maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Presidents often leave a specific imprint on foreign policy - the Truman Doctrine, Nixon Doctrine, Good Neighbor Policy, and the New World Order among them. Of recent, critics and more than a few supporters, have been increasingly distressed that Obama's doctrine seems to be that of a 'no world order'; a policy that is incoherent, capricious, and inexplicably indifferent to events beyond American borders. However, what critics think of as indifference or boredom is actually one of three underpinnings of an evolving Obama Doctrine of left wing isolationism.
Isolationism has different motivations. Right-wing isolationism believes that American participation in the international community exposes the Republic to being tainted by venal foreign ideologies and interests. Obama, a left wing isolationist, believes that the rest of the world has been victimized by American pursuit of its own interests. Both brands of isolationism seek a national withdrawal from foreign entanglements and leadership, but for different reasons; the first to protect America from the world, the second to protect the world from America.
If the benign neglect of isolationism is the Obama Doctrine's first underpinning, the second underpinning is that whatever actions are taken in the international arena must be hostile or indifferent to American interests. In fact the very presence of self-interest, in Obama's eyes, discredits and stains any American effort. And while humanitarian intervention does justify intervention, Obama is less willing to use American power in its defense.
And finally there is Obama's peculiar left wing passive-aggressive hostility to American allies, precisely because they supported American interests - in other words, on some level Obama is actually an enemy of his own country.
Consider his pattern:
He "lead from the back" in Libya, ostensibly for (dubious) humanitarian concerns but also because Qaddafi was, if not an ally, at least no longer an enemy of the US who complied with nuclear disarmament. Naturally, Obama thought it appropriate to get rid of one of the few Axis of Evil states that complied with US demands. Qaddafi's sin? Helping American interests. Result? Libya is a violent warring mess.
He pushed an overt American ally, Mubarak's Egypt, toward's the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood (not unlike Kennedy's blunder in giving to Okay to get rid of Diem). Egypt's sin? It was not a liberal democracy and was a close ally. Naturally, Mubarak had to go. The result? A near disaster with the installation of fanatical Islamists hostile to the US, only to be avoided by a recent military coup.
In Syria, an actual enemy of the United States, he dodged any intervention - especially critical in the early stages when their were potential democratic liberal forces to support. Of course, given that Syria was an enemy of Israel and the US, it is not surprising that he did not wish to intervene, even for far more compelling "humanitarian" reasons (far more have died in Syria than in Libya).
In Israel's Gaza war, we had the spectacle of the Arab States and Israel agreeing on a ceasefire plan, and Obamas Secretary of State John Kerry flying off to Paris to work with HAMAS lawyers on a joint HAMAS-US ceasefire proposal, undermining our relationships with BOTH Israel and friendly Arab States (that will teach em). Ironically, the current cease fire is nearly identical to the original Egyptian plan.
Most recently, ISIS has been advancing for two months. Sweeping Iraq cities, taking Mosul and the Mosul Dam. Now ISIS is moving on Lebanon, and have taken four Kurd cities and threatening the Kurd capital Erbil. While both Iraq and the Kurds have been begging for aid for two months, Obama has been nearly deaf. When not golfing and fund raising, he has spent most of this time with obsessive fetish over the composition of Iraqi government, rather than concerning himself with Kurds (a long-time ally and once under US protection) and real American interests in keeping Iraq from falling to terrorists.
His 'barely minimal' aid, announced tonight, is as parsimonious as it is indifferent - some air drops to 40,000 Christian refugees in a mountain enclave, and a willingness to use some air power on behalf of US personnel in Erbil.
Finally we have the Ukraine. Russia is rebuilding the former Soviet Empire, while Obama lectures Putin that "you are not on the side of history". He has refused to ship military aide to the Ukraine, and we await the Ukraine's fall to Russian forces. This is, of course, not in US interests to see the Ukraine fall so Obama's has far less reason to oppose Russian designs.
At this point, in the international arena, Obama is America's worst enemy.
Isolationism has different motivations. Right-wing isolationism believes that American participation in the international community exposes the Republic to being tainted by venal foreign ideologies and interests. Obama, a left wing isolationist, believes that the rest of the world has been victimized by American pursuit of its own interests. Both brands of isolationism seek a national withdrawal from foreign entanglements and leadership, but for different reasons; the first to protect America from the world, the second to protect the world from America.
If the benign neglect of isolationism is the Obama Doctrine's first underpinning, the second underpinning is that whatever actions are taken in the international arena must be hostile or indifferent to American interests. In fact the very presence of self-interest, in Obama's eyes, discredits and stains any American effort. And while humanitarian intervention does justify intervention, Obama is less willing to use American power in its defense.
And finally there is Obama's peculiar left wing passive-aggressive hostility to American allies, precisely because they supported American interests - in other words, on some level Obama is actually an enemy of his own country.
Consider his pattern:
He "lead from the back" in Libya, ostensibly for (dubious) humanitarian concerns but also because Qaddafi was, if not an ally, at least no longer an enemy of the US who complied with nuclear disarmament. Naturally, Obama thought it appropriate to get rid of one of the few Axis of Evil states that complied with US demands. Qaddafi's sin? Helping American interests. Result? Libya is a violent warring mess.
He pushed an overt American ally, Mubarak's Egypt, toward's the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood (not unlike Kennedy's blunder in giving to Okay to get rid of Diem). Egypt's sin? It was not a liberal democracy and was a close ally. Naturally, Mubarak had to go. The result? A near disaster with the installation of fanatical Islamists hostile to the US, only to be avoided by a recent military coup.
In Syria, an actual enemy of the United States, he dodged any intervention - especially critical in the early stages when their were potential democratic liberal forces to support. Of course, given that Syria was an enemy of Israel and the US, it is not surprising that he did not wish to intervene, even for far more compelling "humanitarian" reasons (far more have died in Syria than in Libya).
In Israel's Gaza war, we had the spectacle of the Arab States and Israel agreeing on a ceasefire plan, and Obamas Secretary of State John Kerry flying off to Paris to work with HAMAS lawyers on a joint HAMAS-US ceasefire proposal, undermining our relationships with BOTH Israel and friendly Arab States (that will teach em). Ironically, the current cease fire is nearly identical to the original Egyptian plan.
Most recently, ISIS has been advancing for two months. Sweeping Iraq cities, taking Mosul and the Mosul Dam. Now ISIS is moving on Lebanon, and have taken four Kurd cities and threatening the Kurd capital Erbil. While both Iraq and the Kurds have been begging for aid for two months, Obama has been nearly deaf. When not golfing and fund raising, he has spent most of this time with obsessive fetish over the composition of Iraqi government, rather than concerning himself with Kurds (a long-time ally and once under US protection) and real American interests in keeping Iraq from falling to terrorists.
His 'barely minimal' aid, announced tonight, is as parsimonious as it is indifferent - some air drops to 40,000 Christian refugees in a mountain enclave, and a willingness to use some air power on behalf of US personnel in Erbil.
Finally we have the Ukraine. Russia is rebuilding the former Soviet Empire, while Obama lectures Putin that "you are not on the side of history". He has refused to ship military aide to the Ukraine, and we await the Ukraine's fall to Russian forces. This is, of course, not in US interests to see the Ukraine fall so Obama's has far less reason to oppose Russian designs.
At this point, in the international arena, Obama is America's worst enemy.
Personally I think we should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place. As to the current problems, let the Iraqis or the Arab League deal with it.
