Page 1 of 68 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1015
  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    This has gotta be amongst the most inept foreign policy ever... or is appalling lack of one more accurate? Either way with all the dissent spreading overseas our post turtle's lack of experience and second rate staff is looking to have long term effects overseas.



    The Obama Doctrine At Last?

    After two years in office it seems that President Obama has finally found a foreign policy doctrine says Andrew Roberts, but the trick will be sticking to it when the going gets tough like in Libya.

    President Obama has stated, in a telephone call with Angela Merkel on Saturday about Colonel Gaddafi, that "When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now." Could this be the long-awaited "Obama Doctrine," at least in outline? It certainly seems to have the high-sounding tome of a presidential pronouncement.

    Every president strives to have a foreign policy Doctrine—note the capital D—that gets named after him. The Truman Doctrine prescribed the way to contain Communism, the Kennedy Doctrine the way to defy it, and the Reagan Doctrine the way to defeat it. More recently, the Bush Doctrine defined how, in the War on Terror, states had to decide whether they were for America or against her, and explained unequivocally what would happen to those caught on the wrong side of the divide. In this year of revolutions in the Middle East, President Obama might now be stumbling towards an Obama Doctrine, in a foreign policy so far made in a vacuum.

    It may be completely absurd in historical terms, but at least its overarching theme about legitimacy sounds good. If it had been promulgated in 1861, of course, when Abraham Lincoln used mass violence against an insurrection of his own people for four years at the cost of 600,000 lives, Barack Obama might not have the vote today, but there's little advantage in pointing out such intellectual and historical inconsistencies. Otherwise we might also wind up wondering why the then Senator Obama opposed a war to overthrow a certain Iraqi dictator who used mass violence against his own people as his only means of staying in power?

    For President Obama is a man who does not want to act when it's right to do so unless it also sounds right. If the sound bite fits, do it, especially if it includes impressive words from international jurisprudence like "legitimacy." The fact is, however, that were the pro-Gaddafi forces, which seem to include the all-important air force, actually—God forbid—to defeat the insurgents, and were Gaddafi to re-establish control in Libya, the United States and the West would quickly find that he had re-established his "legitimacy to rule" too. We would be sending back our oilmen after a decent interval, all talk of "legitimacy" conveniently forgotten. Legitimacy comes from different places in different countries at different periods of history, and in Libya since 1969 it has come from the barrel of a gun, which is where it very firmly remains today.

    For President Obama is a man who does not want to act when it's right to do so unless it also sounds right.

    That is not to say that President Obama should not stick to his newfound Doctrine, just so long as he extends it to countries beyond the Middle East. Were the Chinese to use mass violence against their own people as their only means of staying in power, as they did in Tiananmen Square in 1989, can we expect President Obama to call for them "to do what is right for their country by leaving now," or would it just apply to weak powers like Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or the military dictatorship in Burma?

    Or is this latest pronouncement, as I suspect, merely a high-sounding form of words that sounds good for the present Libyan situation, but which will be swiftly forgotten the moment they no longer suit the Obama Administration's immediate requirements.

    Historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, Masters and Commanders, was published in the UK in September. His previous books include Napoleon and Wellington, Hitler and Churchill, and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. Roberts is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.
    Trotting Hillary off to the UN on Libya yields predictable results..

    U.N. Council Poised to Adopt Report Praising Libya's Human Rights Record

    Gonna repost this Niall Ferguson clip also..

    Awesome video: One guest absolutely destroys entire MSNBC panel on Obama's incompetence on foreign policy

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #2
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    As the article points out... how many countries were voicing concern we were gonna invade Libya? Prior to Hill making the claim.. I do not recall ever hearing it before. A google for "the United States is going to invade Libya to take over the oil" only produces links to stories about Hill's claim.



    Clinton: Admin's Tepid Response to Qaddafi Aimed at Quelling Fears U.S. Would Invade Libya for Oil

    ongressman Steve Chabot (R, Ohio), in a hearing today on Capitol Hill, asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the U.S. response to Libya. In his question, Chabot said that the “initial U.S. response” has been “tepid,” and went on to compare the greater response from the British and even the Chinese. Reminding Secretary Clinton that the Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi has a history of responding to the threat of force, Chabot essentially asked why the U.S. didn’t use this approach to dealing with Libya.

    Clinton’s response was itself tepid – and confused. We have a different history with Libya than some other countries, Clinton said. But then she went on the defensive, saying:

    we feel that we did this in a prudent and effective manner. And we did it in a way that did not raise the alarm bells around the region and the world that we were about to invade for oil. If you follow, as we follow, all of the websites that are looking at what’s happening in the Middle East, you see a constant drumbeat that the United States is going to invade Libya to take over the oil – and we can’t let that happen. Well, we are not going to do that. And we are going to side with the Libyan people and their aspirations, but the last thing in the world we wanted was to start off with military assets when we very effectively got our people out.
    So apparently U.S. policy is now predicated on whatever myths websites from around the world are currently hawking. That’s not something that inspires a lot of confidence in this administration.

    Clinton went on to suggest that no one has a bad word to say about America’s Libya policy anymore. “I’ve seen no evidence that anybody thinks less of us because we were smart about how we got our people – not only our embassy people but American citizens who were working in Libya – out safely,” she said.
    I've been ready for Jimmay 2.0 ever since this post turtle got elected..

    Forbes: Get ready for Carter 2.0 on energy and the Mideast

    Tensions spiking in the Middle East. The price of oil going through the roof. An American administration refusing to open American resources for energy. Does this sound familiar? It does if you lived through the late 1970s, and Steve Forbes reminds us that the results were not pretty for the American economy. In fact, Forbes writes today at Politico that Barack Obama has yet another similarity to Jimmy Carter:

    You need to watch only a few minutes of cable news analysis to realize just how ludicrous our national energy policies have become. As escalating tensions and chaos unfold in Egypt, Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, one energy analyst suggested that if Libyan oil supplies were to fail, the United States would rely on Saudi Arabia for its oil needs. If that statement alone doesn’t put U.S. leaders on red alert, the looming national energy crisis may soon become reality.

    The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster. …

    Unfortunately, this administration’s Department of the Interior, with the most anti-oil-and-gas record in U.S. history, is sabotaging any real chance of avoiding the pending energy crisis because of its continued hold on deepwater drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

    When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar heads before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, Americans — particularly the 9.2 million directly or indirectly working in the oil and gas industry — would be ill served if the question isn’t asked: Are the thousands, and counting, of out-of-work Americans in the Gulf region and beyond a worthwhile consequence of your department’s freeze?
    Not to worry, says Obama’s new chief of staff William Daley. Obama loves the private sector and American industry:

    President Barack Obama is a pro-business president who “has always believed that America succeeds when business succeeds,” his chief of staff argues on the pages of a major business newspaper.

    William Daley, a former JPMorgan Chase executive who was sometimes critical of Obama’s stance toward business before joining the White House in January, says that the president “has a deep, abiding commitment to doing what is necessary to strengthen our economy and make America more competitive,” he writes in an op-ed in Wednesday’s Financial Times.

    Responding to a critique in the FT from George Buckley, the CEO of 3M, that Obama is “anti-business,” Daley pushes back with a hearty appeal to the community that has often been adversarial toward the Obama administration, stressing the importance of the role the president believes the federal government must play in reviving the U.S. economy. “As a government our responsibility is to lay the foundations for the private sector to thrive; indeed, that is at the heart of our strategy for growth,” Daley writes, defending the administration’s efforts to reform schools, better fund colleges and upgrade communications and transportation. These efforts, he said, help lay the “foundation” for the economy.
    But as Forbes points out, the energy sector is where business support meets the acid test. Without reliable, efficient, and reasonably-priced energy available, the economy will stagnate at best, and decline. That’s the lesson of the Carter era. It took Ronald Reagan to dismantle the bureaucratic obstacles erected to block exploration and exploitation and free enough energy production to fuel the great American economic expansion of the 1980s and beyond.

    Has Obama learned that lesson? Or is he just paying lip service to businessmen, as Jack Welch accused him of doing yesterday? Forbes provides the answer:

    After the moratorium was nominally lifted last fall, the blow dealt by Interior’s subsequent permit freeze has been devastating. Not a single deepwater drilling permit has been issued since last year’s tragic oil spill. Unfortunately, there’s no relief in sight, given Salazar’s recent admission that he has no intention of issuing any drilling leases this year.

    By freezing U.S. energy assets in the Gulf and keeping 97 percent of our offshore oil and gas off limits, our government, willing or not, is fueling an energy crisis that could bring this nation to its knees. Continued inaction in the Gulf threatens to force us to import an extra 88 million barrels of oil per year by 2016, at a cost of $8 billion. …

    The Energy Department estimates that U.S. energy needs are 17 times greater than they were 50 years ago. Yet U.S. output of domestic energy has fallen 40 percent over the same period.
    Business cannot expand without energy abundance. We need government to get out of the way of energy production at the very least, and preferably helping to promote American production. Instead, while Obama talks about the need for business to invest in the US, his administration keeps finding ways to make it more expensive and more difficult to do so. It’s a rerun from the 1970s — as welcome as a revival of the TV series Carter Country.
    Jimmayyyyyy...

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #3
    Joined
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,748

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    I was just out on my baclcony smoking a cig and saw two black hawks fly by just a few feet off the water, with all lights off.

    Was funny watching the old people out walking looking around wondering what just flew by.

    I live by the special ops command post for the air force. They usually do this kind of stuff in preperation of something. They nornally dont fly in groups at 9pm over the ocean right across the street from condominiums with all lights off.

    Needless to say its veeeerrrryyy noisy.
    Last edited by Invictus; 03-02-2011 at 11:14 PM.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    A foreign policy vacuum so large people overseas in Libya are chanting for the previous administration....!!

    Gaddafi bombs oil areas, faces crimes probe

    . . .

    Opposition activists called for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya's deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

    "Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

    . . .
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  5. #5
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Heard the Post Turtle-n-chief actually say ole Moammar Gadhafi's name last night when he proclaimed that he must step down. Wow.. that only took how many weeks?? And now that he's finally broken the silence... wtf is the plan??



    Obama's Libya response lacks courage, direction

    "The genius of you Americans," former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser reportedly once said, "is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing."

    I've always loved Nasser's lament because it encapsulated how so many people around the world fail to grasp the interplay of idealism and realism at the heart of American foreign policy. If we were simply a standard imperial power, we'd be easy to understand. If we were just a bunch of idealistic bleeding hearts, we'd be easy to understand. But as an exceptional democratic superpower, we're neither, and it can make us seem awfully inscrutable and unpredictable to Machiavellians and too calculating and selfish to the idealists.

    But, for once, I am with Nasser. President Obama's response to events in the Middle East, particularly in Libya, are so opaque, so convoluted, it's tempting to think there's some ingenious master plan in effect behind the scenes that he hasn't clued us in on.

    Obama keeps them guessing
    Some dots to connect:
    •On Feb. 16, as the temperature in Libya was rising rapidly, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked by Fox News' James Rosen whether Moammar Gadhafi is a "dictator." Crowley froze like a raccoon caught plundering your Froot Loops.
    "Are you stumped?" asked Rosen. "I'm not stumped," Crowley snapped.
    "So what's your answer to the question? Is he a dictator?"
    Crowley mumbled, "I don't think he came to office through a democratic process."
    What moral clarity about a man whose bloody rein has lasted 42 years.

    •Fast forward to last Tuesday. Libya had taken a dark turn. Early in the day, the Libyan dictator announced he was willing to throw his country into bloody chaos, even if it meant turning his jets and helicopters on unarmed protesters.
    That evening, Obama finally released a statement, albeit written, after he concluded a day of photo-ops in Ohio. The statement offered his condolences to the victims of the New Zealand earthquake. When everyone expected something, anything, from the leader of the free world (who, remember, had after days of inscrutable dithering, ultimately demanded the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak), Obama could only muster the courage to, in effect, lament the unprovoked assault on the good people of New Zealand by the heartless tectonic plates of the Pacific Rim.

    •The next day, Obama issued a televised statement, condemning the "violence" in Libya without identifying its author by name. He did indulge in a bit of liberal nostalgia, by offering a bromide about how the whole " world is watching." Indeed, watching, but doing little. Which is exactly the way Gadhafi likes it.

    •When Gadhafi's son gave an "interview" on Libyan TV warning that the country would be drenched in blood and that the family would fight to "the last bullet," a U.S. government official responded, "We are analyzing the speech of Seif al-Islam Gadhafi to see what possibilities it contains for meaningful reform." That search should work out as well as O.J.'s hunt for the real killers.

    Late, and weak
    The White House insisted that it wasn't being slow, but prudent, because it was eager to get Americans — potential hostages — out of the country before doing anything provocative. That sounded more like a rationalization than an explanation. Far more Americans were in Egypt during its turmoil, and there was no hint that the White House was concerned. The presence of thousands of Europeans in Libya didn't keep their leaders from offering forceful and clear condemnations. The most unfathomable part: Obama's reaction made it seem as if America was more eager to oust a 30-year ally than do the same to a 40-year enemy, whose cruelty dwarfs anything we saw from Mubarak. Harshness toward friends and conciliation toward enemies is an indecipherable policy from any angle.

    Another oddity, particularly given Obama's high regard for the power of his own rhetoric, is that you'd think he'd be looking for ways to take credit for, and guide, the forces of reform in the region. Some of his defenders have tried to make the case that Obama's famous Cairo speech in 2009 fueled this year's "Arab Spring." That would be more plausible if Obama weren't in a defensive crouch.

    In fairness, the White House did step up its game after the hapless ferry it sent to rescue Americans spent three days parked at the docks because of bad weather. The president dispatched Hillary Clinton to Geneva to rally the diplomatic corps, a move that no doubt stewed Gadhafi's bowels with fear. And since the weekend, the administration committed, finally, to ousting Gadhafi.

    The president was flatfooted on the Iranian protests in 2009. He was caught unprepared by the Tunisian protests this year. He was blindsided again just weeks later by the Egyptian crisis. And now, as oil prices skyrocket and calls for a Libyan no-fly zone are rendered irrelevant by the fact that Obama never bothered to move sufficient assets into the region, it's as if he is trying to make his foreign policy headaches disappear by ignoring them. I'm not sure even Nasser could find any genius there.

    Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
    And when the left is questioned about the obami's policies and their continual claims he's teh smartest doode evar... the "we can't invade everyone" strawman comes out right on que... h3ll, even Hillary is using it.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #6
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #7
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,493

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Obambi's foreign policy methodology in a nutshell:

    1. Vote "present".

    2. If stuff goes bad, blame someone.

    3. If stuff goes well, take credit.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^^ What our allies are usually hesitant to say publicly our enemies have known since early on...



    And today's Mideast policy is

    President Obama yesterday for the first time publicly called for Moammar Khadafy to step aside in the midst of the increasingly bloody revolt in Libya.

    "Moammar el-Khadafy has lost the legitimacy to lead, and he must leave," Obama said at the White House.

    OK. Now what?

    For all the public rhetoric, Team Obama seems totally at sea regarding the current crisis.

    Case in point: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in recent days has talked up the idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, as the first President George Bush did in Iraq two decades ago following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

    But Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday demurred, telling Congress: "Let's call a spade a spade -- a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya," and criticized "loose talk" about military intervention.


    That caused British Prime Minister David Cameron, who'd also sounded enthusiastic about the idea, to abruptly pull back support, given what he saw as Washington's hesitancy.

    Yesterday, however, Obama insisted that a no-fly zone "is one of the options that we would be looking at."

    If the president means to confuse Khadafy about his plans, he's succeeding.

    Problem is, the US public and America's allies are bewildered as well.

    The administration has been lurching about since the start of the Egyptian demonstrations that toppled Hosni Mubarak.

    And the public signs have been conflicting, too: First the administration stood behind Mubarak, then played catch-up and called for his ouster.

    Likewise with Khadafy: For all Obama's insistence on being "very unambiguous about this," he and his administration have yet to show the faintest hint of a coherent strategy -- to say nothing of constructive leadership.

    Nothing good can develop in such a vacuum -- but plenty of mischief is possible; indeed, it's inevitable.

    "We will continue to send a clear message," the president said yesterday.

    And with a straight face, too.

    Does he think nobody is noticing?
    The Post Turtle "foreign policy" diet:
    Carrots for our enemies...
    sticks for our allies...
    and waffles for everyone else.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #9
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,483

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post


    The Post Turtle "foreign policy" diet:
    Carrots for our enemies...
    sticks for our allies...
    and waffles for everyone else.

    Or in other words. It's a GREAT time to be a ruthless dictator of a third world hell hole. Who would've thought putting a spineless, community organizing, civil rights lawyer into the WH would yield these kind of results?
    Not a GoodWhite.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^^^ Predictable results indeed.

    Ramirez on bandwagons

    Yesterday, I asked if anyone could identify a specific “Obama Doctrine” in foreign policy, besides the usual Academia dreck about the illegitimacy of American power used in service to the interests of America and liberty around the world. Michael Ramirez, the two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartoonists at Investors Business Daily, argues that the real Obama Doctrine is jumping on the latest bandwagon — even if it means missing it:



    Charles Krauthammer and John Hinderaker both argue that Obama seems to be jumping on the neocon bandwagon after more than four years of attacking the pro-democracy policies of his predecessor, but Obama’s response seems even less coherent than that. Ramirez gets to the heart of it better; the momentum has gone towards overturning autocracies in the Middle East, and Obama can’t seem to make up his mind whether to cheerlead that or back the status quo in a more Scowcroftian manner. Only after the situation appears decided has Obama bothered to commit full-throttle to hope and change, and by that time either the bandwagon has left him in the dust (Libya, whose regime no Western nation had cause to defend even with tacit silence), or Obama overtook because the bandwagon threw a wheel (Egypt, where Obama had much less hesitation in telling a nominal US ally to get out).

    The Obama Doctrine seems to be “we’ll make it up as we go along.” One misses a lot of bandwagons that way.


    Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history. Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here. And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Asleep at the wheel...

    While the White House slept: Once again, our government was caught off guard by the Middle East


    As Libya's bloody conflict rages on, important lessons for U.S. foreign policy are emerging from the past month's Middle East turmoil. Starting with Tunisia, the Obama administration has seemed repeatedly surprised by anti-regime demonstrations, unsure of the stakes for America and its allies and unprepared conceptually and operationally to deal with the consequences.

    In Egypt, there was contradictory, unhelpful White House rhetoric when silence would have been prudent - and in Libya, silence when strong American words (and actions) were amply warranted.

    But even presidential rhetoric is only rhetoric. The real test is whether our government is prepared for uncertainty, and how its policies are implemented under stress.

    Here, the Obama administration has looked shaky at best. Consider the following questions we should now be asking about recent events in order to increase our readiness before the unknown overwhelms us yet again.

    1. Did we have adequate intelligence of what was about to happen? The obvious answer is "no," across the board. The ensuing debate about why we were caught so flatfooted will undoubtedly reverberate over the next several months. We are not looking for predictions, but for more information for policy makers and less reliance on foreign intelligence services. Our dearth of human sources in the Middle East has been a problem for decades during many administrations. And what we need now are more resources and operations, not fewer.

    2. Were we prepared to protect American citizens, in country or through evacuation if necessary? This is our government's first responsibility. As Libya descended into chaos, our government was plainly unprepared; hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans were at risk in the conflict's perilous early hours. Our readiness must be vastly improved. Yet even now, we have precious few military assets in the Mediterranean, and we have escaped a 1979 Iran hostage-style crisis only through good fortune. We cannot risk a repetition.

    3. Do we fully understand our interests, and the pluses and minuses of precipitous regime change? This is the grand strategy question, one too complex to be answered in a few words. But I am not reassured by Obama's reactive handling of the crisis.

    The truth is, while regional turmoil ignited nearly simultaneously in several countries, the causes of the uprisings require intelligent analysis of what's going on in each nation, not trying to cram it artificially into a preconceived narrative.

    We haven't seen this emerge. In Egypt, Obama had at least four different official positions before Hosni Mubarak finally fell. His wavering damaged American credibility throughout the region, particularly with other governments that considered themselves friendly to the United States.

    In Libya, one likely scenario is that the country descends into continuing civil war, with no clear winner or loser for some time. Just as Al Qaeda or other terrorists have established operating bases in failed states like Somalia, we risk a similar environment now on what was once called the Barbary Coast, literally on "the shores of Tripoli" of the Marines' Hymn.

    Rather than standing by and allowing chaos to mature, we should be taking active steps, such as recognizing an alternative Libyan government, or even securing Tripoli's port and airport, to prevent it.

    4. Are we ready for the next contingency, the one around the corner? Further eruptions are possible: Where are they likely to be? The monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula are understandably concerned about the regional turmoil, but they are even more concerned about Iran's malign presence just across the gulf. They see Tehran's influence at work in the intense Shi'ite opposition to Bahrain's Sunni monarchy, and they fear fickle America abandoning them as we have just, in their view, cast aside our long-time ally Mubarak.

    One enormous difference here, of course, is the critical role the petroleum production of the gulf countries plays in the world economy, ours in particular, as well as the very different nature of the monarchies' relationship to their citizens, financially and otherwise.

    Whether those factors will ultimately ensure stability and security throughout the region is as yet unknowable, but one thing is for certain: We need to be prepared for the trouble to spread, and to defend our critical economic interests. These are not abstract questions of foreign policy, but matters that touch directly on the daily lives of every American. We forget that lesson only at our inordinate peril.

    Bolton is former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #12
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Meanwhile back at the ranch... while the post turtle is off on the back 9..

    Bombs away: Qaddafi sends 50 tanks, 120 trucks, planes to bombard Zawiyah

    Maybe another speech?? Some more finger waggin'... or send Hill back to the UN. What a fuggin disgraceful disaster this dopeychange twit is.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #13
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    President Waldo still MIA>.

    Gadaffy Strikes Oil Production

    Earlier it seemed as if Qadaffy was on his way out -- circumstances had unfolded so quickly the regime was being panicked out of power. It would have taken just a little bit more to push the situation towards a speedy resolution -- which is in virtually everyone's interests, minus Qadaffy and his sons and his various mercenaries.

    But the regime has now regrouped, and is fighting back, possibly effectively. What could have been a Bum's Rush out of power may now settle into a long civil war and/or two two different states at war.

    This has direct impact on America, because as long as this goes on, oil supply is threatened, and we all pay an Instability Tax at the pump. A big one.

    And now he's going directly after the pipes.

    If he can't have it, no one will. I have to ask: Would he try this shit with Bush? Or Hillary, for that matter?

    Weakness breeds contempt. Obama is the weakest president in memory -- even Jimmy Carter was willing to approve a dangerous-as-hell helicopter commando raid to get our hostages out of Iran.

    Obama, meanwhile, golfs.

    Colonel Gaddafi's forces today blasted an oil terminal to smithereens as Libya's bloody civil war entered its blackest day.
    Rebels retaliated by firing back with rockets as a fireball exploded from one of the oil tanks and the sky above the Es Sider terminal, in the east of the country, filled with hideous smoke.

    A witness said one of the smoke plumes was the biggest he had seen in the conflict so far.

    The fresh onslaught came as Gaddafi deployed tanks and snipers to 'shoot anything that moves'.

    Forces loyal to the Libyan dictator poured into the city of Zawiyah in a desperate bid to oust the hardcore band of protesters and army defectors who have taken control.

    Witnesses said dead bodies were lying in the ruins of many buildings destroyed in air raids earlier in the week and there was no one in the streets of the centre of the city of 290,000.

    'We can see the tanks. The tanks are everywhere,' one rebel fighter said by telephone.

    Eye witnesses said that the city had been almost flattened after a 13-and-a-half hour barrage from rockets, tanks and war planes

    The hellish scenes unfolded as senior officials in the U.S. spoke of their fears that the country had reached a painful stalemate.
    Click on the link to see daylight skies blackened with oil smoke.

    Gadaffy's strategy seems to be an economic siege -- take away the rebels' money (in the form of oil), and in a half year or year they'll be starved out of the fight.

    I can't help but think there is a fairly low-cost, high-impact option available -- one even the Arab League is calling for.

    Gadaffy's advantage is that he has the typical equipment a tyrant has -- tanks, big artillery guns, jets. Without these -- which are frankly the softest targets in the world for airpower to take out -- he has what the rebels have, which is a bunch of guys with guns.

    It seems to me the battle is turning in his favor. I sure wish we had a president intellectually curious enough to ask if that is in America's best interests.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #14
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,256

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Looks like France is taking the lead here... way to go Waldo...

    New leader of the free world takes bold stand on Libya

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #15
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    The Japanese earthquake is a disaster for the Libyan people too. With their situation wiped off the headlines, the gutless US and European governments will find it easier to turn a blind eye & let Gadaffi regain control.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •