Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Obama Whitehouse failed foreign policies’

Condoleezza Rice Takes on Obama


http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/condoleezza-rice-takes-on-obama/

<img src=”http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=8&c2=15579784&c3=65203&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1″ />condiFormer Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – our last competent Secretary of State – has been aggressive in criticizing President Obama’s failed foreign policy. And she has the experience and expertise to do so with authority. While nobody really expects the Obama administration or most Democrats in Congress to pay Dr. Rice any heed, the Republican Party better be listening and raise its collective voice against the dangerous path that Obama is taking this country down. 

Dr. Rice is particularly concerned with the “vacuum” in world leadership resulting from the Obama administration’s leading from behind policies. The vacuum is being filled by the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Dr. Rice wrote in an op-ed article appearing in the Washington Post on March 7th, “dictators and extremists across the globe will be emboldened” if the United States abandons muscular diplomacy and eschews its global responsibilities as the leader of the free world.

The Obama administration’s attempt to extend “hands of friendship to our adversaries, sometimes at the expense of our friends,” such as the administration’s “reset” button with Russia, has obviously not worked, Dr. Rice has pointed out.

For those who might say that Condoleezza Rice is hypocritically skipping over Russia’s push into Georgia in 2008 during the presidency of George W. Bush while she criticizes the Obama administration’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the Ukraine crisis, Rice set the record straight in her op-ed article:

After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, the United States sent ships into the Black Sea, airlifted Georgian military forces from Iraq back to their home bases and sent humanitarian aid. Russia was denied its ultimate goal of overthrowing the democratically elected government, an admission made to me by the Russian foreign minister.

But even those modest steps did not hold. Despite Russia’s continued occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the diplomatic isolation waned and then the Obama administration’s ‘reset’ led to an abrupt revision of plans to deploy missile defense components in the Czech Republic and Poland.

President Obama said last week in The Hague that he was “much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan” than he was about any threat from Russia. Fair enough, but Obama’s agreement to fruitless negotiations with Iran and easing the pressure of sanctions in the meantime, while Iran advances its nuclear arms and missile delivery programs, is making that nightmare more likely. So is his failure to deal adequately with the spread of al Qaeda and its affiliates throughout the Middle East and Africa, as well as the infiltration of Iran’s proxy Hezbollah in Latin America. And rather than worry about the real threat of nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists as the most significant threat to homeland security, why is Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry foolishly declaring that “climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction?”

Dr. Rice expressed particular concern that withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan without a reasonable amount of residual military presence may repeat the disastrous aftermath of the Obama administration’s precipitous decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq. Al Qaeda returned with a vengeance to launch widespread lethal attacks in Iraq and threaten its viability after they had been largely defeated as a result of the successful surge that President George W. Bush had ordered in the face of opposition by then Senator Obama, John Kerry and many other members of the Democratic Party of Defeat.

Addressing more than two thousand people attending the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual dinner on March 26th, Dr. Rice also warned about the dangerous consequences of a shrinking military budget:

Our values and our interests require defense. As Ronald Reagan famously said, peace really only comes through strength. What are we doing? What are we doing when we’re talking about a defense budget that is so small that our military starts to tell us that we may not in fact be able to carry out all of the requirements put upon it?

President Obama wants to reduce the force level of the United States Army to its smallest size since 1940 and drop an entire class of Air Force attack jets.

While understanding the weariness of the American people after two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than a decade fighting global terrorism, Dr. Rice said that “leaders can’t afford to get tired. Leaders can’t afford to be weary.”

The Obama administration is operating on the dangerous assumption that America can lead from behind by relying on our European allies, even though they are unable to get their act together to take any effective measures against Russia over Ukraine, for example. President Obama also hides behind the apron strings of the fuzzy norms of international law, which he insists everyone in the 21st century is expected to follow as a matter of course. President Obama believes that even the Iranian regime can be dealt with rationally in good faith negotiations. This is the same regime ruled by Ayatollah Khamenei, who reportedly issued a fatwah declaring that he must be obeyed as the “representative of the Prophet Muhammad and [Shi’ism’s] 12th Imam on Earth.”

Unfortunately, what President Obama says in his speeches regarding how he thinks all world leaders should act bears little resemblance to how the leaders of our adversaries are actually acting in the real world.

Republican leaders in Congress and elsewhere need to follow Dr. Rice’s example and directly challenge the basic tenets of Obama’s foreign policy. They need to clearly contrast Obama’s tenets with the principles that Republicans stand for, which if implemented will keep the United States and its allies free and secure. The United States must lead from the front, not from behind as Obama would prefer. An American president should give America’s allies such as Israel the benefit of the doubt, not those who time and again have proven that their word cannot be trusted as President Obama has tended to do. As Putin follows a more aggressive foreign policy and jihadists are expanding their bases of operations, now is not the time to radically cut America’s military defenses as President Obama wants to do. Peace is truly won through strength, not by planned weakness in cutting the U.S. military down to size in order to supposedly improve America’s image in parts of the world where we are not liked. As jihadists, who want to kill as many Americans as they can, get closer to possessing weapons of mass destruction, now is not the time for John Kerry to raise a red herring about climate change as possibly “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” In fact, to achieve energy independence for the United States and our European allies, the radical environmentalists should be told to return to their environmentally protected shells while such initiatives as the Keystone Pipeline and the export of liquefied natural gas are finally allowed to go forward.

Few Republican leaders in Congress have been as bold to date as Dr. Rice in directly challenging the foundational principles that animate the Obama administration’s foreign policy and have led to disastrous outcomes. Some are all too willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, a courtesy that Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Senator (now Secretary of State) John Kerry and Barack Obama himself refused to do in their relentless and at times vicious attacks on President George W. Bush’s foreign policies. It would be perfectly appropriate for Republicans to point out that while Bush’s surge was widely credited with winning the war in Iraq against the insurgents, Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And it would also be perfectly appropriate for Republicans to point out that while Ronald Reagan helped win the Cold War, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Obama is managing to midwife the rebirth of the Russian empire.

When some Republican congressional leaders such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham do level a sharp criticism, it tends to deal with specific episodes such as the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Benghazi debacle. Hopefully, as it becomes painfully obvious by mid-summer to all but the willfully ignorant that there will never be a verifiable deal with the Iranian regime to dismantle Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and to curb its missile program, Republicans will insist on the passage of new sanctions against Iran and work with like-minded Democrats to ensure veto-proof majorities.

The world is a far more dangerous place than when President Obama first took office in 2009. A fundamental reason, as Condoleezza Rice said in her speech at the 2012 Republican Convention, is that under President Obama’s watch the world does not know where America stands. “You see,” she said, “when the friends or foes alike don’t know the answer to that question, unambiguously and clearly, the world is likely to be a more dangerous and chaotic place.”

This should be the key foreign policy message during both the 2014 midterm election campaign and in 2016. Particularly if Hillary Clinton runs for president, perhaps the Republican slogan against candidates from the Democratic Party of Defeat can be “Strong American leadership DOES make a difference.”

Putin’s Real Intentions: Re-Establish the “Evil Empire”


http://patriotupdate.com/articles/putins-real-intentions-re-establish-evil-empire/#Wedb3UXcueSYZZ1y.99

Written on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 by David L. Goetsch

Students of World War II are finding dangerous parallels between the events leading up to that war and what is now happening in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is using precisely the same tactics used by Adolf Hitler in the run up to World War II, and like Hitler he is betting on and benefiting from a weak response from the west. As I observe the idle threats being made by President Obama and John Kerry painful memories of a sniveling Neville Chamberlain come to mind. While the West impotently talks about sanctions and even imposes a few, Putin continues to mass troops on the Ukrainian border for what he calls “military maneuvers.”

I fear there is much more at stake here than the Crimea. To understand what is happening in Ukraine it is necessary to first understand Vladimir Putin’s real intentions: He wants to re-establish the “evil empire.” Putin has stated publicly that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s a tragedy President Putin would like to erase from Russian history in the same manner that Adolph Hitler sought to eradicate what he saw as the shame of the Treaty of Versailles following World War I. Just as Hitler wanted to reincorporate land lost to Germany in the aftermath of the Great War—thus the bloodless takeover of Austria followed close on by the forced annexation of the Sudetenland—Putin wants to take back what was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. His Crimean adventure was just the first step along these lines. It won’t be the last.

You can be sure that Putin has studied Hitler’s actions in the years leading up to World War II as well as the weak-kneed, impotent response of the west. Putin seems to know history better than today’s Western leaders who allowed World War II to happen when Hitler could have been easily stopped in his tracks. Neville Chamberlain and other Western leaders thought they could negotiate with Hitler. They were fools. But even a fool knows you cannot negotiate with a hungry bear, and the Russian bear with prodding from Putin is obviously hungry. Unfortunately, President Obama and John Kerry seem to be cut from the same cloth as Neville Chamberlain. They want to negotiate and threaten and talk, talk, talk. If anyone in the Obama administration had an ounce of foreign policy sense they would understand that all a hungry bear ever wants is more.

Community Organizer Two

In the years leading up to World War II, Hitler first brought Austria under the Nazi jackboot with the Anschluss. Anschluss is German for political annexation. It worked like this. First Hitler stirred up pro-German sentiment in Austria. Then he massed troops and tanks along the Austrian border. Finally, he “allowed” Austria to annex itself to Germany in lieu of being invaded by Nazi Storm Troopers and Panzers. If you have been paying attention, the Crimean Region of Ukraine just had its own Anschluss, but this time it was Putin and the Russians who demanded a vote while pointing guns at the voters. Unfortunately, as they did prior to World War II, western leaders—most auspiciously President Obama—are responding with words and weakness. Putin on the other hand is taking action.

Hitler’s next annexation was the Sudetenland, a small sliver of land that was part of Czechoslovakia. Like the Crimea, the Sudetenland had a large contingent of citizens loyal to the invading country. The German speaking, pro-Nazi citizens of the Sudetenland—led by Konrad Henlein—agitated for annexation and, of course, Hitler was only too happy to oblige. Surrounded by Nazi tanks and troops, the Sudetenland acquiesced to Hitler’s demands and became part of Germany. The people of the West adopted a who-cares attitude toward Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. France and Britain were not willing to go to war over a sliver of land in which many of the people spoke German and were loyal to Hitler. The West basically said to Hitler, “You can have the Sudetenland.” This would have been a small enough tragedy had Hitler been content to stop there, but of course he wasn’t. Nor will President Putin be content to stop his expansion efforts with the Crimea. As it did with the Sudetenland, the West has adopted a who-cares attitude toward the Russian annexation of the Crimea. Just as it was with the Sudetenland, this would be only a minor tragedy if Putin’s aggression stopped there. But it won’t, and Western leaders are fools if they think it will.

It is a good bet that Vladimir Putin now has his sights set on Ukraine. If he can bring that sovereign country back into the fold, then there are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; all of which have significant Russian-speaking populations left over from the old Soviet days. These Russian-speaking citizens can be counted on to support Putin in his takeover efforts, and Putin can be counted on to claim that he is invading these sovereign nations for the sole purpose of protecting oppressed Russians. If Putin can manage to re-incorporate these three tiny nations, the bear’s next meal will be the one that finally brought the West to its senses and triggered a military response and, eventually, World War II. That meal is Poland, which is the prize Putin really wants in the first place.

History is repeating itself in part because we have raised several generations of Americans who do not know their history. While American students were being taught how they should be ashamed of the United States and studying the lives of celebrities instead of American heroes, Vladimir Putin and his generation of Russians were studying history—real history. Now he is using that knowledge of history to re-establish what Ronald Reagan called the “evil empire.” With the Crimean annexation, history is simply repeating itself. The only difference is the tyrant who is seeking territory and the weak-kneed Western leaders who are letting him take it.

Tag Cloud