Is President Obama a Dilettante in Foreign Policy, or is He Just a Hopelessly Naïve Peacknik, or is He a Hopeless Progressive?
Why do we ask these questions?
Is it because the front page of the Sunday New York Times today had a lead article in which Secretary of Defense Bob Gates says the Obama Administration lacks an effective long range policy for dealing with Iran’s progress towards going nuclear?
The Administration denies it, of course.
Is it because Iran is now within 5 years of having a ballistic missile that can strike the United States, and perhaps only one year from the Bomb?
Is it because last September President Obama’s response to the Iranian nuclear threat was to summarily abandon the anti-ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, the defenses designed to protect Europe and the world against Iran?
Actually, the Obama Administration does a plan for Iran. It’s to keep Israel from doing anything. That too is scary.
Is it because the President admits sanctions won’t work, so he works to impose sanctions.
Does anyone study history, especially the disarmament talks of the 1920’s and 1930’s? Coming out of World War I, the “War to End All Wars”, the major powers held talks to limit Germany and downsize navies, and all that.
The result was, of course, that America was unprepared for World War II while Germany and Japan built up the strongest armies and air fleets in the world at that time, and Japan had also built a great navy.
Only the two oceans bought America time to recover, rearm, and harness the Arsenal of Democracy. That margin of error does not exist with thermonuclear warheads on missiles, or even with suitcase bombs.
But the President calls an international conference on non-proliferation (another idealistic carryover from the Carter Administration). Neither Iran nor North Korea attended, and neither Great Britain nor Israel sent their leaders. The great accomplishment of the conference was to announce the next conference will be hosted by South Korea in two years.
Is it because this President believes in words and treaties, the good will of the international community, rather than actual deeds?
And what has Iran been doing in the meantime?
Accelerating development of the Bomb and offensive missiles, and supplying Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Oh, Happy Days and Here Again, if you’re a mullah.
Today we are dealing with mullahs and other true believers who believe that Allah is waiting for them in heaven with 72 virgins and salvation for them, their families, and all true believers, who thereby cannot die. If they can incinerate millions of infidels on the road to heaven, then all the better.
The Jihadists value life by how many infidels they can kill while losing their own life. Their loving family members may just be pawns in the battle.
If Iran acquires the bomb, then Ahmadinejad will bring us one large step closer to Armageddon.
Is it because he announced a new policy that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against any country that has signed and is abiding by the Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty even if they attack the United States with nuclear or biological weapons?
The Cold War and mutually assured destruction, the MAD Doctrine, worked because the Communists may have been atheists, but they did not want to accelerate their journey with their families to the non-existent afterlife.
Is it because of his arrogant dismissal of Governor Palin when she criticized the new treaty with Russia by stating "I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
And what was the President's background again?
Is it because the Administration had no plans in fact for responding to captured terrorists, such as the underwear bomber, even though they said they did?
Is it because a year ago Secretary of State Clinton said the Administration does not use the phrase “War on Terror.” Later we find out that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano referred to these issues as “human caused errors.” Can they really be considering Secretary Napolitano for the Supreme Court?
Is it because the word “terror” is the word not spoken by this Administration? Not even after Nidal Malik’s Fort Hood killings. Not even after the Christmas day underwear bomber. Not domestic terrorism, not international terrorism. Not fanatic Muslim terrorism. Not Jihadist terror.
Is it therefore because the ”War on Terror” has become nonspeak in this Administration?
Is it because the President alternates between apologizing for America and bowing to foreign leaders?
Bows, apologies, and the shrinkage of America.
He has bowed to the Emperor Akihito of Japan, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao of China, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Each bow is a diminution of America’s stature in the world.
He’s apologized to over half the world’s population over the past year, but never once said “I’m proud to be an American.” Each apology is a diminution of America’s stature in the world.
Deep down, he’s a community organizer, a demagogue.
Deep down, President Obama is of the international left, the left that believes American hegemony is the root of international evil.