posted by George Grant at 01/02/2010
One battered, sorry year on, few but the most die-hard Obamaniacs would now concede that the Prophet Obama’s foreign policy has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster.
The fundamental (and I use that word in its proper sense) flaw of Obama’s foreign policy was a misguided assumption that his soaring rhetoric and Message of Reconciliation would sway autocrats in the same way as it has swayed the popular masses. Were it the case that Russia, Iran, China and North Korea were liberal democracies, where leaders are accountable to their citizens, then Obama’s olive branch may well have borne more fruit. As it is, Obama’s desperate attempt to draw a line under the confrontational approach of the Bush presidency has been exploited by all the aforementioned countries as weakness and has got him precisely nowhere.
Now - at last - there is evidence that things might finally be a Changing. The accelerated deployment of US missile defences in the Persian Gulf and Secretary Clinton’s blunt warning to China that it faces diplomatic isolation if it does not fall in line, shows the White House is finally starting to get the message on Iran. Simultaneously, the US missile sale to Taiwan and President Obama’s announcement he will meet the Dalai Lama, after snubbing the exiled monk last year, are further clear and calculated messages to Beijing. The resumption today of US-Russia arms-control talks have been interpreted by some as further conciliation, but in fairness, Russia now appears to be ready to get serious with Iran, which was the rationale behind the abandonment of the European missile defence shield last year.
It is still too early to tell if this heralds a permanent awakening, or else if this is merely Obama’s attempt to look a little tougher and listen to voters following his recent pummelling in Massachusetts.
Nonetheless, the smart move for Obama now would be to turn the failed appeasement of his first twelve months to his advantage. He can now say with real credibility that – in contrast to Bush – he has proffered the olive branch to the world’s worst and that they have responded by breaking the branch asunder. On that basis he can start pursuing the far tougher foreign policy that is necessary, one that closer resembles the approach taken by his predecessor in fact, but with much more enthusiasm from the international community than Mr Bush ever managed.
Jason I enjoyed the above article.
It brings up many issues and uses lovely wording to express what George has to say.( I do not personally know George, so I am not saying this out of respect for his feelings...)
The only reason why you could claim the piece is idiotic is if you are a fan of GWB, and suffering from the lack of Bushisms.
The other could be that you too wish to be a contributor to the Henry Jackson Society. If this is the case, making a hefty contribution to HJS could put your heart in the right place.
Whilst I'm all for free and open expression, I'd like to know why exactly you find my logic so moronic!
This is by far the most idiotic piece of writing (if you can call it that) that I have ever come across.
Our work is only possible through the generosity of private philanthropy. If you support our mission and values and would like to contribute to our work, please click below.
Our work is only possible through the generosity of private philanthropy. If you support our mission and values and would like to contribute to our work, please click below.
A report on the conduct of the Afghanistan War and paths to future success.
© 2010 The Henry Jackson Society, Project for Democratic Geopolitics. All rights reserved.
Web Design by Byte Art