Obama’s National Security Doctrine: Naive — Frighteningly So
Yes, children, there is an Obama Doctrine. The administration has now produced a national security strategy. Be afraid, be very afraid. And those who should be afraid are Americans and their friends, not their enemies.
The administration wants to prove, most of all, that it isn’t George W. Bush. But in doing so, it also proves it isn’t the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, or even the Clinton administration, either.
It all looks good on paper: America is not a superpower. It is limited, and this circumscribed power requires bringing in lots of partners. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy released last Thursday:
The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone. … Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.
Yet that point is missed. You don’t overextend precisely so you can concentrate on what’s important — say, pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq to focus on containing Iran. You don’t reduce commitments in order to abandon the remaining ones.
Much of this worldview is intended to counter what the left hates about George W. Bush. Yet while one can certainly argue Bush did not wisely use the resources of American power, that doesn’t mean American power itself isn’t there. The remedy for excessive unilateralism isn’t excessive multilateralism. And while there might be times or situations where such a response did little harm, the present day — with threats from revolutionary Islamism, an aggressive Iran-led alliance, anti-American leftists, and resurgent Russian and Chinese ambitious powers — makes the Obama Doctrine a very dangerous course indeed. While Obama argues that America faces no real military competitor and global power is increasingly diffuse, these are likely to be temporary conditions. If there’s going to be a vacuum, there are a number of candidates eager to fill it.
Obama’s doctrine calls for bringing these candidates in as partners — hiring the foxes to guard the chicken coop. China and Russia, Iran and Syria, Brazil and Turkey — among others — are naively seen as reliable buddies. Or, in the words of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes:
We are deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors.
It’s a dangerous idea — the United States cannot make these countries, or any, “responsible actors.” There’s a reason why responsible actors include countries like Britain, France, and Germany. And the fruit of this mistaken policy is the kind of thing we just saw with the Brazilian-Turkish stab in the back over Iran.
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this.
Why is the Obama administration so concerned with engaging enemies? Because it is precisely, according to the Obama worldview, the “bad boy” powers which must be appeased. If the United States is conceived as weak and overextended, the ones threatening to disrupt everything may be too strong to oppose, and so must be coopted.
Such incompetence can’t be accidental on the part of three-bob Barry.
Appeasement 21st century style.
Here comes World War 3.
Just remember, anything is possible when you don’t know what you’re doing
Tensions are always high with people that want to fight..
The world before Obama was like the volcano we all made in grade school. You tended it, got it all built, put the baking soda in, all the mud was dry…all it needed to erupt was the vinegar,, so you made sure you kept your little brother from pouring the vinegar in..and you tended to it diligently..
BUT!!!, one fatal day..The Obama/little brother/vinegar entered the fray..and voila~~, the whole freakin world seems to be exploding, just like that science project volcano you so carefully guarded.
Obama is shallow. I think he realizes that he’s ruining the best country to ever grace the earth. I do NOTNOTNOT believe he is Naive. What he does he does with purpose!!
What this man is doing is frightening to our country. He, and most of those in his administration, has very little foreign policy or military experience. The real danger is that he is acting without knowing what he is doing.
So what is the point of this article?
The American people put an idiot in charge..?
How many of them do you suppose will read this article?
How many of them even know how to read?
Visit one of your local community colleges and ask the first person you see what the time is.
Coming out of a stifling, thick cloud of cheap perfume covered by tattoos you’ll get a bubble gum chewing blank stare and “Duh..!”
Then when whatever it was waddles away you will wonder what it is.. boy, girl, maybe both..? It’s difficult to tell even though half of whatever it is’s rear-end is exposed by the “fashionable” jeans with no belt.
Am I saying that this is the way America is now?
No.
Just enough of them to elect Obama..
Which is more than enough to destroy our country.
Write and publish some articles that make that danger go away.
I love your post and understand your point. You’re spot on. If I hear one more person tell me how “smart” the American public is, I’m ging to puke. 66 million “smart” Americans voted for the President-Imbecile. When my wife asked me why I won’t support Obama, I told her, “because he’ll appoint nut jobs to the Supreme Court, and because HIS WORLD VIEW IS GOING TO GET US INTO WWIII.” Any moron who did just a tad of research about Obama and recent US history could have appreciated this possibility. So, we now have Sotomayor, to be followed by “Professor” Kagan…..and it seems that WWIII just might be around the corner. Just one year in. Thank you tattooed, eyebrow-pierced, uni-sex dressing, 18 to 25 year old “smart” Americans.
To be fair, it’s not HIS viewpoints that will get us into WWIII. No more than it was Chamberlain’s viewpoints that did. The cause shall always be the enemy’s aggression, be they Islamist, Chinese, Russian, or whatever.
But Obama’s weakness will expedite the process greatly.
WWIII will not come due to obamas weakness, but by his invitation.
You forgot to mention, “pregnant”. Oh, right, unmarried too.
Surly and snarling about independence, freedom, and “my rights” while demanding taxpayers feed and house them (and a series of boyfriends) over the next 18 years.
#3. You are too optimistic. The same morons who elected him the first time will elect him the second time. Obama depends on the the unfailing stupidity of the American dependents. Face it – we are surrounded by simpletons who want to be taken care of cradle to grave by other peoples money. These are the core of the Democratic party. Obama exploits !
It is not obama who is naive. We are. You are.
What obama puts out there (and does) is all intentional. Strategically sound, considering his goals—weaken, nay knee-cap, america, and hence rule it forever. (not to mention the Global ruling ambitions of him and his ilk).
Saying he is naive and bickering about what appears to us as his stupidity, just gives him more leeway to deliberately committing those mischiefs.
Obama’s definition of what constitute “threats” to the United States could be more accurately defined as threats to his own worldview. Simply put, he has a narrow “reality tunnel” and refuses to see anything that doesn’t fit into it.
His determination to somehow make the world’s most aggressive violators of international law the enforcers of same simply confirms this. In the faculty tea culture he comes from, in which trendy radicalism is “both a social distinction and a negotiable bond” (extra credit if you know the source of that quote), this is the sort of thinking which gets you applause and congratulatory shoulder claps. The fact that it is a complete inversion of the real world just doesn’t matter; our enlightened leaders don’t need facts that interfere with their Truth.
The bill will come due soon. Unfortunately, it will be the rest of us who have to pay the tab.
clear ether
eon
“Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.” …..and apparently, English is a second language for oblameya. According to the structure of this sentence, our adversaries are in a position to overextend our power. (Of course, in his perverted view of things, that may actually be what he meant. Who knows.)
…and he has to refer to America using some sort of second person noun? It should be either “would like to see us sap our strength” or “would like to see America sap her strength…”
“All that I’m saaaaayinggggg, is give peace a chance”
So how’s that pacifist inaction working out for you, Champ?
“When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to keep in mind that your original objective was to drain the damn swamp.”
Hello, Jimmy Carter II. Be afraid, very afraid.
Mr. Obama and his advisors simply do not know what to do about the Iranian terrorism and nukes, the North Korean aggression and nukes, the new Russian imperialism, or the Turkish-Brazil-Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballa alliance, except make campaign speeches.
Everyone knew that Barry Obama was inexperienced, immature, and largely ignorant of foreign affairs, but he was elected anyway. Well the consequences of bad decisions are inevitably bad too.
Stop with the obama is naive. His inaction is a calculated action. He understands as most power hungry people, those that have the most toys, win.
This is just more of the same Obama debating style. It juxtaposes an absurd proposition he pretends was made by his adversaries against a reasonable response that he pretends is his position.
A made up example:
“There are those who want us to over-extend our strength in order to weaken us. But I oppose such misguided policies. I won’t be fooled. I intend to apportion our strength in relation to the seriousness of the issue.” Blah blah blah.
“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone. … Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
Which conservative was it, I wonder, who said they wanted the burdens of a young century to fall squarely on the shoulders of America alone? What claptrap!
Obama and his handlers are all communists. Communists have failed wherever they have taken power. These are no different. But it was the stupid, stupid, stupid American voters who gave these communists the power. Taking the power away from these monsters will be much harder, and the stupid, stupid, stupid voters are NOT getting any smarter.
His response to the lawful removal of Chavez’s butt-boy Manuel Zelaya is indisputable proof he is a communist. Honduras deserves the highest praise for resisting world-wide condemnation of their change in leadership. Obamymandius is still trying, with the help of our media, to paint it a “coup”. Sen. Jim DeMint went down there and said the only person he could find who opposed the removal of Zelaya was the American ambassador.
he is just a moron. we have never seen such chaos and stupidity. o. and btw, did you know the recession is over.
I think your premise, intellectual naivete, is wrong. Not to put too cynical a point on it, but I don’t think that premise explains the reality very well. I think the bad outcomes that follow from your premised naivete is intended, planned for, and desired. Otherwise, the administration’s flat line learning curve cannot be explained, unless we are to assume they are congenitally stupid. Example: If the administration is really apposed to “drill baby drill” and America as the “free worlds” police men–(oh sorry, police persons), would they really be interested in stopping the BP gusher on the ocean floor of the Caribbean? Would they really control the borders, if they believed in open borders? Would they really come to an allies assistance (Israel) to control their borders when they will not even control their own borders? If they really believed in settling in on mars, wouldn’t they practice settling in on the moon first (it’s closer and with more margin for learning errors)? And do they really believe in getting beyond race when their politics is so much about race? And do they really believe in ending nuclear weapons on the face of the planet in our time when the NPT is such a failure and Iran is on the cusp of acquiring them? When they tout multiculturalism to the heavens do they really believe in the legitimacy of a minority monocultural Israeli state? But, on the other hand, maybe they’re just being slick, giving the proverbial problem people of the world enough rope to hang themselves, but I think that’s too charitable.
Instead of “revolutionary Islamism” why not call it by what it is: “resurgent Islam”?
“Thank you tattooed, eyebrow-pierced, uni-sex dressing, 18 to 25 year old “smart” Americans”
Whose policies created that generation…? I was there when President Reagan slashed education budgets, and teachers saw their salaries cut, and the best left so they could support their families. California was the envy of the world with its university system, today its in shambles. The current generation is the first to go through the ” leaner education system” . Congratulations.
Yea, President Reagan achieved budget cuts, but it required cutting the heart out of the educational system. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Look at the actual numbers and you will see that Reagan cut a small percentage of what amounts to a very small percentage of the federal taxpayer’s money being spent on education during the last 20 years. The people who were in school when Reagan was the President are now all over 30 years old. They do not constitute the 18-25 year old crowd in any way. This country has never spent as lavishly on education as we have in the last 20 years and most of our money just gets poured into upgrading buildings, sports facilities, administration offices and the useless people who fill those offices. Our teachers don’t get squat because we can’t control how these moron administrators spend our money and we sure as hell can’t control the curriculum they spoon feed to the teachers. I seriously doubt that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the piss poor education that our current generation of twenty somethings have gotten. You are right, public education is in a big mess right now, but the reasons can be found at the local level. Let’s don’t forget that the biggest problem teachers face is the lack of discipline of their students. This is a parental problem and certainly not something caused by Ronalsd Reagan.
1) Since when was primary education the responsibility of the federal govt.
2) The best and brightest never went into education in the first place.
3) For 50 years, those that ran education thought that the most important thing was to make sure the little ones felt good about themselves. The best way to do that was to not challenge them with anything as taxing as actually learning.
4) For the last 30 years, those that ran education thought that making sure the kiddies could parrot the PC line of the week was more important than knowing actual facts.
I was in Middle School/High School when Reagan was president, and what your assertion is a load of nonsense. What has destroyed our education system is the systemic introduction of political correctness, which has itself created an entire host of destructive policies. History is re-written in the name of “diversity”, civics are ignored, and the entire curriculum is dumbed down to cater to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps the worst of all is the asinine policy of rewarding failure by increasing taxpayer funding of underperforming schools.
Alex, I’m from the Class of 1986. I’m 42, not 18-25. Looks like you missed some math classes.
I do not believe that Obama’s policies are just “naive”. I think that he deliberately is destroying this country. This is a true reason behind his so-called “naive” policies.
Mark The Great has it right. Education is a private enterprise. The federal government has no constitutional warrant for participating in education. Nor do the state governments.
Government always ends by pacifying the unwashed masses with whatever wrong they choose to favor at the moment- in order to buy their votes. Thus the system is inherently corrupt and, over time, self-destructive.
Private enterprise must school pragmatically, or its clients will not acquire salable skills. PE schools need not rewrite history, sell voodoo economics, etc., but can stick to the “how-tos”.
I would bet on Isolationist over intellectual idiocy, along with
an accurate assessment of the coming socio-economic Hard Times at
home; If one can barely afford to ante up in the world power game,
one should not try to run a bluff about being able to buy the hand.
Can he even spell doctrine let alone propose one without the help of teleprompters!!
“We are shifting from mostly direct application and exercise of American power to one of indirection”…..
Yes, the most lucid comment from Hillary Clinton regarding Obama Doctrine….
From its beginning, the Obama administration’s philosophy on foreign policy has caused me to think back to, 1972, I believe it was when an eccentric farmer decided that he had had enough and that he would for president. In an interview with a local newspaper, it was noted that his life experience as a farmer hadn’t offered him much experience in foreign affairs. He was then asked how he would conduct foreign policy. It is really quite simple, the farmer replied, you treat your friends better than you treat your enemies.
I guess he just wasn’t as sophisticated as the current bunch of geniuses, but it sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
Is Pharaoh Hussein a Chamberlain or a Hitler? Or a bit of both?
Shame on 350 million Americans for allowing the theater of decline go on day after day and not intervening.
When Obama was campaigning, every speech he gave left me scratching my head. His speeches sounded like he used one of those phrase-generating programs that spits out meaningful sounding sound-bites from fancy words, but they really say nothing. That’s how he struck me. And what amazed me even more were the thousands of cheering numskulls cheering him on! I’m left wondering what the hell he just said and they’re going crazy!
He said we needed a civilian security force equal to that of our military…I nearly got nauseous, and the morons in the crowd cheered! My first question was; “Why in the hell would we ever need a civilian security force?!”. Just unbelievable how people blindly cheered him on and supported him. He could have been saying; “I want to seize your homes and your cars and ration your food”, and they would have cheered wildly.
In another scene, he’s mingling with a crowd and a woman about 2 rows back is just looking at him adoringly and she blurts out, “I love you, Barrack!” This wasn’t a teenager, this was a middle-aged woman. And she was clearly enamored and mesmerized by him, like a 10-year old with her first crush. How anybody can witness this insanity and not see anything remotely wrong with it is beyond me.
Obama is not naïve. He is hostile to the US and the west. The implications of this are so disturbing, even conservatives cannot bring ourselves to think about it, much less admit it openly. He wants to reduce American power and status and increase the status of other non westerners, mainly Islam. He wants to weaken the west, which is strong now, primarily because of the US. Everything he does is deliberate. What we regard as our enemies, he regards as his friends, allies, partners, and brothers. He has his own loyalties.
Obama is not like a white liberal who without thinking assumes that the US is wrong or even evil, or in the case of any European nation against any non European nation, assumes the former is wrong, who instinctively sides against Israel. Obama is not siding with any “others.” To him, the west is the “other.” Obama sides with those who belong to him and to whom he belongs.
Well, what did you expect? The guy has no executive experience; no management experience; never done a payroll; unable to make decisions, has no international or military experience, and is completely beholden to special interest groups, lobbyists and his ideologies.
It’s amazing how gullible America was for voting in the Blamer-in-Chief. Hopefully, everyone’s learnt their lesson and will know better what to do come November 2010 and 2012.