Posted by Steve Markowitz on April 14, 2010
President Obama has proven naive when it comes to foreign policy. This should not come as a surprise given his lack of experience in the international arena. Nowhere is this weakness more evident than his approach to the Middle East and the greater Islamic world.
Mr. Obama’s Middle East policies are based on the Progressives’ belief that the United States and Israel are at the center of the West’s poor relations with many Islamic countries. Taking this further, the President believes that by distancing himself from Israeli and taking a more “kumbaya” approach to Islamic countries will result in better US–Islamic relations and a more peaceful world. This strategy is flawed and has already failed for two reasons.
- First, it incorrectly assumes that Islam is monolithic. How naive it is to think that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians will somehow mollify the Taliban who are fighting American forces in Afghanistan or the Chechnyians who are fighting the Russians for very different reasons.
- The President’s strategy assumes that Iran, Syria and other rouge states want better relations with the United States. That is not only incorrect, but ignores the strategic issues these countries have. First and foremost, the Shia Iranians want nukes to dominate the Sunni Arabs and Syrians want to dominate Lebanon. Neither Kumbaya nor an Israeli/Palestinian peace would help them achieve either strategic goal.
The proof is in the pudding. Let us review what President Obama has done to pursue his polices and then the results of those efforts.
I. Reaching Out to Islam
Speech to Iran – On March 20, 2009, the Iranian New Year, President Obama issued a speech to the Muslim world stating: “we seek a new way forward.” This admits the U.S. was the problem in the first place.
Bowing to Saudi King – On April 1, 2009, President Obama bowed to the Saudi Arabian King as a show of deep respect.
Speech in Cairo – On June 4 2009, President Obama gave prepared remarks to the Muslim world in a Cairo speech calling for a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims”. Again, the U.S. was previously wrong.
Iranian Political Protests – In June 2009, Obama was silent as protesters were being killed by their government. Instead, he made weak statements such as: ” we respect Iranian sovereignty.”
Relations with Israel – While Obama remains silent on Iranian indiscretions, he has no such difficulty criticizing our ally, Israel, when he disagrees with them. Relations between the U.S. and Israel have become very frosty since Obama took office.
II. Obama’s Policies Results
Iran – Iran continues marching down the path of producing nuclear weapons, the biggest threat to the West and the Middle East. This month Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Obama an “inexperienced amateur” who was quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies. Hmmm.
Israelis and Palestinians – These parties are no closer to peace today than they were under President Bush’s tutelage.
Afghanistan – The United State’s participation in the Afghanistan War has escalated under Obama. After committing to sending more American troops, the Afghan government headed by Hamid Karzai repaid Obama by first inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kabul for a political love feast. A few days later Karzai suggested that he himself would be compelled to join the Taliban if the United Nations didn’t back off looking into his government’s corruption. Starting to sound like another Viet Nam.
Turkey – The one Muslim country that has historically had good relations with our Middle East ally, Israel, has more recently gotten closer to our adversaries, Syrian and Iran. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Israel as “the principal threat to peace” in the Middle East. So now Turkey sees Israel as a greater problem than an Iranian bomb. Seems he is taking his cue from Obama.
Syria – President Obama has made reconciliation between Syria and the United States a cornerstone to his Middle East policy. Besides more of Obama’s Kumbaya approach to Syria, he has nominated an ambassador to that country, eased sanctions for Syrian import of airplane parts and software, and sought to increase military contacts with Damascus. Syria’s payback for this approach? Today the Wall Street Journal reported that Syria has sold long-range Scud missiles to the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. This move increases the likelihood of another Middle East War.
It is evident that President Obama’s attempts at appeasing the Islamic world have not led to one tangible benefit for the United States. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite. History has shown that tyrants never react favorably to weakness shown by any country or its leader. While President Obama can be excused for his initial naivety, he cannot be excused for continuing a policy that has obviously failed.
Posted in Appeasement, Foreign Policy, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Afghanistan, Appeasement, Chechnyians, Hamid Karzai, Hezbollah, Iran, Islam, Israel, Lebanon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Palestinians, President Obama, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russians, Saudi King, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taliban, Turkey, United Nations, UNited States | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on April 5, 2010
Posted below is a News Alert just in from the New York Times, a further indication of just what President Obama meant when he said just prior to his election that America was: “Five Days Away from Fundamentally Transforming America”. By transformation he clearly meant revolution and it is not pretty.
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self defense.
The strategy eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
What an audacity of arrogance shown by this junior President. Here is a man who prior to be elected president just over one year ago had but two years experience in national office (the Senate) of which most of that time was spent running for the presidency. Prior to then he was a state senator and community organizer with no experience in the military. With that weak resume Obama has today changed a nuclear deterrence strategy that has been in place for over 60 years under the tutelage of the following presidents:
1. Harry Truman; 2. Dwight Eisenhower; 3. John Kennedy; 4. Lyndon Johnson; 5. Richard Nixon; 6. Gerald Ford; 7. Jimmy Carter; 8. Ronald Reagan; 9. George H Bush; 10. Bill Clinton; and 11. George W. Bush
Now, after 11 presidents of which five were Democrats and over half had military experience stuck with a proven deterrence policy during which there were no nukes used anywhere in the world, along comes this Progressive-in Chief to modify it. There is no justification for this reckless act. It is apparent that President Obama has disdain for all that preceded him. It is also apparent that this President will make changes for the sake of tearing down what preceded him, irrespective of consequences. Is this what the country really voted for? What a sad day for the Country.
Posted in Appeasement, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Deterrence, President Obama, Progressives | Tagged: Biological Weapons, Nuclear Deterrence, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Nuclear Weapons, President Obama, Progressive-in-Chief, Progressives | 2 Comments »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on April 5, 2010
“No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”
Those readers who disagree with the logic of this quote may see it as coming from a right-wing tea partier intent on bashing President Obama for his foreign policy. His initiatives have included apologizing to the world for previous American behavior and his “feel-good” approach to Iran and dictators like Chavez. Those readers not in favor of Obama’s foreign policy might see the quote coming from Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. Both types of readers would be off the mark.
The quote was actually from Dean Acheson, a long time Democrat statesman who served in the Truman, Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Yes, he was educated in Yale and graduated from Harvard Law Schools, today’s bastions of Progressive thought. This pedigree is curious since anyone making that quote today would probably have their intellect impugned by Progressives. It is sad what the Left has done to political discourse in more recent years.
It has been said that John Kennedy would be thrown out of the Democrat Party as it now stands ideologically. That is sadly true. It is not the Republicans who have gone further off center and to the Right. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. George W. Bush outspent all Democrats before him, only to be trumped by Obama. No, the words from a dean of the Democrat Party in the 20th century conclude that it is the Democrats that have marched far off center and to the left. More important, the failure of Obama’s charm offensive with Iran and others proves how correct Dean Acheson was.
Mr. President, spend some time reading Mr. Acheson’s writings. To help get you started I supply additional Acheson quotes below. While each generation narcissistically believes it invent something new, like sex, it’s all been done before!
More Dean Acheson quotes:
A memorandum is written not to inform the reader but to protect the writer.
I learned from the example of my father that the manner in which one endures what must be endured is more important than the thing that must be endured.
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.
Negotiating in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.
Posted in Appeasement, Diplomacy, Progressives | Tagged: Chavez, Dean Acheson, Demo, Freedom, Harvard Law School, Iran, Johnson, Kennedy, President Obama, Progressives, Right Wing, Tea Party, Truman, Yale | 3 Comments »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on November 3, 2009
According to today’s Financial Times, on Tuesday Iran accused the US of negotiating in bad faith. Speaking on the eve of the 30th anniversary the US Tehran embassy siege, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:
“As long as the US does not give up its arrogant spirit and threats, the Iranian nation would not be fooled by the conciliatory-sounding word.,”
“Americans on the one hand talk about negotiations, but on the other hand continue their threats and say negotiations should reach the results they have predetermined.”
“This is the same wolf and sheep relations which the Imam said we don’t want.” Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Appeasement, Iran | Tagged: Appeasement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Joe Biden, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, President Obama, Tehran Embassy, US Tehran embassy siege | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Steve Markowitz on September 24, 2009
The spectacle at yesterday’s United Nations was humorous, but at the same time too serious for laughter. During the same day we heard lengthy speeches from Libya’s strongman Moammar Gadhafi and the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama. The fact that the two were on the same stage tells a story of just how ludicrous the United Nations has become.
Gadhafi gave a 90 minute rambling speech that even included mention of John Kennedy’s assassination, certainly an important issue for the United Nations at this time. This incoherent speech, coupled with the fact that Libya is a repressive dictatorship and sponsor of terrorist, makes giving him a world stage outrageous. It should also be noted that the current president of the General Assembly is Libyan, offering the organization even less legitimacy.
President Obama’s speech was eloquent. At the same time I could not help but feel that he was preaching to UN delegates similar to the way he preaches to Americans. His lecturing tone is reminiscent of that used by grade-school teachers and includes a narcissistic view of the world and how it should be. President Obama pointed to the dangers of world terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation in the speech. However, any in the room that cared about these issues understood the problems long ago. The current problem is that many in the UN audience support terrorism and some desire nuclear weapons. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Appeasement, United Nations | Tagged: Appeasement, Darfur, Foreign Policy, France, Germany, Hutus, Iran, Joe Biden, John Kennedy, Lybia, Moammar Gadhafi, North Korea, Obama, Rwanda, Tutsis, United Nations | 2 Comments »