Obama Continues To Fail On World Stage, NATO In Disarray

I wish it weren’t so, I really do.

Foreign policy is the most difficult job the President of the United States has.  It is also the most important.  Someone can have stellar domestic policy (Obama doesn’t), but it means nothing if their foreign policy is junk.

Many voters have an issue they base their vote on.  For some it’s abortion.  For others it’s gay issues, jobs, health care, etc.  For me, it’s always been foreign policy.  I was this way even before I joined the military because I knew it would affect me when I did.  Without an effective foreign policy, there may not be a domestic policy.  That’s how important it is.

For years now I’ve laughed at both sides of the aisle for trying to compare Bush and Obama’s domestic policy.  I laugh because of how similar they are.  Obama supporters will cheer Obama for doing the same thing as Bush while criticizing Bush for doing the same thing as Obama.  The opposite is also true.  Of course, I’m not saying their domestic policies are exactly the same.  They aren’t, but they are similar (health care aside).

The area where Bush and Obama are of stark contrast to one another is foreign policy (in spite of Obama maintaining many Bush policies).  Bush was an ok president, but a solid commander-in-chief.  Obama is a bad president, and a terrible commander-in-chief.  The latest problems with the NATO alliance further prove my point.  More on that in a bit.

Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster.  From the start he has angered or insulted many of our allies (Israel, Turkey, Italy, Estonia, France, Great Britain, Germany, and more), and he hasn’t eased tensions with hostile states.  This on the heals of promising the American people he’d repair relations with our allies, and reach out to the world.  This was always a stupid pipe dream.  None of our allies were mad at us to begin with.  Right about now someone will point out Germany and France. You mean two of the three ‘friendly’ countries we caught illegally arming and supplying Saddam?  Also keep in mind that both of those countries voted out leaders who were unfriendly towards the US, and elected strong leaders who wanted to repair the damage their predecessors had done with regards to US relations.

To recap: Obama hasn’t repaired relations with friendly countries, and he hasn’t improved relations with hostile ones.  That’s a failed foreign policy, but it gets worse.

  • Obama didn’t leave Iraq.  He actually extended combat deployments longer than Bush and the Iraqis had planned.
  • He took his time in sitting down with military commanders to address Afghanistan, and then fired a good general for calling him on it publicly.
  • During the campaign he talked about possibly intervening in Darfur.  He didn’t.
  • He didn’t lead the international community when Iran was murdering protesters.
  • He hasn’t followed through with his ultimatum to Iran to stop nuclear enrichment.
  • His handling of Honduras was disgusting, calling a legal action supported by their legislature a military ‘coup.’
  • He doesn’t appear to be able to handle Israel or China.
  • The Obama administration and Brazil have been butting heads since Obama took office.  That is, until recently when he decided he wanted to help Brazil expand their offshore drilling while simultaneously restricting ours.
  • He’s handled Pakistan horrendously, and he can’t even pronounce Pakistan correctly.
  • He failed to lead in Japan.
  • And he failed to lead in Libya, and is still playing the fool there.

I could go on, but you get the point.  Do a search for Obama’s foreign policy failures, and you’ll find hours of reading material.  Here’s a bone to get you started.

Then things got even worse today.

Who’s in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
U.K. ministers say war could last ’30 years’
Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians – calls bombing a ‘crusade’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HTbvSfga

A coalition 15 nations smaller than Bush’s going into Iraq is in complete chaos without US leadership holding it together.  We saw this in Bosnia when Europe was trying to prove it could function without the US.  It was a disaster, and we were forced to take part.

What’s more is that Obama has completely reversed course on what events could justify US intervention.  Obama now believes that the Bush doctrine for US military intervention is pretty solid.  He’s been attempting to distance himself from this, but he’s failing miserably because the truth is undeniable.    Obama’s justifications for action in Libya are the same as Bush’s for Iraq.  Only Iraq was a greater threat to its neighbors and the world than Libya.

  • Both countries were run by dictators.
  • Both abused and murdered their own people.
  • Both defied the international community.
  • Both ignored a peaceful resolution.
  • And in both cases the United States was enforcing a UN Security Council resolution that authorized military force.

These similarities can’t be ignored by anyone.  Except Obama of course.

While in Chile, Obama gave a joint press conference and took the position that his actions in Libya are different than Iraq because there was a UN resolution (Iraq had one too), and the US wasn’t acting “unilaterally.”

Just a friendly reminder that Obama doesn’t approve of dictionary definitions:

uni·lat·er·al


adj \ˌyü-ni-ˈla-tə-rəl, -ˈla-trəl\

1
a : done or undertaken by one person or party
b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided
c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party

Clearly Obama and the anti-war crowd does not know the meaning of this word.  Yet they persist in using it.

Obama is not acting unilaterally, and neither did Bush.  As I pointed out earlier, Obama’s coalition is some 15 nations smaller than Bush had.  And Bush’s coalition was 3 nations larger than the coalition during the first Gulf War.  Obama is, in fact, acting more unilaterally than Bush.  Bush also went to Congress, Obama didn’t.  After catching flak for this he did finally tell Congress on the 21st.  I would like to point out that Obama is well within his powers to not get congressional approval under the War Powers Act for the actions in Libya.  It just points out his hypocrisy on the matter.

It is crystal clear that this president is clueless when it comes to foreign policy, and now the world’s most powerful alliance (NATO) appears to be in shambles.  He doesn’t need to go to war, he doesn’t need to commit ground troops, he just needs to lead.  Unfortunately, we have yet to see him do so.

Advertisements

Posted on March 23, 2011, in Dumbassery, Politics, Uncategorized, War and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.