Recently I was asked to comment on President Obama’s foreign policy. By no means am I a foreign policy expert and what I know – if anything—is based entirely on what I have read and seen on TV. However, based upon that limited foundation, I think President Obama’s foreign policy rests on two key factors. I believe he is first and foremost an “Internationalist” in the sense that he believes in World Government. This translates into a tendency to subordinate America’s interests to those of the UN and the international community as a whole. The second factor is his belief that America is an overbearing arrogant super power that acts unilaterally and without regard for the interests of other nations.
President Obama came to the Presidency with no experience in business, government, or the military but with an activist vision of all of these things. He promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close the Guantanamo Prison, to repair America’s relationship with the Islamic World, to reach out to Iran on their Nuclear ambitions, to reset relations with Russia toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons, to work with the Chinese on global issues, and to make peace in the middle east. In retrospect it is easy to see the naïveté of these goals because of their idealism and failure to account for any of the underlying details. President Obama’s lack of experience left him unprepared for the reality of his position and the constraints on his power. Each of his objectives individually are worthwhile but he did not realize that none of these stood alone but had strings and impacts in Congress and with other countries.
From the outset he found that there were constraints on his power, constraints from congress, from the people, and even from other countries. It seemed to him closing Guantanamo and moving the prisoners to prisons and to civilian trial would only require his order. He was unprepared for the cost, the public outcry, and the legal issues. Ultimately he was forced to abandon this goal and act pragmatically. In fact President Obama’s efforts to achieve the lofty goals he promised have consistently yielded to practical decisions and compromises.
Having been raised as a Muslim or simply exposed to Islam, he came to office perhaps with a greater understanding of Islam than any previous president. Armed with this knowledge he aimed to repair America’s reputation within the Islamic community. This objective formed the basis for much of his foreign policy. This was a policy that not only failed in its objective but seriously damaged his position at home. His actions and compromises have been viewed abroad as signs of weakness and intransigence and at home as examples of his inexperience, incompetence, and subordination of American interests to internationalism.
One of President Obama’s objectives was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he quickly discovered that starting a war is much easier than ending one. But there was never a declaration of war so as President he could end them with a stroke of a pen, which he more or less did. This was done over the objections of the military and the result left Iraq dominated by religious conflict, an incipient civil war, a corrupt government heavily influenced by Iran, and with Al Qaeda resurgent. The results in Afghanistan are similar. By announcing a withdrawal date the Taliban and Al Qaeda took that as surrender and have become resurgent. In this instance he fulfilled his campaign promise but his foreign policy failed and the Islamic community saw this as an example of American unreliability and weakness.
As part of his policy of Islamic refurbishment President Obama distanced himself from Israel. To a rational person that might have made sense but the Islamic countries simply saw that as another sign of weakness and a demonstration of how unreliable America is as an ally. Rather than improving the situation in the Middle East President Obama’s policies have left the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda stronger throughout the area. More importantly the policy toward Israel has emboldened Iran and the Palestinians and has made the possibility of another war greatly increased.
The Foreign policy toward China has been one of talk more than action. The Chinese government has consistently attacked our government and industrial computers for the purpose of stealing secrets. The Chinese do not honor copyright laws and manipulate their currency. All of these things are known and reported in the press, yet there has been no action taken to correct or prevent these. This has had a huge impact on the American economy through the loss of jobs and revenues. The idea that problems can be solved through talk is the basis of diplomacy but ultimately diplomacy must be backed up by action and these actions have been missing throughout this administration.
The foreign policies of President Obama have been well intended with the idea that by retreating from an aggressive leadership position America’s image would be enhanced, but clearly this has not been the result.
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Obama Strategy?
As the decision relative to Afghanistan continues to wait on President Obama, perhaps it is time to ask precisely what his strategy is relative to America and American foreign policy. During one of his overseas trips, President Obama was asked about the exceptionalism of America. Specifically Ronald Reagan viewed America as “A shining city on a hill” and how did President Obama see America? He was very clear in that he did not see America as unique or with any interests above or different from those of – say – Cuba, Greece, or Venezuela. This startling view was reflected in the mainstream media as a refreshing change from the jingoism that has characterized America. Newsweek almost got the vapors in their fawning over President Obama’s stance that America is no longer chauvinistic and parochial, but we stand as equals with the world and that Obama stands above the country – even above the world – “he is sort of God”. I think even with his overweening ego, President Obama might be a little embarrassed by that quote. But it does raise the question of exactly how does President Obama see the US and where does he think our interests lie?
The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.
If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?
So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.
To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.
So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.
The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.
If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?
So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.
To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.
So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Strategic Observations and Forecast
After reading various articles and books plus listening to the news, and then observing the economic situation both nationally and internationally, I have arrived at some conclusions. Naturally these could be totally off base and have no relationship to reality, but then maybe not. Certainly it should be clear to everyone that not only are we in a serious economic situation but that we are in the throes of significant change politically, economically, and culturally. So these are simply my personal conclusions regarding what I think are some key areas of change and impact.
Energy
The drive within the US for many years has been to achieve independence from fossil fuels, meaning oil and natural gas, but in reality independence from oil imports. The focus has been on electric autos which to date have proven to be overly expensive and hugely unpopular. However, that is basically a technical problem which can and will be overcome so the long term problem is our electrical infrastructure. The Greens have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants while campaigning against coal powered energy. Unless the congress corrects this problem the price of electricity will skyrocket as thousands of electric vehicles hit the road. Even without these electric cars the price of electricity is already increasing and in some areas the supply struggles to meet the demand. My long range forecast is that while the demand for gasoline decreases the cost of gas in the family budget will be replaced by the cost of electricity and there will be shortages in the near term if congress allows the Greens to approve the Kyoto treaty which would reduce our supply of electricity as generating plants are forced to close.
Oil and OPEC
The price of oil is plummeting and efforts by OPEC to drive the price up will probably be futile at least in the near term. The problem is that the oil producing countries of Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and the Emirates have virtually no source of income outside of oil. These oil revenues support their socialist programs and as the price of oil drops their spending far exceeds their income. Consequently through OPEC they have tried to increase the cost of oil by reducing the supply. But there is no honor among thieves so while they agree to reduce the supply of oil the reality is only the Saudi’s do so the actual supply of oil continues to exceed the demand. The result of this hasn’t manifested itself yet, but within the next year OPEC will become nothing more than a hollow shell with each member going their own way while giving lip service to the agreements.
Iran & Venezuela
Both of these countries are unstable but perhaps the most unstable of the pair is Iran. The Mullahs have instituted Sharia Law and enforce it capriciously. They execute homosexuals, adulterers, and women who have been accused of “immoral conduct” – usually without trial. They are Saber rattling but as it turns out much of their vaunted military is unreliable. Their missile program turned out to be mostly an Adobe Photoshop exercise. By using Shia Iraqi soldiers as bait the managed to surround an American patrol with the objective of kidnapping them and holding them hostage in order to embarrass the US. Instead, they American officer who was surrounded by Iranian soldiers ordered his men to open fire. The Iranians turned and ran off leaving eleven dead. There is great unrest among the population and the more restrictive the government becomes the more unsteady the population and the more demands for change. In the meantime their principal source of income is oil and with the plummeting oil prices they can no longer fund their social programs much less their military machine. The best course of action for the US is inaction and possibly increased diplomatic contact. The Mullahs need us to be aggressive toward them and they will undoubtedly continue provocations but we must not allow ourselves to be provoked.
Venezuela is a little more stable but Chavez is systematically wrecking the economy with his socialist programs. The black market is rampant and Chavez is looking for some outside force that he can blame for his problems. Currently this is the US but without his oil income and with his socialized businesses dropping like stones he is driving for total power. This country is subject to an internal revolution by the military. The problem with soldiers is that they have parents and families. If they aren’t happy the soldiers become unreliable. Chavez will continue his drive for total power as dictator but as the price of oil declines he will be forced into either curtailing his social spending or continuing to pump oil in an effort to maintain his revenues. Either way Venezuela will be very unstable as well as his future. Once again our best course of action is no action.
China
It seems pretty clear that China as a communist nation is on very unsteady ground. As they creep more and more into capitalism the communist power structure moves ever closer to Imperial China in practice. Central planning had never worked and is not working in China. Corruption is rampant which has greatly impacted their foreign exports plus weakening the grip of the government on the people. Their exports are declining, unemployment is increasing, and their economy which depends on growth is declining. The Chinese have always been an agrarian economy and the country peasants have always been frugal as well as secretive and prone to ignoring the central government. Nothing has changed and the peasants are not spending so the revenues are dependent on foreign exchange. However, as these decline revenues decline and as these decline the government’s grip on power is threatened since they cannot continue their social programs or control the people who are moving ever more toward capitalism and individual action. It is unlikely the current communist government can continue for any extended period as it is currently structured. Most likely it will become more capitalist oriented with the central government looking more and more like Imperial China with a socialist structure similar to what you see in Europe.
Energy
The drive within the US for many years has been to achieve independence from fossil fuels, meaning oil and natural gas, but in reality independence from oil imports. The focus has been on electric autos which to date have proven to be overly expensive and hugely unpopular. However, that is basically a technical problem which can and will be overcome so the long term problem is our electrical infrastructure. The Greens have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants while campaigning against coal powered energy. Unless the congress corrects this problem the price of electricity will skyrocket as thousands of electric vehicles hit the road. Even without these electric cars the price of electricity is already increasing and in some areas the supply struggles to meet the demand. My long range forecast is that while the demand for gasoline decreases the cost of gas in the family budget will be replaced by the cost of electricity and there will be shortages in the near term if congress allows the Greens to approve the Kyoto treaty which would reduce our supply of electricity as generating plants are forced to close.
Oil and OPEC
The price of oil is plummeting and efforts by OPEC to drive the price up will probably be futile at least in the near term. The problem is that the oil producing countries of Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and the Emirates have virtually no source of income outside of oil. These oil revenues support their socialist programs and as the price of oil drops their spending far exceeds their income. Consequently through OPEC they have tried to increase the cost of oil by reducing the supply. But there is no honor among thieves so while they agree to reduce the supply of oil the reality is only the Saudi’s do so the actual supply of oil continues to exceed the demand. The result of this hasn’t manifested itself yet, but within the next year OPEC will become nothing more than a hollow shell with each member going their own way while giving lip service to the agreements.
Iran & Venezuela
Both of these countries are unstable but perhaps the most unstable of the pair is Iran. The Mullahs have instituted Sharia Law and enforce it capriciously. They execute homosexuals, adulterers, and women who have been accused of “immoral conduct” – usually without trial. They are Saber rattling but as it turns out much of their vaunted military is unreliable. Their missile program turned out to be mostly an Adobe Photoshop exercise. By using Shia Iraqi soldiers as bait the managed to surround an American patrol with the objective of kidnapping them and holding them hostage in order to embarrass the US. Instead, they American officer who was surrounded by Iranian soldiers ordered his men to open fire. The Iranians turned and ran off leaving eleven dead. There is great unrest among the population and the more restrictive the government becomes the more unsteady the population and the more demands for change. In the meantime their principal source of income is oil and with the plummeting oil prices they can no longer fund their social programs much less their military machine. The best course of action for the US is inaction and possibly increased diplomatic contact. The Mullahs need us to be aggressive toward them and they will undoubtedly continue provocations but we must not allow ourselves to be provoked.
Venezuela is a little more stable but Chavez is systematically wrecking the economy with his socialist programs. The black market is rampant and Chavez is looking for some outside force that he can blame for his problems. Currently this is the US but without his oil income and with his socialized businesses dropping like stones he is driving for total power. This country is subject to an internal revolution by the military. The problem with soldiers is that they have parents and families. If they aren’t happy the soldiers become unreliable. Chavez will continue his drive for total power as dictator but as the price of oil declines he will be forced into either curtailing his social spending or continuing to pump oil in an effort to maintain his revenues. Either way Venezuela will be very unstable as well as his future. Once again our best course of action is no action.
China
It seems pretty clear that China as a communist nation is on very unsteady ground. As they creep more and more into capitalism the communist power structure moves ever closer to Imperial China in practice. Central planning had never worked and is not working in China. Corruption is rampant which has greatly impacted their foreign exports plus weakening the grip of the government on the people. Their exports are declining, unemployment is increasing, and their economy which depends on growth is declining. The Chinese have always been an agrarian economy and the country peasants have always been frugal as well as secretive and prone to ignoring the central government. Nothing has changed and the peasants are not spending so the revenues are dependent on foreign exchange. However, as these decline revenues decline and as these decline the government’s grip on power is threatened since they cannot continue their social programs or control the people who are moving ever more toward capitalism and individual action. It is unlikely the current communist government can continue for any extended period as it is currently structured. Most likely it will become more capitalist oriented with the central government looking more and more like Imperial China with a socialist structure similar to what you see in Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)