Thomas Friedman, "Putin Blinked": What the @#$% Is "Obamaism"?

Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs genius that he believes himself to be, has just coined a new term: "Obamaism."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Putin Blinked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/friedman-putin-blinked.html?hp&rref=opinion), Friedman writes:

"The crisis in Ukraine never threatened a Cold War-like nuclear Armageddon, but it may be the first case of post-post-Cold War brinkmanship, pitting the 21st century versus the 19th. It pits a Chinese/Russian worldview that says we can take advantage of 21st-century globalization whenever we want to enrich ourselves, and we can behave like 19th-century powers whenever we want to take a bite out of a neighbor — versus a view that says, no, sorry, the world of the 21st century is not just interconnected but interdependent and either you play by those rules or you pay a huge price.

In the end, it was Putinism versus Obamaism, and I’d like to be the first on my block to declare that the 'other fellow' — Putin — 'just blinked.'"

Putin "blinked"? The problem is that Obama, who promised Putin "flexibility" during his second term in the White House, never showed up for the fight. Moreover, irrespective of Russian claims (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/27/world/europe/russia-ukraine-sanctions/) and those of former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/24/bolton-obama-admins-sanctions-against-russia-are-meaningless) that Obama's sanctions against Russia were "meaningless," the fact of the matter is that Russia has annexed Crimea.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of Friedman's "Obamaism"?

Perhaps some insight into the underlying import of this new word is to be found in a New York Times editorial entitled "Trapped in Afghanistan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/trapped-in-afghanistan.html?hp&rref=opinion), which today concludes:

"Mr. Obama has dragged out the biggest part of the withdrawal from Afghanistan for two years and now wants to leave more troops there until the end of 2016. His promise to end the war, made years ago, won’t be honored until he’s practically out of office."

Or stated more succinctly, Obama lied concerning his promise to end America's senseless ground war in Afghanistan, which America's president escalated in his first term in office. Of course, everyone remembers how Obama acceded to a military "surge" in that country while concurrently providing the Taliban with a timetable for the removal of US troops.

Obama lied? Why should that come as a surprise coming from a president who declared that if you like your health care plan and your doctor, you can keep them?

But I stray. "Obamaism"? What is it? Quite honestly, if it's something other than "leading from behind" coupled with bowing to the Japanese emperor and Saudi king, i.e. "showing his behind," and shaking hands with tin-pot tyrants, I don't have a clue.

Thomas Friedman, "Parallel Parking in the Arctic Circle": Who Paid for Friedman's Joy Ride?

Thomas Friedman, who one month ago informed us that the Cold War is over and that the United States won (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), now tells us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Parallel Parking in the Arctic Circle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-parallel-parking-in-the-arctic-circle.html?_r=0) about his one night joy ride aboard the U.S.S. New Mexico beneath the Arctic Circle. Friedman writes:

"I had spent the night on the sub as part of a group accompanying Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, who was observing the Navy’s submarine arctic warfare exercise.

We had flown into the Arctic by small plane and landed on a snow airstrip at the Navy’s ice research station Nautilus, 150 miles north of the North Slope of Alaska. When we got there, the New Mexico, which had been patrolling the waters below, had already found an opening of thin ice and slushy water. The sub used its conning tower, or sail, to smash through to the surface, then 'parallel park,' as one officer put it, between two floating islands of thick ice, and pick us up."

At a time when the Obama administration is reducing the US army to pre-World War II size, how in blazes is Friedman being taken on a submarine tour? How much did this cost? Who paid his bill?

Friedman continues:

"Russia has already made extensive claims to the Arctic, based on the reach of its continental shelf, beyond the usual 12 miles from its coastline; these are in dispute. To prepare for whatever unfolds here, though, the U.S. Navy keeps honing its Arctic submarine skills, including, on our trip, test-firing a virtual torpedo at a virtual enemy sub, studying how differences in water temperatures and the mix of freshwater from melted ice and saltwater affect undersea weapons and the sounds a sub makes (vital for knowing how to hide), as well as mapping the Arctic’s seabed topography.

. . . .

'We can hear shrimp crackling 200 feet under water,' explained Lt. Cmdr. Craig Litty. They can also hear someone drop a wrench in the engine room of a Russian sub several miles away."

Russian claims to the Arctic? Russian subs? Didn't Obama also claim that the Cold War was over, while offering "flexibility" in his second term to Putin?  More recently, didn't Obama tell the entire world that Russia is a mere "regional power"?

Could this op-ed have anything to do with Obama's recent humiliation by Putin, resulting from Russia's annexation of Crimea? Is Friedman's op-ed intended to convince New York Times readers that Obama is not a cream puff?

More to the point, how do I sign up for a one night joy ride aboard the U.S.S. New Mexico, in order to listen to the shrimp crackling?

Thomas Friedman, "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise": Was Hitler's Annexation of the Sudetenland Also a Godsend?

Does Putin's annexation of Crimea have a silver lining? Thomas Friedman seems to think this is the case.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/opinion/friedman-from-putin-a-blessing-in-disguise.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman says that if there is to be "a new cold war," he wants to see an "earth race," as opposed to a "space race," which will bring about a new American energy policy. Tom Terrific writes:

"I want America to lead in developing an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and, as a byproduct, produce the technologies that will mitigate climate change, make America a global technology and moral leader and ensure that the next generation can thrive here on Earth."

His conclusion:

"I would hate to see Obama spend the next two and half years just counting healthcare.gov sign-ups. He needs to recognize that Putin’s Crimea adventure has created the opportunity for a legacy project of moving America into a clean energy future — a move that would make us stronger, Putin weaker and the world safer."

Whoa! Less than a month ago, Friedman told us that the Cold War was forever over (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0):

"The Cold War was a unique event that pitted two global ideologies, two global superpowers, each with globe-spanning nuclear arsenals and broad alliances behind them. Indeed, the world was divided into a chessboard of red and black, and who controlled each square mattered to each side’s sense of security, well-being and power. It was also a zero-sum game, in which every gain for the Soviet Union and its allies was a loss for the West and NATO, and vice versa.

That game is over. We won."

Well, even Tom now seems to recognize that the "game" is not over, and in fact Putin has Obama caught in a devastating pincer movement, given Obama's dependence upon Russian goodwill involving the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Regarding Friedman's call for "an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin," there is of course no mention by Tom of Solyndra or the US national debt, which Obama has taken to an unsustainable $17.5 trillion.

All of which is not to say that Obama cannot pressure Putin. As I observed in a previous blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-three-faces-of.html), freeing Europe from dependency upon Russian gas need not take much time at all. If Friedman were to spend a few minutes reading a Commentary article entitled "Will Israel Be the Next Energy Superpower?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/will-israel-be-the-next-energy-superpower/) by Arthur Herman, he would quickly realize that salvation is to be found in Israel's enormous gas discoveries off its Mediterranean coast.

However, channeling Israeli gas to Europe might also demand that Obama put an end to his ideological war with Netanyahu, and this might be too much to demand of a president who has made the weakening of America's alliance with Israel a keystone of his foreign policy. Note Obama's luncheon with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, during which Obama called for "a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people," but refused to acknowledge the necessity of a neighboring nation which safeguards the existence of the Jewish people (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/obama-sucks-up-to-abbas-no-state-for.html).

Interestingly enough, even Friedman in this op-ed seems to understand that the Affordable Care Act is headed for disaster and will not provide Obama with the legacy that he is so desperately seeking.

But I digress from the thesis of Tom's opinion piece, i.e. Putin's annexation of Crimea is "a blessing in disguise." I can only wonder, if we were back in 1938, whether Friedman would also regard Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland as a godsend . . .

David Ignatius, "For Putin, a possible Pyrrhic victory": Providing "Euphemism" With New Meaning

David Ignatius, a longstanding member of the Obama cheerleader squad, is back today with a new Washington Post opinion piece entitled "For Putin, a possible Pyrrhic victory" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-for-putin-a-possible-pyrrhic-victory/2014/03/12/109c6130-aa23-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html?hpid=z2), which seeks to explain away the president's procrastination regarding Putin's invasion of Crimea. Ignatius concludes:

"The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21st-century approach. Putin’s moves on the ground have been decisive, with immediate impact. The U.S.-led response has been collective, deliberative and slower to emerge."

Obama's response to Putin's invasion of Crimea has been "slower to emerge"? How about, "yet to emerge"?

Remind me to cite Ignatius when I compile a list of 2014's finest foreign affairs euphemisms.