Thursday, October 8, 2009

Obama and the Demise of U.S. Foreign Policy

There are those starry-eyed admirers of Obama, e.g., Frank Rich, who would compare the current U.S. president with John Kennedy. Regrettably, thus far the more apt comparison is with Ryan Seacrest of American Idol fame.

In 1962 45-year-old John Kennedy faced down Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev without a posse of European leaders, and forced Khrushchev, shame-facedly, to remove the missiles from Cuba. Kennedy never once blinked.

Forty-seven years fast forward: 48-year-old Barack Obama gives Iran until September to curtail its nuclear weapons development program. September comes and goes, a secret Iranian nuclear development site is revealed in the mountains near the holy city of Qom, and Obama, formerly intent upon charming Ahmadinejad, declares with the consensus of friends from France and England, that Iran had best toe the line, or sanctions will soon follow. Yet another line has been drawn in the sand, or, as we would say as children, "Now I double dare you!"

Afghanistan: Faced with demands from his generals for additional soldiers, yet subject to the doubts of a war-weary American public, Obama chooses the middle ground and opts to maintain current U.S. troop levels. However, this is the one course of action that guarantees failure. You can gamble on a "surge-like operation", or, you can choose to cut your losses, but to maintain the status quo is to behave like a person who can never decide, to mix coffee and tea at the end of your meal.

Appeasement of enemies in the space of some nine months: Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, to name a few.

Antagonism of longstanding friends: Japan, South Korea, Honduras, Israel.

So which is it? "The Audacity of Hope" or, "The Mendacity of Grope"? Thus far we have witnessed the performance of a teleprompter orator, not a leader.

4 comments:

  1. Superb.
    Doubtful that Ahmadinejad has blinked with the prospect of a verbal lashing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are right, the guy does not fit the job. His speciality is campaigning, not ruling. I am thinking though: with his anti-Israel attitude, it may be a relieve that he can not stand firm on something, is not a strong leader. If Obama had a strong will having his pastor's inspired worldview, this could be even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marina,

    Excellent point: Obama's competency is indeed campaigning, not governing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. During the campaign, it looked as he had an ability to rise above the fight, comprehend both sides of an issue and go beyond the conflict. Now, it looks more like an absence of moral compass, or indifference. Perhaps, it is both.

    ReplyDelete