Image 01 Image 03

Obama Foreign Policy Tag

Last week as we noted, the New York Times ran a devastating article about President Obama's Syria policy. The Times reported, among other things, that the President was disinterested in planning discussions about Syria. Two other articles reported that America's Middle East allies generally and the Saudis specifically were upset by the administration's Middle East policy. I guess that the New York Times had enough serious reporting about the shortcomings of the Obama administration's Middle East policy, because over the weekend, it published Rice Offers a More Modest Strategy for Mideast by its foremost White House cheerleader, Mark Landler. (Landler contributed to the Syria report, but was not one of the bylined reporters.)
Each Saturday morning in July and August, Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s new national security adviser, gathered half a dozen aides in her corner office in the White House to plot America’s future in the Middle East. The policy review, a kind of midcourse correction, has set the United States on a new heading in the world’s most turbulent region. At the United Nations last month, Mr. Obama laid out the priorities he has adopted as a result of the review. The United States, he declared, would focus on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. Everything else would take a back seat.
The article goes on to point out that even Egypt was no longer a priority. In a jab at President Obama's predecessor we learn:

From Israel National News, A List of Monsters As Israel prepares to release 26 more terrorist prisoners as a "gesture" to the Palestinian Authority, Arutz Sheva presents a partial list of those slated for freedom. It reveals a catalogue of atrocities, the majority of which involved the...

Update 11-8-2013: 60 Minutes backs off Benghazi witness story. ------------------------- 60 Minutes had an absolutely devastating report on the Obama administration's failure to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi. I'll post the video when available (update - available and added), but the heart of the report is that there were clear and unequivocal warnings which were ignored, and the Obama administration lied about these warnings after the attack. Hillary and Obama blamed a video and stood by the caskets perpetuating that lie. And remember how almost all of the media obsessed with Mitt Romney's statement over Benghazi, and colluded to ask Romney gotcha questions while downplaying and obfuscating what really happened. 60 Minutes said its investigation took almost a year. (Transcript here) https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394603707167686656 https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394603520760221696 https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394604224753184768

Recently, after the first round of nuclear talks with Iran had concluded one of the American negotiators said: "... I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before." The word that bothered me most in that declaration was "candid." How did Iranian foreign minister start kick of the negotiations? He started it with a widely reported PowerPoint presentation titled "An End to the Unnecessary Crisis and a Beginning for Fresh Horizons." There's a word that sticks out there too, "unnecessary."

Yesterday's New York Times featured an article Obama’s Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed that is probably one of the most devastating indictments of the President's Syria policy published. I don't think that the reporters set out to critique the President and the tone of the article was always respectful. https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/393101410037821440 Still there are two description that really stuck out. The first was a general critique.
As one former senior White House official put it, “We spent so much damn time navel gazing, and that’s the tragedy of it.”
Over the past two years the article describes the various rationales the administration had for not intervening and that sentence turns out to be a very apt theme for the way the administration acted, or, more precisely, chose not to act. Then there was this:
Even as the debate about arming the rebels took on a new urgency, Mr. Obama rarely voiced strong opinions during senior staff meetings. But current and former officials said his body language was telling: he often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.
One would have assumed that a Syria policy was one of the two most important foreign policy issues facing the President. (The other is the question of Iran's nuclear policy.) Being "disengaged" during such momentous discussions is worse than being engaged but making bad decisions. https://twitter.com/tobyharnden/status/393025446348349441  

Kathleen Sebelius is insistent that no one told Obama prior to October 1 that testing and evaluation had indicated healthcare.gov likely would fail. Not even as a government "shutdown" was looming over the issue of delaying the individual mandate for a year?  Even though an inoperable healthcare.gov website would justify the Republican position?  Even though a failure of the website would be a major embarrassment? HHS chief: President didn't know of Obamacare website woes beforehand
President Barack Obama didn't know of problems with the Affordable Care Act's website -- despite insurance companies' complaints and the site's crashing during a test run -- until after its now well-documented abysmal launch, the nation's health chief told CNN on Tuesday. In an exclusive interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in "the first couple of days" after the site went live October 1. "But not before that?" Gupta followed up. To which Sebelius replied, "No, sir."
This all sounds eerily familiar:

WaPo IRS Scandal No One Told Obama

Senior White House officials, including Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, learned last month about a review by the Treasury Department’s inspector general into whether the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but they did not inform President Obama, the White House said Monday.

In a remarkable op-ed last week, Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post excoriated Obama's Myopic Worldview. After noting that the President claimed in his U.N. speech, “The world is more stable than it was five years ago," Diehl responded:
So: Why, according to Obama, is the world better off than in 2008? Well, the global economic crisis has abated. But that’s not all: “We’ve also worked to end a decade of war,” the president said, by withdrawing U.S. and NATO troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and “shifting away from a perpetual war footing.” Here’s where you could almost hear the head-scratching in the Iraqi and Afghan delegations: Violence in both of those countries is considerably worse than it was five years ago, in part because of the U.S. withdrawals. Also, as Obama half-acknowledged, al-Qaeda is more of a threat in more places — Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Libya, Syria — than it was in 2008. And then there is the region stretching from Morocco to Iran, which is experiencing not stability but an epochal upheaval, one that has brought civil war or anarchy to a half-dozen countries and spawned the greatest crimes against humanity since the turn of the 21st century. It’s easy to dismiss Obama’s claim on factual grounds. More interesting is to see what prompted it: a soda-straw view of the world in which only the president’s inauguration-day priorities are visible. His aim then was to bring home U.S. troops, end the “endless war” of George W. Bush, defend the homeland from al-Qaeda and step back from the quagmire of the Arab Middle East. He did all that; ergo, the world is more stable — and from the attenuated perspective of an American who mainly wishes the world would go away, perhaps it is.
Unlike Diehl, I didn't find President Obama's speech to be that surprising. There wasn't much new in it. President Obama doesn't believe in letting troops fight to win a war but to bring them home and end it. He's said that in slightly different words throughout his presidency. https://twitter.com/JacksonDiehl/status/383563604739379201 What's remarkable about Diehl's column is that Diehl and the Washington Post's editorial board twice endorsed Barack Obama for President despite his myopic worldview. This is as thorough a verbal repudiation of the president as any I've seen. But it isn't just pundits who reject President Obama's foreign policies; it's allies too. A few weeks ago Walter Russell Mead wrote in The Failed Grand Strategy in the Middle East:

I have a new post up at American Thinker entitled "Obama and Syria: Words versus Deeds": In trying to puzzle out what might be going on with President Obama's muddled, non-strategic, and fundamentally "unserious" approach to Syria, it helps to remember that Obama believes that words...

In an effort to deter the US from attacking Syria, the “International Human Shields” movement is eying to locate civilians to Damascus from across the globe, including Britain and the US, reports the Daily Telegraph. Even as residents are evacuating Syria, hundreds of activists are volunteering to be placed in harm’s way against possible air strikes, despite the dangerous nature of the protest. One such activist is Andrew, a 33 year-old Canadian pianist. “I don’t want to see Syria turn into another Libya,” he told the Daily Telegraph. “If I had a hand big enough to squash the US tanks then I would. Democracy is America’s deadliest export, they use it as an excuse to destroy countries.” Franklin Lamb, a lawyer appointed as the legal adviser for the US-based group, stated in a recent op-ed that he is frequently asked how Obama can ignore the reluctance of American people to become militarily involved in Syria. “What kind of Democracy do you have that your President can ignore the will of the American public?”, he is asked by Syrians. Lamb describes how the goal is to bring “1000 Americans and thousands of others”  to potential bomb sites in Syria during the next ten days, reminding Lamb of "one of the International Solidarity Movement international volunteer’s efforts in Occupied Palestine in order to try to protect homes of Palestinians from Government bulldozing". According to Lamb, an objective of the movement is to ensure a message of solidarity among the international community by sending “ideally at least one representative from every UN Member State.” However, one of the major obstacles to fulfilling this goal will be convincing the Syrian government to allow the activists to enter the country. If allowed in the country, activists are to be sent to sites deemed critical to the survival of the Syrian people which include, “power plants, water treatment facilities, bomb shelters (if they exist), civilian communications sites, food storage sites.” Meanwhile, Syria prepares for US attacks, positioning troops in residential neighborhoods and warning residents to move out, according to the Wall Street Journal. Another group of human shields, called “Over Our Dead Bodies, has already been organized by some Damascenes. Reuters has footage of the group, which has allegedly received support from all over the globe, in the video below.

Having been mostly away from the internet these past two days, I've watched from afar how quickly things have turned on Syria. It's amazing how Obama has gone from being backed into a corner to being on a ledge where his presidency is just a vote...

This is the big headline today: "I did not set a red line." (added) Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
People are contrasting it with this August 2012 statement: This is too important for gamesmanship:

Now that you have had all of about 6 hours to digest Obama's decision to seek authorization from Congress for use of force in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, let's get some quick reader feedback. The poll is open until...

Caroline Glick's article on Obama and Syria sums up the situation quite nicely---although "nicely" is hardly the proper word, because it makes for very sobering reading indeed: It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, none of...

Mideast Media Sampler - 08/25/2013 - When is a red line not a red line? When there's no precedent....