Category Archives: foreign policy

An Outcome of Obama’s Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Much of foreign policy centers on perception.  Fox News asked a few questions of Americans about that perception.  On the question

Compared to five years ago, do you think the United States is more respected around the world today, less respected today, or about the same?

The More Respected/Less/About the Same numbers are 14%/48%/36%.  This is down sharply from just a year ago (which asked the question compared to four years prior to that, so the two questions used the same baseline year of 2008); those numbers were 29%/37%/32%.

The perception of loss of respect runs across party lines.  Democrats view us as less respected today by 25%/27%/46%.  Independents’ numbers are 9%/51%/39%.

Consistent with this, Americans’ approve/disapprove numbers concerning Obama’s performance on foreign policy are 39%/54%, down from 49%/44% a year ago.

It’d be interesting to see the results of a Fox News (or Rasmussen, or other reputable polling outfit) poll asking similar questions of the citizens of other nations.

An Alternative Solution

Posted on by
Reply

KT McFarland has one, and it begins with acknowledging an inconvenient truth:

President Obama—face it, you’ve already lost the Syrian war.  You probably lost it a year ago when you laid down that “red line” threat without any idea how you respond if Assad called your bluff.

Now, some underlying that inconvenience:

If Assad calls your bluff and launches another chemical attack in response or widens the war, you’ll be faced with either backing off or escalating the Syrian war, just like LBJ did with Vietnam.

If you do escalate, and topple Assad, you’ll pave the way for Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels to take his place.  If Congress does not approve your attack plan, you will look even more ineffective.

Either way, those chemical weapons will remain—for Assad or the Al Qaeda rebels to use….

Her solution:

The single best thing you could do to improve America’s position in the Middle East is what President Kennedy did when the Russians shocked the world by being the first country to send a man into space.  In response, Kennedy pledged to land a man on the moon within a decade.  You should pledge America to becoming energy independent by the end of your presidency, and a major oil and natural gas exporter by the end of the decade.

…American energy independence would mean we no longer need to curry favor with one side or another in the perennial Middle East conflicts.

Becoming the Arab oil countries’ biggest competitor means they will be forced to worry about how they are going to meet their own domestic payrolls.  They will have neither time nor money left over to pay for terrorists or proxy wars.

(Although they will remain in a position to continue feeding bodies to the furnace.)

And this gives Obama an additional move vis-à-vis Russia:

Give Putin the choice—the US and Russia can either bury the hatchet and work together to solve Iran, Syria, Islamic jihad, and the other international issues on which we disagree, or we can continue to spar over those issues.

If Russia wants to work with us, we’ll work with them on energy projects.  If not, they might continue to humiliate us, but we’ll help bankrupt them.

Then remind Putin that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed and Reagan won the Cold War was because he maneuvered events so the price of oil fell from $40 to $18 dollars a barrel in nine months, thus causing Russian economy to collapse.

We are happy to do it again.

[T]he world still doesn’t want Russian cars or computers.  Russia remains a petro-state: one third of the country’s GNP and half their budget comes from energy exports.

What the lady said.  Plus, that energy move will have only salutary effects on our economy, currently mired in the Obama (non)Recovery.

Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a 2008 exchange between Candidate Barack Obama (D) and the Boston Globe concerning the US’ use of force against Iran’s nuclear facilities [emphasis added]:

Globe: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites—a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
…
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced SJ Res 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier this week concerning US intervention in Syria, Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) offered this amendment to the draft authorization bill being debated:

It is the sense of the Senate that the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Paul’s amendment was voted down 14-4, with all 10 Democrats present voting against.

Apparently, the President does have that power, so long as he’s from the politically correct party.

Mockworthy

Posted on by
Reply

The Los Angeles Times had this about President Barack Obama’s…deliberations…about what ought be done in response to Bashar al Assad’s rudely arrogant act of crossing the former’s rhetorical red line.

One US official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

Which is a contradiction in terms.  If it’s actively timid enough to avoid responses from Russia and/or Iran, it’s mock-worthy solely on that account.

Playing With Guns

Posted on by
Reply

…in this case, just another version of Obamatalk.  Here’s President Barack Obama’s latest [emphasis added]:

If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term[.]

“Shot across the bow,” indeed.  Another example of avoiding doing anything of substance, but rather of satisfying himself with “sound and fury.”

Despite his ego telling him otherwise, no one in the world takes him seriously.  But his playing-with-guns ego trip will kill people.