Sunday, September 29, 2013

Obama Doctrine a Negative Turn for US Foreign Policy (NY Post

Obama is a sniveling accomodationist whose immediate goal is the monolithic "transformation" of the US - he'll cut deals with any despicable foreign power to buy time to achieve that


‘The most morally crimped speech by a president in modern times.” That description of President Obama’s address to the United Nations this week came not from conservative critics but from the editorial page of The Washington Post. It was reacting to what will now go down as the Obama Doctrine in foreign policy.

In what has become Obama’s signature tone, much of the address was focused on America’s “failures,” as he defines them: the war in Iraq, past efforts to “impose democracy,” unilateral US military action, Cold War politics. But he also laid out in the clearest terms of his presidency what he defines as America’s “core interests” in the Middle East and North Africa — a list so narrow it embarrasses even the president’s supporters among the liberal media.[...]

But what rankled the Post most about the speech was the president’s de-emphasis on promoting human rights as a core interest of American foreign policy. “As a practical matter, if a president signals that democracy is not a core interest, if it ranks fifth or lower on his list of priorities, it won’t be promoted at all.”

Nowhere in Obama’s speech was his lack of commitment to human rights clearer than in his overtures to Iran. “We are not seeking regime change,” the president said, though he claimed to remain “determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”[...]

There is some irony in Obama’s abandonment of human rights as a priority. There was a time when the left claimed to care about democracy and human rights. In the name of human rights, President Jimmy Carter abandoned the shah of Iran and Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza when revolutions in those two countries commenced — though the regimes that replaced those dictators were even more tyrannical.

But the left has always been more concerned with human-rights abuses by America’s allies than its enemies. And in that respect, Obama is following a long tradition on the left.

The Obama Doctrine will do much harm to US prestige and leadership in the world. But that may be its aim. The president promised to remake America’s image, and he has. We are a weaker, smaller power than we were when he took office, and the world is more dangerous for it.






More here: http://nypost.com/2013/09/28/chavez/

Cult of Obama


Saturday, September 28, 2013

WSJ: Noonan: A Small President on the World Stage

..."We want American leadership," said a member of a diplomatic delegation of a major U.S. ally. He said it softly, as if confiding he missed an old friend.

"In the past we have seen some America overreach," said the prime minister of a Western democracy, in a conversation. "Now I think we are seeing America underreach." He was referring not only to foreign policy but to economic policies, to the limits America has imposed on itself. He missed its old economic dynamism, its crazy, pioneering spirit toward wealth creation—the old belief that every American could invent something, get it to market, make a bundle, rise.

The prime minister spoke of a great anxiety and his particular hope. The anxiety: "The biggest risk is not political but social. Wealthy societies with people who think wealth is a given, a birthright—they do not understand that we are in the fight of our lives with countries and nations set on displacing us. Wealth is earned. It is far from being a given. It cannot be taken for granted. The recession reminded us how quickly circumstances can change." His hope? That the things that made America a giant—"so much entrepreneurialism and vision"—will, in time, fully re-emerge and jolt the country from the doldrums.

The second takeaway of the week has to do with a continued decline in admiration for the American president. Barack Obama's reputation among his fellow international players has deflated, his stature almost collapsed. In diplomatic circles, attitudes toward his leadership have been declining for some time, but this week you could hear the disappointment, and something more dangerous: the sense that he is no longer, perhaps, all that relevant. Part of this is due, obviously, to his handling of the Syria crisis. If you draw a line and it is crossed and then you dodge, deflect, disappear and call it diplomacy, the world will notice, and not think better of you. Some of it is connected to the historical moment America is in.

But some of it, surely, is just five years of Mr. Obama. World leaders do not understand what his higher strategic aims are, have doubts about his seriousness and judgment, and read him as unsure and covering up his unsureness with ringing words.

A scorching assessment of the president as foreign-policy actor came from a former senior U.S. diplomat, a low-key and sophisticated man who spent the week at many U.N.-related functions. "World leaders are very negative about Obama," he said. They are "disappointed, feeling he's not really in charge. . . . The Western Europeans don't pay that much attention to him anymore."

More here: http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424052702303342104579099623833385780?mg=reno64-wsj