Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Truly, We Need a Strong Patriot: Obama, You’re Not It
The Democrats’ utterly ridiculous nomination campaign seems to be (about) wrapped up.
Hillary can still cause trouble – and I hope she does. But the fact of the matter is, unless Obama is caught with a communist gay goat, Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination.
Now the adults can discuss things. And in a frank discussion, real matters of global import must be discussed. Is Obama ready for this discussion?
Well, decidedly, no. Since Barack Obama has decided to equate the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the office of the President of the United States, its president has stated that (well, since denying the Holocaust in 2005) Israel is “a stinking corpse.”
His desire to sit down with anyone, anywhere, and “talk” brings memories of the initial John Kennedy / Nikita Krushchev meeting in Vienna, where Kennedy was kicked around and viewed as weak by the Soviet premier. This perceived weakness empowered Krushchev, and directly resulted in the Soviets’ gambit in the Cuban Missile Crisis. What is most puzzling is that Obama has learned nothing from history, and apparently understands little about the inherent value of a diplomatic meeting at the highest levels when a president of the United States is involved. As far as Obama seems concerned, the president is a pedestrian commoner, fit to mingle with the nuttiest, most oppressive authoritarian governments. Let’s just talk, and understand.
How utterly stupid.
This has been done, and it does not work. The same liberal press that derided George W. Bush for looking into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and seeing his soul ought to be dicing and mincing Obama’s foreign policy intentions into the proper insignificant, trifling little bits they so deserve. Unsurprisingly, that is not the case. He gets a pass – and it’s not because he’s otherwise qualified.
Always, no matter the time in history or the year of election, foreign policy is the most important public policy factor in a presidential election (but not always the most important politically, unfortunately). It’s the sort of thing serious thinking people ought to agree on. Domestic policy lies irrelevant if national security is left unchecked. The left chides Bush for being diplomatically inept. Whether you agree with Bush’s actions, at least Bush was able to justify and confirm his diplomatic posture through the use of force. If we get Barack Obama, not only will he be diplomatically inept, he will refuse to use force (remember, he has already taken the nuclear option completely off the table), which further marginalizes his diplomatic advances, and has the added bonus of diminishing the stature of the United States in the process.
I don’t want our country to necessarily be liked. I am perfectly fine with being feared and respected – being “liked” is a high school emotion. With an Obama presidency, we will be hated not for our arrogance, but for our weakness, and the world would suffer because of it. The Bush presidency has deposed two of the planet’s most awful regimes, both in one term. Given odds, I would take the under on two terms of Obama.
Perhaps Obama should check out Ahmadinejad’s blog.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I don’t want our country to necessarily be liked. I am perfectly fine with being feared and respected – being “liked” is a high school emotion.
Funny, because this rant on foreign policy strikes me as something written by a steroid addled high school football player.
The fact is our country’s economy and even our dollar is tied in some way to our image abroad. The more we antagonize the world, the more we pretend as if its a blessing to get to meet our head of state, the more we act as if there are only two factions in this world (with us or against us); the more likely we’ll lose our prestige and see other budding nations usurp our once dominant position as the world leader.
Part of the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was do to their isolation from the world community…we can’t afford to go down that path, which is what you seem to be endorsing.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Sean…. get your facts right! England does not speak german because of a strong US, France is not part of Germany because of a strong US, the Soviet Union did not falter because of isolationism, it had the same problem many mortgage holders have today, they bought more than they could afford. There is a difference between dealing with a nutcase like Iran, and an economical relationship with another country. You cannot treat the two situations the same. Chamberlain made that mistake in the 30’s,as did Kennedy later.
The dislike of the USA in many parts of the world is simple, those that don’t have, hate those that do. The USA feeds more people, sends more aid to disaster areas,rebuilds more infrastructure for those that can’t, and takes more immigrants into this country than any other, (even if you only count the legal ones).
No other has come close to help even a fraction of the world population as the US.
“The more we antagonize the world,”
Apparently we antagonize the world by giving, with the knowledge that we will never get paid back, helping them to govern themselves without tyrants, saving their children from starvation and disease, building schools,and providing our “evil” capitalist environment where most of the world has profited beyond their wildest dreams.
In the mall that I have a business, there are merchants from China, Pakistan, Nepal, Israel, Iraq, Mexico, and England just name a few. All send money home for their families, and most say they will never go back to their homelands to live, because their families here could not adjust back to that way of life.
Talked with a businessman originally from Pakistan, he does not like this country because everyone can have everything. They can drive almost any car, wear the latest clothing, get a good education, and live in a nice home. In his country, he says only the “rich” can live that way. The poor are not allowed the opportunities. He thinks it is wrong for the people of “lower status” to have these opportunities here. This evil environment has provided him with the opportunities he would not want for his own countrymen, outside of his family of course!
May 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Nathan,
You are not giving Senator Obama enough credit on foreign policy experience.
On 11/18/2007 he said, “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.”
Obviously, he will be drawing on this “strong” experience when dealing with foreign in policy.
Or maybe Susan Rice, his foreign policy advisor is right…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumIz2bajus
May 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
We live in a different era. Raw military might alone will not sustain us. We became the worlds greatest and only superpower not because the rest of the world hated us, but in part because they did love us.
I’m not worried about Iran or Syria liking us, but speaking softly whilst carrying the big stick will go a long way in repairing the relations with Europe and other countries which have been strained under George W. Bush and the failure of Secretary Rice.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
There seems to be three types of foreign policy situations in the world today. The religious fanatic, the tyrant, and the economically stressed appear to be the divisions. “Only” military might works with the first two, because the reason and logic approach is as effective as trying to make a cobra a house pet, they are not interested from start to finish.
In much of the mideast, there are religious fanatics who are also tyrants. The only thing that keeps them restrained is their fear of anothers might, military or economic, and the belief that it will be used, nothing else. This changes only if they lose this fear.
In order to maintain relations with others economically, there has to be a balance between being a “customer” and “provider”. The world is like a giant department store, you have to have suppliers, sales clerks, and customers. Without a balance of these, the store goes Chapter 13.
The only “differnet era” variance is the level of power,(like terrorist and tyrants with nukes), and the size of the world economy. One does not shoot his cow or kill the milk buyer unless he is nuts.
We should hope we have someone in the “White House” who understands the world we live in today, and how to deal with the elements. B.O. just does not have the experience. Initial indications suggest he never will.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I just want to say I agree with you that the president should be above and beyond any other country’s government, or even simple citizens for that matter. And I also think that talking to our enemies is actually a sign of weakness.
But you wrote: “With an Obama presidency, we will be hated not for our arrogance, but for our weakness, and the world would suffer because of it.”
Are you saying the USA are arrogant?! Or perceived as such? I’m not sure I’m following you here. What is clear is that the fate of our country will indeed define the fate of the rest of the world.
In any case I agree with you that our country should be feared, more than “liked” or even respected. Respect doesn’t mean anything if we can be attacked at any moment by any country that simply doesn’t like us.
But at this very moment, I can’t help but thinking that attacks on our soil are being planned by citizens of countries like Irak (or Iran), organized by people who simply were unhappy that we removed their leaders. We have given them freedom, and they would retaliate, under the motive that we “invaded their country under false pretense”. I for one am glad we didn’t find any WMD over there!