PDA

View Full Version : The Perils of President Obama's National Security Policy



RodB
01-27-2015, 07:09 PM
Long article...but very persuasive...

Obama has ignored several generals not to mention secretaries of defense.... I think his policies are putting the USA in danger.

RodB



The Perils of President Obama’s National Security Policy
Robert Kaufman
Late January of 2010 will mark the first anniversary of the Obama Presidency. What should one make of the Obama Administration’s record on foreign affairs and national security? What follows is a full-throated critique of what President Obama has done and is likely to do.
To begin with the perspective that informs this critique, I call myself a moral democratic realist, a paradigm I lay out more elaborately in my most recent book, In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. I identify moral democratic realism favorably with the foreign policy of the administrations of presidents Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
Six precepts of moral democratic realism emerged from my reading of the lessons of diplomatic history. First, the danger of war and strife will always loom large because of irredeemable human imperfection itself. The anarchical system of international politics, where there is no monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, compounds the danger. Power is thus the pivotal, inescapable dimension of international relations. The vindication of American self-interest depends mainly on the clarity, credibility, and capability of American power. Coalitions of the willing can supplement, but never substitute, for American power. Multilateral institutions in general, and the United Nations in particular, can inhibit the necessary exercise of American power, if we are unwise enough to let them.
Second, the greatest dangers to the United States typically arise not from vigilance or the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive reluctance to fight. So American statesmen ought to strive for what Churchill calls “overwhelming power.”
Third, unlike what I call “unrealistic realism,” which I associate with Colin Powell, James Baker III, and Brent Scowcroft, moral democratic realism treats regime type as a variable for identifying opportunities and dangers in American foreign policy. All regimes do not behave alike. Some are more aggressive; others are more peaceful. There is a vital moral and practical distinction between totalitarian regimes animated by messianic ideologies on the one hand, and stable liberal democracies, on the other hand. The difference between Nazi Germany and a stable, liberal, democratic West Germany puts this vital distinction in high relief.
Fourth, moral democratic realism dictates that American foreign policy must adhere closely to the imperatives of geopolitics. There is no objective reason why the United States should not remain the world’s dominant power for a long time to come. As Charles Krauthammer incisively puts it, “decline is a choice” for the United States, not an inevitability. For all nations, however, resources are finite; thus, the United States must give priority to defending and extending the democratic zone of peace in East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. These are the major power centers in the world, where the absence of liberty could prove most perilous.
Fifth, the cardinal virtue of Prudence should inform when, how, and for what purpose the United States employs military force. St. Thomas Aquinas defines Prudence as choosing ends and means that are morally and practically correct. Clear, firm, credible commitments can deter the risk of war and the cost of war when even the best deterrent sometimes fails. Sometimes as well, using force sooner—even preemptively—can save much blood, toil, tears, and sweat later.
Sixth, moral democratic realism rejects utopianism and moral nihilism. Judeo-Christian morality refracted through the lens of Prudence ought to serve as the guide for evaluating relative degrees of moral and geopolitical evil. The greatest of American leaders have always recognized that the United States must wage war and peace in a way consistent with the values of American society and the principles of well-ordered liberty. As Ronald Reagan’s Administration put it in National Security Directive 75, which laid out President Reagan’s monumentally successful strategy for winning the Cold War, “US policy must have an ideological thrust which clearly affirms the superiority of the US and western values of individual dignity and freedom, a free press, free trade unions, free enterprise, and political democracy…” The United States is not a perfect nation, but it is an exceptional nation; indeed, the United States is the indispensible one.
These six principles serve as my point of departure to explain the peril of President Obama’s foreign and national security policy. Start with President Obama’s vision of the world and his role in it, which make him the antithesis of President Reagan. President Obama believes he is an extraordinary leader of an ordinary, badly flawed nation. Reagan believed he was an ordinary man privileged to lead an extraordinary nation. Obama is totally wrong; Ronald Reagan is half right. For Ronald Reagan was also an extraordinary leader. Today’s Republican party should champion Ronald Reagan’s legacy unabashedly, adapting it to the changing circumstances of the 21st century...

...Although the Obama Administration does not want to admit it, the President has probably decided that, when push comes to shove, permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is a lesser evil than regime change and the preemptive use of force. President Obama is wrong. A nuclear Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will amplify the potential cost and risk of war. The Saudis and Egyptians will inevitably choose to go nuclear if Shiite Iran attains that capability. In desperation and threatened with a second Holocaust, Israel may resort to preemptive attacks on Iran’s program—with much greater risk and much smaller chance of success—than had the United States done it in the first place. Senator John McCain was right, as he almost always is on questions of national security, when he said this: “There is only one thing worse than the US exercising a military option, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran.”
President Obama’s policy toward the Arab-Israeli dispute is another demonstration of Einstein’s definition of insanity. His Administration believes that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the source, rather than the symptom, of the strife that besets the Middle East. Conversely, President Bush recognized that the road to stability in the Middle East lies mainly in promoting democratic regime change that addresses the root cause of the danger: the culture of conspiracy and oppression that spawns radical, implacably aggressive despotisms such as Saddam Hussein’s regime, the militant mullahs in Tehran, and the PLO.
Here, finally, is some good news. The United States remains so powerful that even President Obama’s administration cannot squander the benefits of American primacy in a mere four years, or even eight. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s misguided economic and national security strategies threaten to erode that primacy dangerously and substantially. President Obama is a true believer in what former UN Ambassador John Bolton calls the first post-American Presidency. The President strives to make the United States look more like the EU and the UN rather than to champion American exceptionalism. It will take an election—perhaps a series of elections—to reverse this perilous course.
Here is another prediction: When in 2012 the next Republican Presidential nominee poses the Reaganesque question of whether we are better off than we were four years ago, the answer will be a resounding “No”—economically, politically, internationally, and militarily. That will be because of what the Obama Administration has wrought.
This Administration is the Carter Administration on steroids. Things will get worse before they get better. Meanwhile, Republicans must stand on principle, the way Winston Churchill did during the 1930s and Ronald Reagan did during the 1970s. Then, the American people will have a clear, consistent, and compelling alternative when the political environment changes for the better. So do not despair. We shall overcome.

For entire article...
- See more at: http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/15511#sthash.OCBqpdUG.dpuf

S.V. Airlie
01-27-2015, 07:26 PM
Republicans standing on Principle! Do they even know how to define principle? That's like saying they are for family values.

moTthediesel
01-27-2015, 07:39 PM
Sounds dreadful! But for real perils, check this out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/The_Perils_of_Pauline_-_1947_Poster.jpg

Arizona Bay
01-27-2015, 07:47 PM
Perilous times, indeed!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F_0llOJT808/UxhZn8Y1TYI/AAAAAAAABfo/tO_KiO6IbHw/s1600/tumblr_m4dvmbKIZw1rnrsguo1_500.png

O'bamaaaaah!

Ian McColgin
01-27-2015, 07:53 PM
Great insights there. Not. Lots of vacuous big thing about the glories of Bush followed up by an unbroken string of false predictions.

purri
01-27-2015, 07:56 PM
Kaufman appears to be on some weird meds.

Ian McColgin
01-27-2015, 07:59 PM
At least he was six years ago when he wrote this nonsense.

Arizona Bay
01-27-2015, 08:01 PM
Maybe he's just scamming the lumpkins.

Memphis Mike
01-27-2015, 08:05 PM
Maybe he's just scamming the lumpkins.

Huh? :D

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-27-2015, 08:52 PM
Sorry, RodBaby, but your attitude is, as always, PUERILE.

Osborne Russell
01-27-2015, 11:01 PM
Ignored like Powell and Shinseki?

RodB
01-28-2015, 09:40 AM
Charles is usually right on!

R

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/26/krauthammer_obama_seems_rather_unimpressed_by_revi val_of_al_qaeda_threat_of_isis__a_rising_iran.html

Norman Bernstein
01-28-2015, 10:15 AM
From the OP's C&P:


Here is another prediction: When in 2012 the next Republican Presidential nominee poses the Reaganesque question of whether we are better off than we were four years ago, the answer will be a resounding “No”—economically, politically, internationally, and militarily. That will be because of what the Obama Administration has wrought.

Yeah, this is a guy we ought to listen to..... NOT!

I've never seen such ridiculous political babbling in my life.... holding Reagan up as some sort of paragon of foreign policy expertise? He, of Iran Contra? 'Moral Democratic Realism'? What the hell is that? A rationalization to excuse neoconservative claptrap that led us into a useless war?

ccmanuals
01-28-2015, 10:20 AM
President Obama believes he is an extraordinary leader of an ordinary, badly flawed nation. Reagan believed he was an ordinary man privileged to lead an extraordinary nation. Obama is totally wrong; Ronald Reagan is half right. For Ronald Reagan was also an extraordinary leader. Today’s Republican party should champion Ronald Reagan’s legacy unabashedly, adapting it to the changing circumstances of the 21st century...

Another op-ed for Reagan is great, Obama is bad.

S.V. Airlie
01-28-2015, 12:31 PM
Reagan was senile, Obama isn't.

John Smith
01-28-2015, 12:45 PM
If I may borrow a response, fart

LeeG
01-28-2015, 09:18 PM
RodB, are you familiar wth Anthony Zinni and the study called Desert Crossing?

LeeG
01-28-2015, 10:07 PM
Apparently not.

Gerarddm
01-29-2015, 02:24 AM
The only perils are that he has done nothing to dismantle the Cheney/Bush national security state, to his discredit.