Joe Katzman, on the administration’s Iran policy (and foreign policy in general):
Anne Applebaum writes…that “Tehran’s worst fear is a well-financed human rights campaign.” In other words, talk less to Iran and more to Iranians.
Unfortunately, this also seems to be Obama’s worst fear. Applebaum is also dead wrong to say that “he people who care about [the democracy movement] are rarely much interested in [Iran’s nuclear program] – and vice versa.” In fact, most of the people concerned with the nuclear program see the democracy movement as the best hope for progress, and have for some time. Obama, in contrast, has a consistent record of aversion to human rights, rule of law, and other niceties abroad. Which is why the drift will continue, until Iran has the bomb.
The only nuclear weapons that he seems truly concerned about are our own (and Israel’s).
And his polls are tanking on foreign policy as well:
On who they trust more to decide the next steps in Afghanistan. 66 percent say military commanders, while only 20 percent say the president. Even Democrats have more faith in the military commanders (by a 45 to 37 percent margin). On Iran, 69 percent say Obama has not been tough enough, including 55 percent of Democrats. Sixty-one percent favor a U.S. military action, if needed, to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Fifty-one percent think Obama apologizes for American too much.
That’s some rapid fail. He’s accelerated from zero to Jimmy Carter in less than a year. Actually, he makes me miss the robust, assertive foreign policy of the Carter years.
[[Update a while later]
More thoughts from Dr. Krauthammer:
When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”
You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as the Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, Pres. Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.
Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.
Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling, and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
But we’re talking. That’s what’s important.
he makes me miss the robust, assertive foreign policy of the Carter years.
Dry humor is the best kind.
Apparently you must be named Paul to comment on this thread.
Considering the remarkable foreign policy polling data cited at Contentions, along with the NYT and Washington Post stories “prepping the battlefield” by portraying Biden as a military Super Genius ™, I fear that we are about to see a campaign to discredit Generals McChrystal and Petreus, organized by their CIC and SECDEF, followed by the abandonment of Afghanistan.
Watch your back gentlemen.
That’s some rapid fail.
Rand, why say “fail” and not “failure”? I ask because you seem interested in language (and you don’t mind sharing your pet peeves). I’ve seen this usage in your writing all year, and in other people’s writing as well — why has “fail” become a noun replacing the word “failure”?
Google ‘epic fail’ Bob-1.
It’s just webspeak.
Yes, it’s become a popular usage, and I don’t mind doing it on blog posts, which are only semi-formal.
The President of France didn’t just chide Obama for being an appeaser, he also called him unacceptably egotistical.
That must be some new legal of egotistical with which I was previously not aware, if it’s so egregious even the President of France finds it unacceptable.
Confusing ends and means pretty much sums up the Left generally.
Lately, I’ve been thinking of the line from Doonesbury, “The president is a lot smarter than you think.”
And I’ve gotten myself into one of those nasty positive feedback loops as expectations keep getting revised downward.
Regarding missile defense, Obama merely took a leaf from Clinton’s playbook by canceling new generation Ballistic Missile Defense (SDI) programs in favor of upgrades to existing systems (Patriot).
God, Patriot is a short-range theater defense system. Does OK against Scuds. Against a ballistic missile it would be about as useful as praying.
A Scud is a ballistic missile. It is not an intercontinental missile, but that is a different thing. Anyway Obama is not relying on Patriot for his international commitments, like Clinton did, but Aegis SM-3. It has a lot more range than Patriot and they are going to upgrade the range further. This is discussed in a recent article at thespacereview.com.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html
I love the internet, now who to believe…
now who to believe…
Glenn Greenwald? The Sockpuppetmaster? You’re joking, right?
Joking? I’d have put a smiley in. 🙂
Seriously, I suspect the irony of your reply, given some of your posts today, is probably lost on you.
Especially with your Olympics reaction.
Seriously, I suspect the irony of your reply, given some of your posts today, is probably lost on you.
I suspect that it’s lost on anyone with any degree of intelligence or sanity. It might help if you made an (as usual, pathetic) attempt to elaborate. But based on history, probably not.
Godzilla,
The SM-3 (and 4 thorugh 6, for that matter) are limited in their intercept envelop, and do not have the ability to pick off long range ballistic missiles with a high probability of success. They are designed for short- and theatre-range systems (SCUDs are an example of this), but would be far less effective (=semi-useless) against systems designed for intercontinental range.
With this is mind, the Aegis systems (Aegis is the sensor suite, actually, the missiles are another matter entirely) are NOT an acceptable replacement for the BMD systems that were scheduled for deployment in Czech and Poland.
Upgrading existing systems is a good idea, but it will only take you so far. The best and most completely upgraded Sopwith Camel would still be ineffective in the Battle of Britain…
“That’s some rapid fail. He’s accelerated from zero to Jimmy Carter in less than a year.”
Exactly right.
Yup -as a international bungle, Obamas speech at the UN as head of the security councel is of HISTORIC proportions.