Fear and Loathing in Benghazi

It seems the hordes of Muslim extremists are at it again. This time they have supposedly responded to an inconspicuous movie, which mocked the prophet Mohammed, by violently protesting outside of U.S. embassies and murdering the U.S. ambassador to Libya. However, as recent reports indicate, the film was not the real cause of the violence. Instead, the attacks were a well-planned terrorist plot, aimed at humiliating the United States on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, responding to the killing of terrorist leaders by U.S. drone attacks, and securing key documents from within the Benghazi embassy.

The violence has sparked a domestic row between the two U.S. presidential candidates. Governor Romney was criticized the administration's response, which initially apologized for the film for offending Muslim sensibilities. He said "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." This was in response to the first statement from the U.S. government which stated that:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

The administration subsequently and sharply criticized the violence. In Secretary of State Clinton's words: "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."

Nevertheless, judging by recent reports, it is apparent that the administration focused on the wrong aspect at the outset, validating Romney's criticisms. By portraying the event as an overly violent response to an offensive video, rather than a planned terrorist attack, the administration's goal was (wrongly) to assuage anger, not thwart enemies of the United States.

While there is an argument to be made about using carefully worded platitudes to calm a potential diplomatic debacle (success in international relations often comes to those who can artfully use words to avoid using action), there are proper and improper ways to wield diplomatic finesse. The Obama administration's initial response made a number of crucial mistakes that, in combination with past errors, display a profound and naive understanding of the Middle East and public diplomacy, shed insight into the president's misguided worldview, and lay a framework for further attacks on U.S. interests and personnel.

The administration's first error is that they seemingly believe that this sort of Muslim violence is a direct response to a Western provocation. Whether it is the recent film, cartoons printed by a Dutch newspaper, or  a Florida pastor burning copies of the Qu'ran, the administration presupposes that the response in the Middle East is understandable, even if its inexcusable (to be fair, the administration repeatedly and publicly condemns the violence as unjustifiable). The logic stems from a belief that if foolish Americans would just avoid such hateful acts, the Arabs now rioting in the streets would have little reason to resort to violence or detest America.

But as the unfolding story indicates, this logic is far from true. There are much deeper animosities, angers, and conflicting worldviews at work in the Middle East. The American condemnation of the film, alongside verbal, diplomatic, and coercive action against the perpetrators of the violence, did nothing to assuage Muslim angst. In fact, riots and protests broke out in Muslim capitals across the globe, directing Islamic wrath at U.S. embassies in a number of countries. Protests were even staged outside the Swiss embassy in Iran (the Swiss represent U.S. interests there) and in Israel. Jews and the "Zionist-American conspiracy" became instant rhetorical targets and some Arabs celebrated the September 11th attacks.

What is truly at work in the Middle East is an intricate and complex set of ideologies and emotions—a respect for and jealousy of the successes of the West combined with a distaste, even hatred, of Western values. These are often coupled with domestic woes—frustration with economic conditions and poor leadership. Finally and most significantly, there is the role of the jihadists, who exploited the film to further their goal of armed jihad against the West. Anti-Islamic films or cartoons are at most a trigger that set these forces in motion.

Obama's advisers presumably understand the complexities of the Middle East, which is why the president's responses are so befuddling. Apologies will not address the real tension between Islam and the West. Nor will they solve the domestic woes in the Middle East or dissuade fundamentalist terrorists. If anything apologies reinforce, to those Muslims who are so imbibed in societies where dictators can control such expression, the image of a malignant West. For those Muslims who understand that the U.S. government has little control, and thus little responsibility, for such publications (however offensive), apologies are simply condescending.

So then why apologize? It seems that the only reasonable explanation lies in Obama's faulty worldview. As has been argued before, Obama sees the world through a lens that can be aptly described as the "problem of the underdog." In a trend that dominates both his domestic and foreign policies, Obama places an emphasis on castigating those in power and bolstering the supposedly weak. The successful, the powerful, the rich, the former imperialist, the banker, Wall Street, the business owner or anyone else "on top" got there by pushing someone else down. All, by the virtue of their position, have a moral inferiority to those who occupy the concomitant underdog position.

As a representative of the most powerful nation, Obama thus has a responsibility to apologize for our supposed sins. His immediate reaction was to address the slight that allegedly sent the Arab street into an angst-ridden, violent frenzy. The gut reaction of the administration was to publicly atone, in the naive belief that self-castigation would dissipate the violence.

But such a worldview is naive. It, as the administration is now admitting, has failed to address the realities of the situation. It treated a terrorist attack like a PR matter, solidifying in many's minds, both in the West and throughout the Muslim world, that it was cruel and provocative Americans who's blasphemy against the prophet instigated the violence.

This weakens the United States' global stature. It gives credence to the argument that the United States is the crux of the world's problems. It creates and reinforces a false linkage between the individual acts of American citizens and the positions, influence and control of the U.S. government. But most importantly, it fails to address the real issues at work—the political, social, and economic plight of the Middle East, the ideological incompatibilities between political Islam and liberal democracy, and a passionate fundamentalist force that wants to overturn the West's dominance.

While the Romney camp has certainly oversimplified the issue in order to score political points, the administration clearly mishandled the situation at the outset. It is certainly courageous and noble to apologize when our country does something wrong—such is an act of diplomacy that is unfortunately underused—yet it is quite another to apologize for or even condemn the acts of one's own citizens, particularly when the government has little control over their behaviors.

The administration would do better to hold a posture that does not apologize for who we are as a nation nor fail to defend the values and principles that have made this country great. Instead the president should use the opportunities to not only condemn the violence against Americans but to educate the Muslim world, in its inchoate struggle for democracy, that the principles of America, such freedom of speech and expression, have tremendous value, even if they do come with costs.

A Rebuke Against Obama

One of America's most Democratic congressional seats has gone red.  NY-09, the district once held by former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was won last night by Republican Bob Turner in a special election to replace the disgraced former congressman.  The loss of this long-held district is a huge blow to the Obama administration.

The Democratic pedigree of the district is astounding and the statistics say it all.  The district, currently a bastion of (mostly Orthodox) Jews and Catholics nestled in Queens and Brooklyn, has been held by Democrats since 1923.  It has produced such notables as Chuck Schumer (current senator from New York) and Geraldine Ferraro (vice presidential candidate for Walter Mondale).  Only two Republicans have held the seat since 1874 (for a total of six years) and over the entire history of the United States, Republicans have represented the district for approximately nine years.

Yet even if the statistics are insufficient to convince naysayers of the impact, local Democrats concede the results are a clear rebuke of Obama. For instance, Democratic analyst Hank Sheinkopf said:

The Democrats said no to Obama, no to his economic plan, and no to his position on Israel.... It’s major smack at Democrats, a definite rejection of President Obama and it’s a warning that says if Catholics in the most blue of blue states can vote for the Republican they can do it in other states as well and the Democrats may have real trouble.

But while Sheinkopf is correct to focus on the Catholic vote, Obama should also worry about the second major demographic that makes up NY-09:  the Jewish vote.  New York Democratic leader Ed Koch outwardly supported Turner's campaign as a message against Obama's approach to the Middle East. Many Jews, a large Democratic staple, have become increasingly frustrated with Obama's caustic policies towards Israel and have turned against the administration.  This vote is a major indicator of that trend.

Dan Senor, in the Wall Street Journal, details a laundry lists of administration affronts to Israel, but sums up the meaning of the vote rather succinctly.

A Public Policy Poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was winning by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved of President Obama's handling of Israel.

This trend, should it continue, does not bode well for the president and will certainly aid the Republicans come 2012.  Obama is getting hit hard in the supposedly safe bastions.  His mismanagement of the economy, poor foreign policy, and general inability to manage the political climate in Washington, have alienated many of his traditional voters.

And yet despite this wealth of evidence, many Democrats have tried to disavow any linkages to the administration's policy.  This is foolish.  Democrats can choose to ignore the lesson, but the interpretation of the special election as a rebuke against Obama stands rather solidly.  Even Turner acknowledged that there was little daylight between his and former opponent's, Democrat David Weprin, positions, particularly regarding Israel.  The voters, he argued, were not so much voting for him as sending a message of discontent to Washington.  Hopefully, for Obama's sake and the country's, the message does not fall on deaf ears.

Is Obama an Idealist?

What is Obama's foreign policy?  The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt asks this in a recent editorial.  As Hiatt points out, Obama has recently increased his pro-democracy rhetoric; however this stands in contrast to Obama's historical approach to foreign policy.  After an early start of kowtowing to foreign powers, a refusal to work with the revolutionary movement against the Iranian regime, and an increase in relations with tyrannical regimes, it is surprising to see democracy promotion coming from the White House.  It seems unlikely this is the result of a hidden idealism, particularly in light of Obama's (inept) realist approach.  Unfortunately, it is most likely nothing more than empty rhetoric - a bone tossed to the democracy promoters in his base.

The (Upcoming?) Attack On Iran: Israel Alone

In September, a Washington Post reluctantly deduced that the end of 2009 was Iran’s last chance for negotiations. The authors, Daniel R. Coats (a former Republican Senator), Charles S. Robb (a former Democrat Senator) and Charles Wald (a retired general and air commander) called for the application of military tactics. They wrote:

If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option. This need not involve a strike. A naval blockade would help ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions, such as an embargo on gasoline imports. Ultimately, though, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, albeit risky, option of last resort.

Next month's talks may be one of the last opportunities to diplomatically address the advancing Iranian nuclear threat. If Iran chooses to waste yet another such chance, President Obama will have no choice but to fulfill his February commitment to "use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

It is now three weeks into the New Year and nothing has been done to address Iran’s missed deadline. As Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon, the risks of catastrophe grow. Despite the fact that the administration’s naïve foreign policy eschews the discussion of military options, it is pertinent that such discourse begins. The administration must take the lead on quashing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, particularly before Israel feels compelled to take matters into their own hands.

An increase in the threats of (credible) military action would have two effects. First, it would provide disincentives to the otherwise obdurate Iran. As has been readily apparent, the carrots of negotiation and talk have done nothing to dissuade Iran’s quest for nuclear weaponry. The nation has developed an uncanny ability to work the system. By adding a healthy dose of ‘sticks’ to the bounty of carrots, the administration can hope to dissuade Iranian behavior.

However, such threats cannot be baseless. Iran may very well attempt to call a bluff. The administration must be ready to show that promises of military action are sincere. In order to limit the possibility of war, lower-scale military conflict, such as the naval blockade that Coats, Robb, and Wald suggest, can be the ‘bluff-testing’ actions. This would give the West ample opportunity to prove its commitment to ending the Iranian threat without immediately necessitating war.

Second, an increase in bellicose rhetoric would assuage some of Israel’s disquietude. The small Jewish state is rightly concerned with a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad has long called for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli government will not sit idly as Iran develops a nuclear arsenal.  However, It is in America's interest to lead any potential military action against Iran.  An Israeli-led conflict, that will most defintely pull in the United  States, will have negative effects on global opinion and support for the war making its prosecution all the more difficult.

However, Israel is understandably wary about preemptively attacking Iran. Contrary to its past attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, a military strike on Iran’s facilities would be extremely difficult. In all likelihood, as a recent article in The Economist discusses, a preemptive strike would most likely fail to completely eliminate the Iranian threat. Furthermore, any attack, either from Israel or the United States, would certainly lead to a counterattack on the Jewish state.

However, unlike what seems to be an increasing acceptance of a nuclear Iran in the White House, Israel is unlikely to tolerate a regional game-changer. The Obama administration is obviously restraining Netanyahu, but will only be able to do so for so long. At the end of the day the threat of annihilation will outweigh any pitfalls of a military excursion or the cajoling from America.  In order to prevent full military action it is necessary for the administration to finally take the mantle of leadership and rely on the use of military threats. The Obama Doctrine of extending hands to clenched fists has proven a dismal failure. However, it is not too late for the President to alter his foreign policy.

Carrots in North Korea: Some Smart Foreign Policy

Although Obama’s foreign policy is often off-base, the administration must be commended for its recent handling of the North Korean journalist-cum-hostage situation. Two American journalists, held by Kim Jong-Il’s regime were released after Former President Bill Clinton descended on North Korea.

The exploit was truly a move of smart diplomacy. It allowed the United States to stick course with its current spoken strategy, while enabling sufficient stroking of Kim Jong-Il’s ego to facilitate the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. While the Obama administration has generally claimed non-involvement, it is clear that they played a predominant role in approving and developing the mission. Apparently, much pre-planning occurred; including discussions with the North Koreans on what unofficial American envoy would have high enough stature to make the trip.

This recent event highlights an important characteristic of North Korea – they want things from America. Unlike Iran which views itself largely as a counter-weight and antagonist of America, North Korea sees, at least some aspects of the West which it desires. While not all of North Korea’s behavior can be understood as motivated by wanting something from America, in this instance that is precisely the case. North Korea wanted recognition from the United States– represented by the visitation of a prestigious emissary.

The North Korean desire for items of value gives the United States considerable power over the regime. The U.S. can use these “shiny objects” to coerce North Korea into behaving in an acceptable fashion. In many ways, North Korea is like a defiant child. It wants recognition; it wants to feel important. If it fails to get what it wants it throws a temper-tantrum. However as most parents know, the logic in dealing with such a child (although not always the practice) is straightforward. Misbehavior is punished; good behavior is rewarded.

This is something that the Obama administration needs to exploit. While Bill Clinton's journey into the third pillar of the Axis-of-Evil demonstrates the administration’s understanding of rewarding good behavior, the administration, as has been argued before, has yet to show a strong commitment to punishing misbehavior. A failure to punish misbehavior severely weakens the equally important goal of rewarding good behavior. In fact, it encourages misbehavior. Nations (and people) will misbehave if they can then backtrack and be rewarded for ‘good behavior’.

Because of this, the two tactics in conjunction are necessary when dealing with North Korea. Carrots and sticks will help push the regime in the right direction. Too many carrots, however, will deplete America’s ability to influence North Korea’s behavior. After all, if Kim Jong-Il gets everything he wants he’ll have no incentive to listen to us. While this episode of Clintonian mediation may be a strong and successful example of diplomacy at its best, care must be taken to avoid the mistaken belief that anything has fundamentally changed in the relationship with North Korea. The regime will test the United States again. The administration must be ready to respond with punishment and show the regime what behavior is and is not acceptable.

With Nukes Failure Is Not An Option

The current situation in Pakistan is heading towards disaster. The Taliban, from Afghanistan and the border areas in Pakistan, are posing a grave risk to the state. The already weak Pakistani government is on complete verge of failure. (See CNN for instance http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/pakistan.swat.valley/index.html) A failure in Pakistan will have disastrous effects across the world.

First of all, a failure would negate the gains that have been made in the region since 9/11. Bush’s war in Afghanistan successfully removed the Taliban from power and, at one point, had them completely marginalized. Now under our new, ‘global-friendly’ leadership we are seeing a huge resurgence in their power. Certainly, not all of this is due to Obama’s faulty foreign policy. The fall of Musharraf and a myriad of domestic issues, such as the infighting amongst current moderates, play an enormous role in the current weak state of the country. However, a rebirth of Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and possibly Afghanistan) would be disastrous for the progress of the war on terror, the elimination of fanatical Islam, and establishment of global security.

The issue of global security is paramount. A re-failure to stem the Taliban’s ascent in Afghanistan would be bad enough. It would serve to undermine all the hard work over the past eight years. However, a failure in Pakistan is most certainly an existential threat to the U.S. Due to the nuclear capabilities of the country, a failure would mean there would be no accountability for Pakistan’s current nuclear stockpile. The Taliban would have access to nuclear warheads- to use themselves or sell to third parties such as Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, or any enemy of the free world. This threat exists even short of a failure of the state. The Taliban could easily seize a few unfortunately placed nuclear warheads without having to take down the state.

The world community has to address this issue in a much stronger and more forthright way. In the short run, everything has to be done to stabilize and strengthen the current government in Pakistan. Money and assistance should flow in readily. Pressure should be put on corrupt or disinterested bureaucrats. Most importantly, the world must put immense pressure on the Pakistani government to cease making conciliatory deals with the Taliban. The current deal of Taliban weaponry for sharia law is unacceptable. These deals only serve to postpone the fighting and allow the Taliban to retrench itself. The army must be convinced that it needs to fight in the North. They must do everything they can to remove Taliban strongholds. This includes Pakistani military action, but also increased coordination and facilitation of American cross-border attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan. The United States has to unapologetically go after targets in Pakistan, preferably with, but also without Pakistani assistance and blessings.

Furthermore, the world community must take steps to prepare for the worst case scenario of a government failure. The current government needs to be pressured to consolidate stockpiles of nuclear weapons away from the north. This will ensure that they are easy to account for and control. America must plan operations for an invasion of Pakistan. This, of course, needs to be a last resort; however, if the government fails the United States needs to secure Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile immediately. The Pakistani government needs to cooperate with the US (and the UN) to create ‘zero-hour’ contingencies- such as disclosures of stockpiles. [One necessary consideration is, of course, India- which Pakistan feels (incorrectly) is its number one threat.]

Pakistan is one issue where we cannot afford Obama’s ‘speak-humbly’ foreign policy. Every action must be taken to shore up the Pakistani government and decimate the Taliban. Right now, stability should be the sole goal. If not, we run the risk of facing catastrophic results.

Good Job Obama!!! Yeah, Right!

Finally Obama has made a good decision in his foreign policy. Or has he? The U.S. has rightfully decided to boycott the U.N. Conference on racism. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30282569. However, his boycott comes with the usual lack of conviction, as he expressed his “regret” at not being able to attend. Rather than regret, he should have expressed firm resolve not to take part in such a body. Obama waffled too much on this issue from the start. He lent too much credence to this sham of an institution. While he made the correct decision and backed out he shouldn’t have even considered going in the first place.

There should be no regret for not attending one of the most biased, anti-Semitic, and partisan bodies. This conference and the U.N. Human Rights Council are a mere sham to give a bunch of illiberal and oppressive regimes a platform to spew their vile rhetoric. The body mainly spends its time criticizing Israel, while failing to put much effort into dealing with real human rights issues throughout the world. (See here for the Human Rights Council website. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/).

Fortunately, Obama had the good sense to not attend and wholeheartedly embrace this body. But his hemming and hawing and expressed desire to take part is revealing of his misguided and unfortunate approach to foreign policy. Obama’s desire to interact and participate with the world community as an equal may seem noble on the surface, but it is dangerous and counter-productive.

It seems that he thinks one can garner greater respect through excessive humility and engagement. But the world community does not work this way. Every country has its own interests and will act according to what they see as the best path. Countries are not going to react just because someone is nice. They will be responsive to pressures and rewards they serve their interests. They may like, or say they like, Obama better, but it will have little impact on their policies.

Obama’s behavior doesn’t push the Human Rights Council away from bias and towards a more liberal and just handling of human rights issues. Instead it lends them legitimacy which they do not deserve. They are now liable to feel that their current path has been correct. After all, they have not changed anything and America has stepped closer to playing their game. Obama’s wimpy stance has lowered any positional power the US has, without any movement on the other side.

Unfortunately, this seems like Obama’s general approach on the world stage. He thinks that by diminishing our prestige and power in the eyes of our negotiating partners and enemies that they will suddenly be more amenable to our wishes. It is a foolhardy approach- and one that is likely to lead to much difficulty and loss of influence. He may have made the right policy decision here, but he took a very wrong and damaging path to get there. Hopefully, his time as president will not do irreparable harm to our global position.

Shiver Me Timbers!!!

America must respond swiftly and severely to the increasing piracy attacks off the Horn of Africa. Pirates should be treated as terrorists, not criminals. Accordingly, there should not be any negotiations with pirates for ransom. Paying multi-million dollar ransoms to these Somali pirates only encourages more destitute men to turn to piracy. It rebalances the risk/reward trade-off in favor of increased piracy.

Naturally, the increase in piracy can, at least partially, be explained by the fact that Somalia (where the vast majority of these pirates are coming from) is a failed state. Men have little recourse to survive other than to turn to piracy. Negotiations and ransoms legitimate piracy as an acceptable, albeit it illegal and frowned upon, method of making money. If one is going to pay someone after they do something, they’ll continue doing it if it is profitable.

Instead, anti-piracy policies have to be strong and unforgiving. Pirate recruits have to view this lawless occupation as unrewarding, dangerous, and unprofitable. This not only entails cutting off all payments of rewards and ransoms, but assuring brigands that the penalty for piracy will be severe. Pirates holding seized items and hostages should be targeted and killed until the situation can be controlled. Commando missions should be used to rescue hostages and seize control of hijacked ships. Surviving pirates, and their on-sea and on-shore supporters and compatriots, should be charged to the full extent of the law. These harsh penalties and lack of reward will go far to dissuade these men from becoming pirates.

Furthermore, America, and the world, should couple these policies with further preventative measures. This includes doing their best to prevent weapon flows to rogue and failed states, directly stationing armed fleets to protect merchant vessels, and assisting failed, failing, and destitute states with finding meaningful employment for their populations.

Some of this is certainly easier said than done, but it is imperative that we think about long term solutions to these problems. Payments of ransom and ignoring the underlying impetuses to piracy will only worsen the problem. It is unfortunate for the brave seaman and captains that do not get negotiated for and get caught in the crossfire. Of course, policies and commando operations should be structured to avoid the loss of innocent life. However, it is far worse to pay a multi-million dollar ransom for one captain, only to have it encourage pirates to take four more captains hostage. Negotiations with and payments to anyone who tries to strong-arm money out of peaceful merchants should be completely off-limits. It is essential to enact these policies quickly and strongly, in order to nip this growing piracy problem in the bud. If not we can only expect global piracy to increase.

Kowtow Tour Across Europe

As Obama rounds up his first international tour the embarrassment he feels for America is palpable. Disgracefully, Obama spent a good portion of his trip kowtowing to the Europeans and disparaging America. Throughout his trip, the central theme was one of reducing America’s prestige, trying to paint our country as just one of the old boys of Europe.
He set the tone early in London by minimizing the United States as the global leader. He painted the US not as a leader but as “a critical actor”.

“ I can tell you that what I've tried to do since I started running for President and since I was sworn in as President, is to communicate the notion that America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage, and that we shouldn't be embarrassed about that, but that we exercise our leadership best when we are listening; when we recognize that the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries; when we lead by example; when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer, but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/News-Conference-by-President-Obama-4-02-09/

In this same speech, during a Q&A session he continued to espouse this ideology. In a continuance of his election campaign he bashed former President Bush- an unprecedented act for a sitting President.

“Q Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign you often spoke of a diminished power and authority of the United States over the last decade. This is your first time in an international summit like this, and I'm wondering what evidence you saw of what you spoke of during the campaign. And specifically, is the declaration of the end of the Washington consensus evidence of the diminished authority that you feared was out there?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, during the campaign I did not say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable. I said it was traced to very specific decisions that the previous administration had made that I believed had lowered our standing in the world. And that wasn't simply my opinion; that was, it turns out, the opinion of many people around the world. … And so that's not a loss for America; it's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India -- these are all countries on the move. And that's good. That means there are millions of people -- billions of people -- who are working their way out of poverty. And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world.”

The onslaught continued in Strasbourg. First, regarding the economy,

“Now, there's plenty of blame to go around for what has happened, and the United States certainly shares its -- shares blame for what has happened.”

Then, regarding US views of and arrogance towards Europe,

“In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

And, yet another attack at President Bush,

“And I think that it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now President and George Bush is no longer President, al Qaeda is still a threat, and that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as President, suddenly everything is going to be 0kay.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-at-Strasbourg-Town-Hall/

And finally in Istanbul, he again went out of his way to point out America’s alleged flaws and imperfections.

“America, like every other nation, has made mistakes and has its flaws”

“And so I think people saw my election as proof, as testimony, that although we are imperfect, our society has continued to improve; that racial discrimination has been reduced; that educational opportunity for all people is something that is still available.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-Of-President-Barack-Obama-At-Student-Roundtable-In-Istanbul/

This language is unbecoming of a US President. Not only is it embarrassing for all Americans to have a sitting President so critical of our country; but it is feeble foreign policy. The nice-sized portion of ‘humble-pie’ that Obama has self-served to America, drastically reduced our credibility abroad. Obama has taken a knee before the game even started. This is of course to the delight of France, Russia, and China, who like nothing more than to see America humiliated. And no humiliation is better than one self-delivered.

But more frustrating, is that it hampers America’s ability to get what it wants in the international scene. There is some sense in working with allies and partners, with negotiations and dialogue, with listening and compromising. I can’t, nor want to, dispute that. There is tremendous value in working with and not against one’s partners. However, Obama’s language does not accomplish this. He now comes to the table looking weak. Rather than displaying an image of a strong, powerful, leader who is willing to dialogue with the world, he systematically reduced America to just one of the masses.

This was a fatal error. The outcome of which was seen in Obama’s failure to achieve his prime objections regarding Afghanistan and the economy. He was unable to negotiate and work with our European partners from a position of power, because he abdicated it immediately. Accordingly, France and Germany now feel greater ease at disagreeing with and pushing around America.

Obama probably thought he was reversing Bush’s unilateralism, and taking a more even-handed approach to the world. What he accomplished was simply to reduce America’s ability to persuade its allies and to lower our power and prestige.

Time Out for North Korea

Yesterday’s missile launch, by North Korea, is not only dangerous but unacceptable. As it has done in the past, particularly in the early days of a new President’s administration, North Korea is flaunting international rules in a provocative fashion and directly challenging America. President Obama and the world community, including the feeble Security Council, need to strongly respond with actions.

The North Korean launch is particularly dangerous in light of its potential destabilizing nature. It signifies the fact that North Korea is at, or near, having the capabilities to launch its nuclear arsenal into Japan or possibly the Western United States. Contrary to North Korea’s assertions that the purpose of the launch was to put a satellite in orbit, all evidence and sources confirm that this was a military test (NORAD states that no satellite entered orbit; http://www.norad.mil/News/2009/040509.html).

This puts a number of US allies, including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and possibly the US itself, at risk. At a minimum, it is a metaphorical flex of the North Korean muscle and a spit in the face of the international system. Furthermore, North Korea has demonstrated a willingness to sell arms and technologies to anyone who wishes to buy. This consists of terrorist states, such as Iran, and non-state actors. This can easily lead to the spread of dangerous weaponry into other unstable parts of the world, particularly the Middle East.

Unsurprisingly, today’s emergency Security Council meeting yielded nothing (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30035197). As usual, the Security Council proved that it is both unwilling and unable to stop the confrontational actions of defiant states. At a minimum, tougher sanctions and strong, unified language from the world community are necessary. North Korea must be made well aware that it cannot flout international rules and agreements with impunity. North Korea cannot be rewarded for this behavior with recognition of ‘its voice’ or a seat at new negotiations, as it might want. Much like a temper-tantrum throwing child, it must be punished for its behavior before it can be treated like an adult.

However, as has been seen in the past, sanctions and rhetoric have had minimal impact on North Korean behavior. Much of this is due to Russia’s and particularly China’s unwillingness to cooperate. Possibly, the only way to check North Korean ambition is for the United States to convince Russia and China to fall into line. Pressure on Russia can easily be exercised using the new and controversial missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. After all, if rogue states are in the position to launch long distance attacks, defense systems are necessary. Likewise, US interests in the Pacific might need increased protection from a missile attack from North Korea. An augmented US force might push China into taking some actions.

Without serious action, and legitimate support by China, the region is subject to increased anxiety and potential destabilization. Japan and South Korea can only get more uncomfortable with an evermore brazen and insolent North Korea. Naturally, it is highly desirable to avoid an arms race or other actions made in the face of fear.

The US administration has to step up and push China. Unfortunately, it has so far demonstrated an unwillingness to push other nations into line- a most dangerous policy. One can only hope that the administration understands the foolishness of their foreign policy before irreversible damage to US strength and credibility is done.