World War II. Obama aims to end it. Snip —

Babbin goes on to point to Obama’s immediate breaking of the “special relationship” with Great Britain. Not only did he return the bust of Winston Churchill and give such ridiculous gifts as I-Pods with his speeches on them and DVD’s that wouldn’t play in UK players to the Queen and the Prime Minister, but he also just recently proclaimed that France was our strongest ally. France! As the Heritage Foundation said: “Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy…But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.” Read it all here: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/10/obama-france-not-england-americas-strongest-ally/

As Babbin said, he treated Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and the Dali Lama as enemies or an inconvenience to leave waiting while Obama went to dinner or to send out the back door instead of the front. But, his worst offense was the response to the removal of a Honduran president.

Obama’s defining moment occurred in June 2009 when the Honduran supreme court ordered the removal of President Jose Manuel Zelaya for violating the Honduran constitution by trying to stay in power past his term.

Obama didn’t stand with freedom-loving Hondurans and for American principle. Instead, he sided with Cuban President Raul Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, condemning the “coup.”  Snip —

From eliminating weapons systems to cutting defense spending, from “resetting” the relationship with Russia via an inadequate START treaty, from bowing to princes, dictators and kings, Obama has shown the soft underbelly of his administration and is leaving the country vulnerable to attack. Not only does his posturing leave us vulnerable, but it also leaves our enemies with little fear of reprisal if they do something provocative, and it leaves our “friends” wondering where this leaves them.

In two short years, “hope and change” have taken us from “peace through strength” to weakness that will embolden our enemies everywhere.

Read all of Babbin here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/07/obamas_pattern_of_shunning_us_allies_108799.html

Another disturbing aspect of Obama’s foreign policy (if you can call it a “policy”) is his ability not to talk straight about anything. That leaves our friends wondering if we will stab them in the back. Take the United Kingdom again. It was recently revealed via Wikileaks that Obama promised Russia he would give them information on the UK’s nuclear weapons arsenal if they would sign the START Treaty. Now, the State Department has struck back at the story first reported by the UK Telegraph by saying this was something that was done in the original 1991 treaty. But, it seems the actual identifier numbers on the Trident missiles are being given to Russia which gives them a count of their missiles. Here’s wording from the leaked memo: “Additionally, he pointed out, the Russian Federation will receive unique identifiers for each of the missiles transferred to the UK, which was more information than was disclosed under START.” You can read more on this and decide for yourself what this administration has done to our allies as reported by Ed Morrissey here: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/05/did-obama-agree-to-expose-british-nuke-secrets-in-start-pact/

Is the latest incoherence on Obama’s Egypt policy just more stabbing in the back of a long-time ally? Is it sheer incompetence and naivete or is it political posturing on an international scale? Here’s what Victor Davis Hanson has to say on that matter.

If we were to collate all the pronouncements of Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and President Obama, the administration believes that Mubarak is a dictator and not a dictator, a strategic ally and an embarrassing liability — and that he must leave immediately, soon, perhaps as soon as possible, but he should also transition Egypt into a constitutional state right now, this summer, next fall, but then should leave if he is somehow not already gone.

We can glean from all this that there is no official policy spokesperson. We can also conclude that the administration’s private conversations with Egyptian officials will be explained to the press in a way that makes Obama, Biden, and Clinton seem decisive, wise, and formidable — and increasingly unreliable to their Egyptian counterparts. And we will be told that the Obama administration — which on coming into office jettisoned the entire Bush approach to human rights in the Middle East (“reset”) as hopelessly neoconservative — was all along a strong promoter of freedom and consensual government and is in some way to be credited for the protests (but only if they do not descend into permanent chaos). What is going on here?  Snip –

All three in their new roles are searching in the same old manner for the politically proper response without any deep reflection about or study of what the turmoil in Cairo represents. They sound as confused and political as they did in 2007, but unfortunately, this time around they are no longer blustering senators with presidential ambitions and without responsibility for the implementation of U.S. foreign policy.

When all you know is politics. When all you care about is your power. When you go into high political office thinking your own country is wrong and the cause of all of the wrongs in the world, but at the same time want to push other countries around while believing your way is the only way. When you say one thing and do another…it all eventually catches up to you. When those in power have no real principles except for what they find when they stick their fingers into the wind, chaos results, and,  generally speaking, nothing good ever comes of it. Read all of Hanson here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259274/cairo-ironies-victor-davis-hanson?page=1

//

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: