Columns

SUMMARIZING OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks live on television after casting his ballot in the Iranian presidential election in Tehran

In early June, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a wildly cheering crowd in Teheran that his country had nothing to fear from the United States in its development of nuclear resources. “They have renounced the idea of any military actions!” he crowed, following indecisive, dithering American responses on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Libya, Afghanistan the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and even the Bowe Bergdahl negotiations. Despite the fact that President Obama publicly insists that the “military option” is still on the table regarding Iran, the leader of that radical, terrorist- supporting theocracy feels no compunction whatever about virtually daring the Americans to use it. In fact, the Teheran rally took place in front of a huge banner proclaiming “AMERICA CAN’T DO A DAMN THING!” That statement might stand as a summary to six years of Obama foreign policy.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (6)

Leave a comment
  1. JGUY  •  Jun 16, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    I have a different take on the Obama Administrations desire to not
    continually involve us in wars against insurrections in different parts
    of the world. It seems to me that the US military is VERY good at
    fighting standing armies and not so good at coming against insurrections.
    We seem to be able to become entwined in expensive quagmires in
    such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam…..but we don’t seem able
    to come up with decisive victory largely because the enemy can wait
    us out….there is no one to surrender or negotiate with since they
    vanish into the population and resurrect when we leave….as I understand
    it… I do not believe the President sees a way to victory…since we in
    large part are fighting an ancient ideology that does not embrace democracy.
    I don’t foresee a peace accord or a treaty to end the war as ever being on
    the table….and that is the rub. How does it end? Do the Iraqis and Afghans
    move into subdivisions…buy a chevy and a Toyota… shop at Walmart and
    become good Americans? I don’t think that will happen…but is that what
    we need to see before we leave….I don’t know? Just a question that I have
    to ponder.

    • Kpar  •  Jun 20, 2014 at 7:33 pm

      Hello JGUY,

      You raise some very important and salient points- primarily “How does it end?”

      Actually, the US military has become quite good at suppressing insurrections- unfortunately, our political leadership has had a strong tendency to abandon our gains right at the point when we could consolidate those gains. It certainly happened in Viet Nam – the Democrat congress voted to withhold money, fuel, and ammunition from the ARVNs after they had proven themselves capable, but were under assault by the NVA.

      Hard to win a war without fuel and ammo.

      Similarly, we had secured a peace in Iraq. Al Qaida was defeated, the Iraqi Army was gaining both experience and confidence, and the Iraqi people felt relatively safe and secure. what happened?

      It turns out that Bush had begun negotiating the “Status of Forces” agreement, the linchpin of which was immunity for the troops under the local laws. Obviously unpopular in theater, it is necessary for our troops to not be held criminally liable for their operations- that is why the Uniform Code of Military Justice was written – our guys only have one set of rules to follow- and it is DEFINITELY sensitive to local concerns.

      Bush had recommended (based on what his commanders had told him) that we keep 23,000 troops in Iraq, and the negotiations were proceeding on that basis, when the incoming (Obama) administration suddenly reduced that number to 13,000, subsequently they reduced that number to only 3,000, but still insisted that the immunity be maintained.

      Al Maliki decided that only 3,000 troops wasn’t worth the political trouble that the immunity would involve. End of negotiations.

      Buy a Chevy and a Toyota? Well, why the heck not?

      I believe that, in the future, the Iraqi people will look at the post-surge occupation by US troops as a “golden age” of security and justice.

      • JGUY  •  Jun 23, 2014 at 11:56 pm

        Thank you for your comment….

    • Neil  •  Jun 20, 2014 at 7:35 pm

      JGUY – the American military is very good at defeating standing armies and also at countering insurrections. The problem is that countering insurrections requires not just military action, but also civil action, and that requires time to take effect, and our history over the last 50 years or so has demonstrated that too many of the American people and all of the liberal politicians lack the patience and commitment to see the job through to a successful conclusion. We were well on our way to establishing a stable government and society in Iraq when we elected a President who didn’t care about a successful conclusion to our effort there, he just wanted to end it. There is an old adage that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it – that applies to the post combat occupation and nation building/reconstruction as well. Our efforts at nation building are hampered by the fact that the agency that really ought to be performing that role, Department of State, typically refuses, and to they extent they do get involved, they usually foul it up, largely because the rank and file of State is overwhelmingly misguided by liberal ideology. The upshot of this is that while nation building is not the strong point of our military, they are better at it than State. Although our program in Iraq could have succeeded, if we had stuck with it a few more years, it was seriously flawed by our insistence in imposing a 1-person, 1-vote, Jeffersonian democracy on people who really didn’t want it. Arab society, like most of the world, is deeply tribal – even in urban centers. The average Iraqi didn’t, and still doesn’t, care whether he can vote to decide who occupies national office. What he cares about is whether his tribe or clan has a voice in government. Popular voting undermines the authority of tribal leaders, which is why it is universally opposed. What we want in the world is REPRESENTATIVE government, of which democracy is but one of many workable and just varieties. How do you transform a tribal society into a modern democracy? The better question, is why do you think you need to? And “you” most often means “you liberals.” Liberals hate tribalism (which, when you get right down to it, is just family values writ large), because they cannot abide the idea that people should feel stronger loyalty to their family than they do to a central government (this, by the way, goes a long way towards their constant battle to reduce the influence of religion and erode state’s rights). Iraq’s new government should have been structured as a tribal confederation – and they probably would have eventually found their way to something like it, if we had stayed long enough to ensure they had a government reasonably free of corruption (although with our government as the model, one wonders how effective we could be as mentors) that did not oppress or exclude minorities. But we walked away, leaving nothing behind us but the wind. And now Iraq, and we, will reap the whirlwind.

  2. JGUY  •  Jun 24, 2014 at 12:27 am

    NEIL-The American revolution existed after centuries of
    evolution post british evolution to elected government…
    this has not been that which is imposed by another
    government in most of history sans the complete
    devistation of the prior structure through military
    might or migration of the majority of the populace
    from prior democracy. It seems to be an experiential
    exercise rather than imposed.

    Your comment about tribalism is spot on and an element
    that is often trivialized by Americans since we are
    not as directly tribal as the rest of the world:To
    not consider tribalism is to ignore this reality.

    As I recall the “liberal” Biden suggested the
    division of Iraq along “tribal” lines many
    years ago…of course, this was dismissed as
    liberal nonsense but retrospectively this may
    be the only policy the world may be able to
    live with in regard to this region. The, now
    dead, President Hussein was a ruthless dictator
    …especially to his political rivals…but
    might he not have understood that that is all
    they respect..and will follow? More to ponder.
    Thank you for your comment Neil…

  3. xserseva  •  Oct 23, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Por shedd Padres, el cubano Yonder Alonso de 4 0. Los venezolanos Guzmn de 3 3, una anotada, do’s impulsadas; y Ronny Cedeo de 4 9.Willie Bloomquist bate tres arrives at, impuls una carrera e hizo algunas jugadas complejas para el campocorto en su primer partido swindle Arizona despus de estar lesionado. La racha nufactured cinco ganados en casa acab para Arizona.Will Venable peg cuadrangular e impuls tres carreras, Robbie Erlin lanz seis buenas entradas en su regreso a las Grandes Ligas n los Padres de San Diego evitaron una barrida l’ordre de tres partidos al imponerse el mircoles 5 1 a good solid los Diamondbacks de Arizona.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn