Tag Archives: foreign policy

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 135

OBAMA’S FOREIGN  POLICY

We all know our president does not like the tedious nature of foreign entanglements but by education and experience he is not prepared for working on the world stage. Maybe that’s why he is so eager to turn to the United Nations to handle problems our previous presidents, with one exception, understood and handled in house.

beforeitsnews.com

beforeitsnews.com

President Obama’s intellectual mentor, Mr. Saul Alinsky, wrote a brilliant guide for progressives (socialists and far left liberals) to gain power. Unfortunately, Mr. Alinsky never had any experience running a government. So even after the president is well on his way to seizing power, he is not equipped to use it to solve America’s foreign and domestic problems. He continues to use all issues as a means to destroy his opposition, the Republican Party. And that is Obama’s weakness. He doesn’t know how to use or keep power. Unfortunately for the nation, the Republican Party is not worth the title of the opposition party.

The president has not been helped by his two secretaries of state. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are also clueless when it comes to solving intricate foreign policy issues. I have long been a student of foreign affairs. It is very hard to point to anything those two hapless secretaries of state have accomplished except to compete for leaving the heaviest jet engine carbon trail of any previous and hopefully future secretary of state. Their responses to any foreign affairs issue facing the president have been limited to causing chaos and confusion. The world is in worse shape than any time since WWII. Korea and Vietnam were not nearly the threat to world stability as current Russia, China, Iran, the Islamic Caliphate or the current conflict between Hamas and Israel.

The last troubled area is worth some more discussion. John Kerry, who I believe cannot be underrated, is proving again he can make any bad situation worse. Imagine the hypocrisy of bringing a truce agreement to Israel that was based on his consultations with leaders in Turkey and Qatar who are open suppliers and political supporters of Hamas, a recognized terrorist state. Any secretary of state with an ounce of common sense would have stopped in Egypt for advice. Egypt holds the overland gateway to Gaza and has a direct interest in stability on its borders since the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer in power in Egypt.

It is possible that Secretary Kerry was acting on the instructions of the president, who seems to be very pro-Muslim and, by his speeches and actions, clearly anti-Israel. If Kerry was acting on the president’s orders, it is clear that creating chaos and weakening the influence of America in the world still needs more attention from our president. In the least, it further exposes the ineptitude of our foreign policy secretary. There used to be a time when secretaries would refuse foreign policy approaches they did not feel were ethically or pragmatically acceptable.

Complicated? Hard to believe? Can’t be true? Read my new book, “INSIGHTS: Transforming America — Is This What We Fought For?which is free on Kindle for a limited time.

1 Comment

Filed under Action thrillers, Alinsky, Barry Kelly, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Israel, Obama, Politics, Progressives, Terrorism

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 103

PUTIN-OBAMA FACEOFF

Are Putin’s action in the Ukraine a surprise? I hope not, but for the group of amateurs in this administration, they probably were. Is there a foreign policy expert in the stack of dead wood the president depends on? Certainly not Secretary of State Kerry or Vice President Biden or the departed Mrs. Clinton. Reminds me of the surprise of the Carter White House when the Ayatollah was allowed to enter Iran from Europe. When have deeply committed religious radicals ever established a true democracy with regular free elections? I think the Carter administration was shocked when his followers took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and established an Islamic theocracy. When the Russians moved into Afghanistan, he was again surprised.

For centuries, the czars had tried to establish a geo-political foothold in South Asia. Through Afghanistan was the most direct route to a warm-water port and the riches of the sub-continent. Only the power of the British Empire thwarted the Russian plan. The Russians, seeing a weak U.S. president, made their move and thousands of lives were lost to add to the total killed by the Muslim aristocracy in Iran. History holds many keys to the future and weakness invites aggression. It has always been so. Now what about Ukraine?

The Ukraine was part of the great Russian Empire that President Putin wants to restore. Ukraine looks both east and west. To the west are its hopes for a close relationship with Europe to balance the threat from Russia. To the east it has a long border with a powerful nation that has shown its willingness to use its military power to achieve political goals, such as the forcible annexation of a part of the Georgia nation in the era of the Bush presidency. Ukraine’s current leadership knows it cannot afford a conflict with Russia without strong political support from the west.

What are President Putin’s plans? Well, even the Obama administration should understand that the recent upheaval in the Ukraine threatens Russia’s strategic interests. The only warm-water port in the entire Russian nation is in the Ukraine. This port is part of a settlement between Ukraine and Russia. Russia’s entire Black Sea Naval Force calls Sevastopol home. A large portion of the people in the area of Sevastopol are Russian ethnics. President Putin probably felt he had to move to protect his naval forces. The question is will he push to acquire Ukrainian territory beyond the strategic area of Sevastopol? He knows his history. There is not great love between the people of Ukraine and the Russians to the east. When the German panzers pushed into the Ukraine in World War II, many Ukrainians welcomed them as liberators. Some even took up arms and supported the Germans. Unfortunately, for those Ukrainians and the German Army, the German leadership treated the Ukrainians like the other people they had conquered. German cruelty knew no ethnic bounds in their drive to occupy Moscow.

President Obama has few options. One is to know that his plan to reduce the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels is  another revealing sign of his weakness. He should immediately re-think his destruction of American power. Peace has never come from weakness. A strong America is necessary for a path to peace. The progressive party is well on the way to achieving what neither the aggressors of both World Wars and the Cold War could accomplish. Our president is a master of winning elections but he is way out of his league when dealing with a man who is not afraid of power and its use.

If Putin goes beyond the securing of routine access to strategic Russian bases in the Crimea portion of the Ukraine and annexes Ukrainian territory, the Obama administration will maybe learn that words do not count for much in the constant struggle to maintain world peace. Weakness only feeds the actions of dictators. It does nothing in the struggle to contain territorial aggression.  The willingness to maintain and use national power when necessary, sets apart real leaders from empty ones. Ronald Reagan was a real leader. Barack Obama is not.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Politics, Progressives, Putin, Russia