Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The price of the Obama Doctrine

For the second time in two months, Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly has tried to explain the Obama Doctrine.

The trouble is, the Obama Doctrine does not exist. It is a fairy tale, a unicorn, that homework assignment that the dog ate. President Obama has no foreign policy other than outsourcing it to the next president. He sees no reason to expend any political capital whatsoever on foreign policy and given how the Democratic Party trashed his predecessor, I can see Obama's point.
Why be punished for doing the right thing?

However, Obama's shirking of his duties is bearing its rotted fruit a few years early. Two attacks by Islamic State terrorists in recent months -- including Sunday's attack in Orlando, the largest slaughter of homosexuals in the Western World -- forced him to answer for his political cowardice.

He got angry -- furious -- at Donald Trump for being right about terrorism. Under Obama, the nation is now less protected against terrorism than any time since 9/11.

In April, Goldberg explained the Obama Doctrine as outsourcing our foreign policy to our adversaries, Iran and Russia.  The benighted Goldberg wrote:
Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
Obama drew a line in the sand.

When crossed, Obama looked to others to enforce it.

Alligator mouth, butterfly ass.

Oh, Kerry's speech? It was written by Ben Rhodes, the whiz kid on Obama's staff who writes lies and later brags about fooling those childish Americans.

From Kerry/Rhodes/whatever:
As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most.
Churchill talk from the American Neville Chamberlain.

Goldberg said threatening without enforcing was good:
At the outset of the Syrian uprising, in early 2011, Samantha Power argued that the rebels, drawn from the ranks of ordinary citizens, deserved America’s enthusiastic support. Others noted that the rebels were farmers and doctors and carpenters, comparing these revolutionaries to the men who won America’s war for independence.
Obama flipped this plea on its head. “When you have a professional army,” he once told me, “that is well armed and sponsored by two large states”—Iran and Russia—“who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict …” He paused. “The notion that we could have—in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces—changed the equation on the ground there was never true.” The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.”
Of course, by "stupid shit," Obama means protecting the nation and its interests. Obama does nothing. He allowed the world become colder, more dangerous, and less safe. The chicken-in-chief throws bombs, makes threats, and undermines the world's security.

He also breaks promises. He is not a man of his word. Goldberg praised that:
Obama knew his decision not to bomb Syria would likely upset America’s allies. It did. The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, told me that his government was already worried about the consequences of earlier inaction in Syria when word came of the stand-down. “By not intervening early, we have created a monster,” Valls told me. “We were absolutely certain that the U.S. administration would say yes. Working with the Americans, we had already seen the targets. It was a great surprise. If we had bombed as was planned, I think things would be different today.” The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who was already upset with Obama for “abandoning” Hosni Mubarak, the former president of Egypt, fumed to American visitors that the U.S. was led by an “untrustworthy” president. The king of Jordan, Abdullah II—already dismayed by what he saw as Obama’s illogical desire to distance the U.S. from its traditional Sunni Arab allies and create a new alliance with Iran, Assad’s Shia sponsor—complained privately, “I think I believe in American power more than Obama does.” The Saudis, too, were infuriated. They had never trusted Obama—he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a “so-called ally” of the U.S. “Iran is the new great power of the Middle East, and the U.S. is the old,” Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, told his superiors in Riyadh.
In the aftermath of the Muslim terrorist's slaughter, which left 50 gay men and women dead, Goldberg rose to defend our coward-in-chief:
In one conversation, parts of which I’ve previously recounted, Obama talked about the decades-long confrontation between the U.S. and communism, and compared it to the current crisis. “You have some on the Republican side who will insist that what we need is the same moral clarity with respect to radical Islam” that Ronald Reagan had with communism, he said. “Except, of course, communism was not embedded in a whole bunch of cultures, communism wasn’t a millennium-old religion that was embraced by a whole host of good, decent, hard-working people who are our allies. Communism for the most part was a foreign, abstract ideology that had been adopted by some nationalist figures, or those who were concerned about poverty and inequality in their countries but wasn’t organic to these cultures.”
He went on to say, “Establishing some moral clarity about what communism was and wasn’t, and being able to say to the people of Latin America or the people of Eastern Europe, ‘There’s a better way for you to achieve your goals,’ that was something that could be useful to do.” But, he said, “to analogize it to one of the world’s foremost religions that is the center of people’s lives all around the world, and to potentially paint that as a broad brush, isn’t providing moral clarity. What it’s doing is alienating a whole host of people who we need to work with us in order to succeed.”
Liberals said Reagan was a wild man who was an idiot who said things that alarmed our allies and recruited others to the commie cause.

In short everything that they say about Trump and Islam, they said about Reagan and communism.

But this time it is different.

Goldberg ended this week's piece.
Privately, Obama expresses the deepest loathing for ISIS and other radical Islamist groups. ISIS, he has noted, stands for—quite literally—everything he opposes. Nevertheless, his approach to the challenge of Islamist terrorism is sometimes emotionally unsatisfying; it is sometimes insufficient to the challenge; and he himself is sometimes too fatalistic about the possibility of change in the Middle East.
Donald Trump’s approach, on the other hand, is simply catastrophic.
Real leaders are not two-faced, saying one thing in private and another in public.

Maybe that is why the Obama Doctrine doesn't work.

That and it is nonexistent.

Doesn't keep his word. Two-faced. Yep, they are correct. Obama is the opposite of Donald Trump.

The second biggest mistake Americans have made thus far in this century was electing Obama.

The biggest mistake, of course, was re-electing him.

17 comments:

  1. Nah, the dog didn't eat it. Too ordinary an excuse, without enough victimhood.

    Either he was attacked on the way to the podium by a feral goat that ate up his homework, or a horde of termites devoured the entire works the night before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't remember who wrote it but was an European writer who wrote that the problem wasn't Obungler but an American electorate that would elect such an obviously incompetent person. The fact that Obumbler's approval rating is over 50% sure supports that contention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's in the high 40s.

      With a skew of 8.

      Delete
  3. Karma can only wait for so long. It looks like Obama - and regrettably, by extension, America - is about to get a rude awakening. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  4. "ISIS, he has noted, stands for—quite literally—everything he opposes."

    Snooze to me. I have yet to figure out what he opposes, aside from America.

    And he has yet to really stand fir anything.

    Except Islam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, let's analyze that word "oppose", as it applies to Obama.

      First syllable: "op". As in "opportunity".

      Second syllable: "pose". As in "to pose, posture". See "poseur".

      See where I'm going with this?

      Delete
  5. Do you thin his knees will hold up until the election?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Knees without a spine to attach 'em to? Wonder how Charles Darwin missed that little evolutionary wrinkle.

      Delete
  6. "communism was not embedded in a whole bunch of cultures, communism wasn’t a millennium-old religion that was embraced by a whole host of good, decent, hard-working people who are our allies. Communism for the most part was a foreign, abstract ideology that had been adopted by some nationalist figures, "

    This is some of the strangest, ahistorical nonsense I've ever read. Communism, let us not forget, was not a movement of nationalism; quite the contrary. It ignored national boundaries with the goal of uniting workers across the globe against the owners of production. Communism was very much like Islam in being IMPOSED on many countries and areas across the globe, some by stealth, others by conquest. To claim that Communism unlike Islam was not "embedded in different cultures" is absurd. The spread of both around the world was little different in any politically meaningful way. Communist Cuba is to Communist Russia as Muslim Indonesia is to Muslim Saudi Arabia. And to claim that all Communists were our enemies but all Muslims are our friends is pigheadedly wrong. Even under the yoke of Communism, Poland was more our friend than Muslim Iran is today. And to denigrate Communism on the grounds it was a "foreign ideology" is no proof that the tenets of Islam are the least bit compatible with American democratic values. On historical grounds alone, the ideology of Islam is far MORE foreign to and less compatible with American values than Communism ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most." The won has not argued against any of those.

    "Privately, Obama expresses the deepest loathing for ISIS and other radical Islamist groups. ISIS, he has noted, stands for—quite literally—everything he opposes. Nevertheless, his approach to the challenge of Islamist terrorism is sometimes emotionally unsatisfying; it is sometimes insufficient to the challenge; and he himself is sometimes too fatalistic about the possibility of change in the Middle East."
    As Bill Cosby said, "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight."{

    ReplyDelete
  8. The JV from ISIS cannot take over America, so who cares?
    The real Obama Doctrine, short of total annihilation, what difference does it make?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The JV from ISIS cannot take over America, so who cares?
    The real Obama Doctrine, short of total annihilation, what difference does it make?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it is wrong to say he doesn't have a strategy or a foreign policy.
    He has demonstrated a consistent streak of punishing long since withdrawn colonial powers and trusting indigenous islamic groups to govern wisely or well if given power.
    His strategy in the ME was quite explicitly stated in Cairo early on. The world is reaping that whirlwind he sowed and he still clings stubbornly to the wisdom of it despite the utter chaos he has unleashed.
    His strategy is a kind of half-assed New Left anti colonialism mingled with his infantile personal spats and prejudices he gets in with guys like Putin. He's too afraid to be seen as powerless to do nothing but even more afraid someone will call his bluff if he does enough so he fecklessly sails a boat past the Spratleys once in a while as Russia and China make it increasingly difficult for us to actually project power overseas with our shrinking Navy.

    So his strategy is basically an incompetent anti colonialism and apology tour covered with a thin veneer of traditional alliances and power plays but everyone on earth knows the veneer is even thinner than his skin.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The unanswered, but always present question is; Is this really incompetence, cowardliness, or sheer cunning disguised as ineptitude?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Obama is so upset about the horrible people who want to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" and similar language - so why then is he and his administration always so insistent on calling them ISIL, instead of ISIS or any other term? If it doesn't matter why does he always use ISIL - could it be because that definition figuratively wipes out Israel's territory, the homeland of the Jews, by definition?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bush was trashed because he is a Republican. Obama, Democrat, will not be trashed by his minions in the media.

    ReplyDelete