I just found this article about Obama's latest attempt to defend his policies, particularly his foreign policy, and to reassert how popular they are with a majority of Americans. It's here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-must-lead-globally-show-restraint-142911123--politics.html First and foremost, though, I have to wonder why a President that is already into the second year of his last term in office feels the need to so vehemently defend a set of policies that he also believes are already popular with a majority of Americans, but I digress. I'm going to start by examining individual quotes from Obama and the article.
1.) "Obama cast the bloody civil war in Syria as more of counter terrorism challenge than a humanitarian crisis."
So... there's a difference? I guess it's not a matter of IF thousands of people are being killed by their government, but HOW it is being done. Or is it something else?
2.) "One plan being considered by the White House is a project to train and equip members of the Free Syrian Army on tactics, including counterterrorism."
Yes, because that has worked out SO WELL in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Frankly, I agree with Obama's statement that the U.S. should not rush to intervene militarily in every conflict around the world. That said, you shouldn't publicly threaten something that everyone knows you don't want to and most likely will not do. That, however, is exactly what Obama did when he gave Syria's government the ultimatum on chemical weapons and the treatment of its people and then failed to adequately enforce that ultimatum when the due date came and went, giving people like Russian President Vladimir Putin - who everyone knows is ex-KGB and who has never had a truly comfortable relationship with the United States - an opportunity to not only intervene and protect the Assad dictatorship in which Russia seems to have some stake in preserving (which is what is being done by the treaty Putin helped design, making it virtually impossible to enforce by banning U.S. and/or western military intervention), but to also and very publicly make Obama and the United States look foolish in the eyes of the very global community that Obama thinks he's leading with things like the letter of Putin's that was published in the Washington Post, I think, not long thereafter.
On that note...
3.) "He [Obama] challenged skeptics who see that approach as a sign of weakness and argued instead that it instead highlights America's ability to lead on the world stage."
In fact, Obama isn't "leading" anyone anywhere else around the world. Rather, he admires the European Union and other nations and seeks to lead America to that particular well, not the other way around. The idea that America should maintain its exceptional-ism, yet still preserve global "norms" is inherently contradictory. By definition, you CANNOT be exceptional and still be entirely normal. It doesn't work that way. Either America is a contender and a competitor or it is not.
Oh, and by the way, even if Obama's policies are or were more in line with the interests and the thinking of the majority of Americans, that doesn't make them either good or effective. After all, a majority of Americans favored going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan in the days after 9/11, giving Bush an approval rating in the 80's before doing anything more than talking and forcing the Democratic minority in the House and Senate to go along with something they would later protest vehemently. Look how that turned out. Despite everyone's short term memories, Americans also enjoyed Bush's big tax cuts for EVERYONE, allowing just about as many in the middle class as in the upper to squander their money on homes and other things they couldn't afford (artificially driving up housing prices until nobody could afford anything) and going into untold amounts of debt because everyone just assumed they'd be able to pay it off later. Look how that turned out.
Granted, the Obama administration oversaw the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden, and that's great. However, since Obama came into office, we've also seen some of the first truly SUCCESSFUL Islam-motivated terrorist attacks on our soil (Boston Marathon Bombings) and/or on our officials (embassy in Libya) since 9/11 and managed to make a budding enemy out of Russia, one of the largest and most well-armed nations on earth, AGAIN... even as we sit back and watch its leader, emboldened in part by Obama's reckless speechifying and posturing, lead his country with the widespread approval of the Russian people in what many believe to be an inexorable trek back to Communism and a policy of invading and overpowering its neighbors. Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if Russia went back to being Communist and teamed up with, say... China, also a Communist nation (more or less) that practically owns the United States economy. Given that Europe has pretty much been able to do absolutely NOTHING to prevent or to mitigate this, tell me how and why America's adherence to "global norms" is a good thing?
Whether right or wrong, it sounds to many, including me, like Obama is and/or wants to make America every bit as weak and ineffectual as the rest of the world. If so, then so far, he seems to be succeeding.
