Obama Regime's Foreign Policy Flies In The Face Of Reason

From The American Thinker:

August 30, 2010


Obama's Foreign Policy Flies in the Face of Reason

By Lauri B. Regan

A person does not need to be a military expert or have a Ph.D. in foreign affairs in order to understand the disastrous implications of Obama's foreign policy for America's national security. And while it was certainly clear that Americans were not electing a neo-con as their Commander-in-Chief, I would venture a guess that those who voted for him believed that he would implement policy that would protect the country.





Or maybe not. Recall Biden's warning while on the campaign trail:





Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy ... We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America ...





And he's gonna need help ... Because it's not gonna be apparent initially ... that we're right ...





So I'm asking you now ... Remember the faith you had at this point. ...





Despite Biden's warning, Americans elected Obama. And while, luckily, Biden was wrong in his prediction that America would face a crisis in the first six months of the administration, he was correct that it is far from apparent that the administration's policy is right. Because when Americans stop and think about the changes in America's stature in the world, the growing threats to the Western world, and the dangers being ignored by this administration, they realize that simply remembering the faith they may have had in a person who has proven immensely incompetent is not going to keep them safe. Faith will not save America in the absence of reason. Or, as Thomas Sowell recently commented, "It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you stop and think."





Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, Robert R. Monroe, a retired vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, stated that the Senate should block ratification of New Start, the nuclear weapons treaty that Obama signed with Russia's Medvedev. Monroe reasoned that Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons, as set forth in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), fails to recognize that such weapons have been "the ultimate foundation of America's security in a dangerous world." He stated that the signing of New Start





would gravely weaken American national security. ... For 65 years, the very existence of our nation has depended upon a strong nuclear deterrent. The new NPR wipes out this proven policy, substituting one of weakness in its place.





Obama's nuclear policy flies in the face of reason. Tyrannical despots across the globe are on the march to develop nuclear capability, the administration's policy of appeasement and diplomacy does nothing to stop the progression, and Obama inks a treaty that, according to Monroe, "amounts to a road map for achieving a position of strategic inferiority." At a time when we should be flaunting our nuclear strength, Obama's policy pledges not to develop new nuclear capabilities, weakens our deterrence capabilities, harms our ability to modernize our deteriorating arsenal, and impairs the reliability of existing weapons.





While the White House's conflicting statements on whether or not a military option to prevent Iran from reaching nuclear capability is on the table, it is questionable if the administration has any plan whatsoever to deal with Iran. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the U.S. does not have any long-range plans for dealing with Iran's progress toward its goal of attaining nuclear weapons. The administration denied the accuracy of this statement, however, based on Obama's reliance on the U.N. to issue weak sanctions (that are being undercut by Russia, China, and Turkey, who continue to sell oil products to Iran), his lack of support for Iran's Green movement last year, and his wasted efforts to impose a two-state solution on Israel and the Palestinians rather than focus on the real threat to the region, it seems clear that Obama is pursuing a policy of containment (at best) rather than deterrence with regard to a nuclear Iran.





Furthermore, as Obama fulfills his promise to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, it is difficult not to question the wisdom of his policies in the region. Obama is pulling the troops out at a time when the Iraqis do not even have a government in place, and violent attacks are on the rise (a recent report indicated that al-Qaeda raised a flag in a town north of Baghdad). On the Afghan front, by announcing the withdrawal date at the same moment he announced the surge, Obama basically told the Taliban that if they can just hold out for a year, their victory will be forthcoming. As Gen. James T. Conway stated in a Pentagon briefing this week, "We think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. ... We've intercepted communications that say, hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long."





In light of growing instability in an area so strategically important to U.S. national security interests, the government should be implementing plans to build up its military presence rather than looking forward to the date it will pull out with its tail between its legs.





Several months into his presidency Obama scrapped plans to install a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. According to Biden, the Bush-era plan was not necessary because "I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat." Liberals jumped for joy when they learned of this foreign policy "expert" joining the Obama ticket, but coming from the man who thought that the Iraq war was lost and who suggested carving up the country into three separate entities, it is far from comforting to hear his assessment of our defensive needs. Especially in light of Iran's military buildup -- Ahmadinejad announces a new capability at least once a month, including the fueling of the Bushehr nuclear plant; unveiling of a new long-range drone nicknamed the "Ambassador of Death"; and announcement of missile-firing assault boats just this past week.





In March 2009, it was reported that Hezb'allah was using the Mexican border to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. Earlier this summer, Mexican authorities arrested a Hezb'allah operative, illustrating the growing presence of that terrorist organization, an Iranian proxy, on our southern border. But that did not stop Obama from blackmailing the country into supporting amnesty for all illegal aliens before he would agree to secure our borders.





Reason should dictate to the Obama administration that since terrorism is on the rise, enlisting all of the country's defenses should be a priority. And that includes domestic forces not only who recognize the need to police our borders, but also who have shown the wherewithal to actually do so in the absence of help from the federal government. Once again, Obama policy has flown in the face of reason as the administration has chosen to sue Arizona over the passage of immigration laws designed to protect our country and citizens.





In his book, Dismantling America, Sowell discussed "the point of no return" and stated the following:





Iran is advancing step by step toward nuclear weapons ... When Osama bin Laden has nuclear weapons, the choice will be between knuckling under and watching American cities blasted off the face of the earth. That is the point of no return and we are drifting toward it.





So here we are with an administration led by a "brilliant 47-year-old" -- who doesn't think. He has not thought about the fact that when Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, or another megalomaniac drops a bomb on Washington, Chicago, Martha's Vineyard, or wherever the Obamas may be, it will not distinguish between appeasers and infidels, for we will all be destroyed. And that is why it is absolutely clear that Obama's foreign policy flies in the face of reason.