Dear America,
Well, Cry Me A foreign policy on the rocks...make mine shaken not stirred.
[and little old gthing has only been waiting three days to say that.]
From March 1, Washington Post:
“If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” said Andrew C. Kuchins, who heads the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.”
And the very next day, let me introduce you to the opening paragraph from the editorial section of the same Post:
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”
And Kerry hop skipped over the 20th century ,why? For emphasis? oh okay.
But yes, poking fun at Putin is a new kind of diplomacy -- it's fresh -- coming out of the think tanks of the 21st century, for sure, and not to be confused with the hope y changy diplomacy policy -- both foreign and domestic -- rising like a Phoenix on stage in Denver, circa 2008 to date.
Oh yes, "change we can believe in" and evidently, go on -- forward march! --- to hang a foreign policy upon...... come hell or high water, climate change, even the Black Sea.
Doncha like the pink? Besides being a nice touch -- it's code. It's to serve as a reminder, we are reading material from a place consistently left brained. And apparently a bunch of left brains all at once, bringing the madness titled, President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy, out of the noggins of the highly esteemed "Editorial Board."
The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.
But it’s also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.
"...these still matter,
much as we might wish they did not."
The urge to pull back — to concentrate on what Mr. Obama calls “nation-building at home” — is nothing new, as former ambassador Stephen Sestanovich recounts in his illuminating history of U.S. foreign policy, “Maximalist.” There were similar retrenchments after the Korea and Vietnam wars and when the Soviet Union crumbled. But the United States discovered each time that the world became a more dangerous place without its leadership and that disorder in the world could threaten U.S. prosperity. Each period of retrenchment was followed by more active (though not always wiser) policy. Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he’s also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn’t make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.
Upon morning light,
Putin is supposedly "pulling back" now.
Phew! (and thank you, Drudge, for the headline chuckle when we feel like crying -- because isn't this true... misery hates company who doesn't bring a bottle of wine).
But then again, who are we kidding. That pull back looks a lot like Putin re-grouping and perhaps a little re-imagining of his relations with China of his own. Picturing the scene when Mickey Mouse meets the mop in Fantasia now and scaring the living daylights out of myself.
I know.
So weird.
What does it all mean?
and yes, maybe I AM losing my mind. But I AM not alone. Surely, there is personal security in that (foreign relations security, not so much).
Clearly, our fantasy centered foreign policy "has paid a price in the nervousness of its neighbors, who are desperate for the United States to play a balancing role in the region. But none of those neighbors feel confident that the United States can be counted on."
Let's face it, folks, we are a hot mess.
Where's the strateegury? Where's the methodical study of action and reaction from the ages, spanning the globe and centuries of material at our fingertips? Where is the art of war not only being recognized, but honored -- and used as a tool and tactic to create diplomatic change from a position of strength and expertise, coming from a formidable world power, no less?
Because clearly! Other foreign entities are studying US! Putin seems to foresee things, contemplating consequences all along the way.
And on another campaign promise of a different kind, upon a different day -- March 26, 2012 to be exact -- what did Obama mean when he told Medvedev to wait until after the election, when more flexibility could be seen from his backyard? You see, it's things like this that make this girl crazy...
But to think --
Palin nailed it, saying “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next."
[And if you linked in there, let me extend this tidbit to Michael Peck: It was Tina Fey, impersonating Palin, who said she could see Russia...] But I digress. This isn't the big finish I had envisioned.
This is:
But to think --
Obama was going to save the world! when he was ushered into office without a smidgen of a resume to support the action.
The Manchurian candidate.... maybe, maybe not... hmm ...fantasy or reality....No matter. The thing is, it's plum too late for the world to get to the middle of that creamy center.
It's in motion already.
And more than that, it is done.
Make it a Good Day, G
Posts
