Of Pride, Falls - and Obama’s Foreign Policy by Richard Cohen, Washington Post
I’ve read a fair number of books on foreign policy in recent years, yet the one that has made the greatest impression on me was assigned in the sixth grade. It was Esther Forbes’s novel “Johnny Tremain,” and the lesson I took from it was the very one Johnny himself had to learn the hard way: “Pride goeth before a fall.” Maybe too late, I recommend the book to President Obama and his foreign policy team. Their pride has already turned to smugness.
For evidence, I suggest reading a lengthy interview with Benjamin Rhodes, the president’s supremely cocky foreign-policy speechwriter and, by his own admission, master manipulator of the moronic media. The interview, published in the New York Times Magazine, makes for gripping reading. It is not usual, after all, for a senior White House official to crow about how he deceived the press (and the nation) about when negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program actually began. It was not when the more moderate current regime took power, but earlier, under the auspices of more recalcitrant hard-liners. In effect, the White House lied…
Comments
Bill....Ever wonder if the Obama WH listens or even cares.....about the words "war crimes" or genocide".....
Heartbreaking video of Syrian mother calling for children after airstrike obliterates Aleppo
http://ow.ly/4nmJjs
THIS is after both the US and Russia stated Aleppo was off limit for air strikes even though it was included in the Geneva CoH....the first time around in Feb 2016 but largely ignored by both Assad and Russia....
Remember his supposed response to the UNSC Ambassador when she brought up the word....genocide...he shut her up by simply saying..."yes I have read you book".....end of discussion.
That was like...."I have been there, have the T-shirt to prove it so shut up"....
To this day I am not sure exactly why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize as he had done nothing to earn it as others who had before him was it for just being black or was it because people thought he would toss the past out?
With that in his hip pocket and wanting a clean break from the Bush years...he could have easily changed the former agenda and pivoted with ease....but he did actually nothing more or less than the previous Bush did...WHY because that would have demanded the implementation of a clear and concise foreign policy built upon strategies..
BUT WAIT he and his entire advisor core had repeatedly shown disdain for the DC FP "playbook" establishment if we are to believe him in his own interview and the Rhodes interview......
Nothing really new in the way of FP....he assumed that FP can be done by running and not crawling...remember how intensively he pushed Israel to settle with the Palestinians....a correct move but done in a hurry not a steady, slow and deliberate step by step effort...always in a hurry it seemed and he failed badly never to return to it in eight years.
IMHO his entire core problem lies within his own personal biased frame of mind in that he assumes and truly believes he is the smartest in the room thus incapable of truly listening, critically thinking or what some call "thinking clearly".
"Thinking clearly" demands that the individual fully understand his own biases ie "fallacies and illusions included"....then and only then is one able to "think critically".....actually extremely needed when one designs a strategy...BUT WAIT there has been not a single strategy seen anywhere with this President...a lot of talk about "strategies" but nothing was even released for public debate.
Both critical thinking and thinking clearly are lacking in this Obama WH..AND no amount of higher education at the greatest universities can give this to you...you either have it or you do not.......
Re: Obama's foreign policy, let's look back a little ways -- to a time just before George W. Bush's foreign policies go into effect:
(And tell me if you think my depictions below are fair and accurate.)
a. Before the George W. Bush Administration, NATO's expansion eastward had not, as yet, strained the NATO alliance significantly, and intensified Russia's ambitions in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere.
b. Before the George W. Bush Administration, our relations with Germany, Turkey and other allies had not become strained; this, because of such things as these allies opposition to the Iraq War.
c. Before the George W. Bush Administration, the Middle East was a relatively stable region, where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi or Syrian civil war was considered remote.
Given that, due to George W. Bush Administration's foreign policies, "a" - "c" above will all go "South" (NATO expansion eastward will strain the NATO alliance and intensify Russia's ambitions in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere; our relations with many of our traditional allies will become strained due to the Iraq War, etc.; Iran will become the dominant force/power in the Middle East; and the Greater Middle East, generally, will begin to go to hell).
Given these matters, how then do we judge the Obama foreign policy; which must, I suggest, be seen, understood and judged within the context of the exceptionally adverse foreign affairs fait accompli that he inherits?
(And a matter that, also, must be considered in light of the exceptionally adverse economic fait accompli that President Obama likewise inherits; which is said to be the greatest economic disaster/challenge to face the United States, and the world at-large, since the Great Depression?)