IN PERSPECTIVE
by Bill Neinast
Commentator Charles Krauthammer and Power Line blogger Attorney Paul Mirengoff characterize President Obama’s foreign policy the same way. They call it mush.
That may be a bit harsh, as mush is defined as a soft, wet, pulpy mass.
Conversely, there may be some basis for the observation. What can be deciphered from the conflicting signals emanating from the administration is a mess rather than a mass.
The difficulty in discussing the Obama foreign policy is determining the content of the policy. The bed rock of foreign affairs is to protect the country from foreign invasion or control and to protect or promote our vital interests.
Currently, the primary vital interest of the country is the preservation and protection of access to energy, particularly from the Mid East. Today, that interest is inextricably tied to the threat of foreign control or invasion, like the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, from radical Muslims.
How much energy, i.e. oil, we have to import depends on how much of the need can be satisfied from domestic sources. Because of significant improvements in recovery techniques in old fields and the development of new fields, experts in the oil patch believe that we can be close to self sufficiency in a few years.
Reaching that goal of self sufficiency, however, requires opening federal land for development, removing restrictions on improved methods of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), authorizing and completing the Keystone Pipeline, ending the war on coal, etc.
Each of these required actions is vehemently opposed by radical environmentalists who believe we should live and commune with nature as the earliest humans did. As this group is a major supporter of the class warriors, the chances of Obama crossing them is slim at best.
This means that we will have to continue to rely on oil from the Mid-east many years into the future. This means, in turn, that we will continue to bow and kiss the rings of the Muslim potentates controlling that oil.
Dealing with the threat or possibility of a Muslim “invasion” is even trickier. During his first months in office and before he had even a clue as to the complexities of foreign affairs, Obama made his apology throughout much of the world.
He figuratively beat his chest and said, “We’re sorry. We’re sorry we provided a shield for you through the years and funneled trillions of American taxpayer dollars into your coffers. Forgive us and we will relinquish our spot as leader of the pack.”
If those speeches did anything, they established the United States as a severely weakened player on the international football field.
Heeding this new posture of the formerly strong country in North America, the Muslim Brotherhood openly took up arms against Hosni Mubarak.
Mubarak was the dictator of the largest Muslim country on the planet, but he was a staunch friend of the United States and was in the forefront of maintaining peace with Israel. Barak’s response was to throw Mubarak under the bus by suggesting that he resign and to welcome the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood through the “democratic election” of Mohammed Morsi.
When millions of Egyptians began to protest the movements of Morsi toward a Muslim dictatorship under Sharia law, Obama’s response was to suggest negotiations. Then when the Egyptian military comes to the aid of the protestors, we take no action to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in check, but suggest negotiations instead.
The Suez Canal is in Egypt. Keeping that vital link in the supply line of oil from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries in friendly hands seems to have no apparent effect on the Obama team’s involvement.
Similarly, in Libya when the rebels attempting to overthrow Mummer Gadaffi, a recognized enemy of the United States, requested assistance, Obama suggested a no fly zone, but then “led from behind” and let France and England do the work.
Possibly the worst wiggle in our Mid-east policies, however, was Obama’s bluster of establishing a “red line” in Syria. Threatening involvement if President Basher al-Assad used chemical weapons against those intent on deposing him.
The use of those weapons has finally been acknowledged by Obama, but where is his promised reaction?
So here’s the perspective.
Say what you will about President George W. Bush. There is no question, however, that he said what he meant and did what he said.
Other countries knew exactly what the United States wanted and that it would do what its leaders said under Bush.
Today, the rest of the world has no clue as to what we expect or whether we will do what we say.
That’s a heck of a way to run a country.
No comments:
Post a Comment