The Duplicity of the Obama Foreign Policy

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

As this column is being written, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to address the United States Congress. I have no idea what is in that speech but I do know two things about the speech. First, it is a speech from a nation that is at greatest risk should Iran acquire nuclear weapons. That is not speculation that is a promise from the demented ayatollahs who run Iran.

And second, it is a speech that will produce more truth and honesty about the explosive nature of the Middle East and the reality of Islamic terrorism than anything you will ever hear from the administration of President Barack Obama. I can never tell whether Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is based upon the two-fold naiveté of America’s far-left or his stubborn belief that we should ignore the obvious when it conflicts with his vision. (The two-fold naiveté of America’s far left is that 1) whatever the problem, it is our fault; and 2) you can pick up dog poop by the clean end – in this instance that the world’s despots can be trusted to do the right thing.) These are routinely on display when anyone in a leadership position in the State Department (lately Secretary John Kerry and his two vacuous spokesmen, Jen Psaki and Marie Harf) speaks.

Mr. Netanyahu recognizes that Israel is being thrown under the proverbial bus in Mr. Obama’s quest to reach a deal with Iran over its ongoing development of nuclear weapons. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, it matters not to Mr. Obama the consequences of a “deal” only that he can claim to have achieved it. It is the sacrifice of reality in pursuit of Obamavision.

But Mr. Netanyahu and Israel are not the only nation to feel the duplicity of Mr. Obama and his State Department. Let’s just run through a few of these before we get to the newest one. When a pro-democracy uprising began in Iran at the outbreak of the so-called Arab Spring, Mr. Obama sat silently while the terrorist regime of the Iranian ayatollahs crushed the rebellion with murderous efficiency. In contrast when the Muslim Brotherhood, a designated terrorist organization rose to power in Egypt and immediately suppressed all opposition, Mr. Obama was moved to praise the advancement of democracy. And when the Muslim Brotherhood’s repressive regime was overthrown a short time later, Mr. Obama threatened to cut off foreign and military aid to the successor regime that has routinely been supportive of the United States and more importantly tolerant of Israel.

Mr. Obama sacrificed Iraqi security by prematurely withdrawing all troops from that conflict before the Iraqi government stabilized and its armed forces matured. At about the same time Mr. Obama promised but subsequently refused to provide support for the Free Syrian Army when it sought to depose the brutal President Bashar al Assad. The result is the murderous assault and growth of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to provide military assistance to the Ukraine despite a treaty in which we guaranteed its security in exchange for destruction of its nuclear arsenal. The invading Russians peeled off the Crimea and are routinely advancing on more and more eastern lands in the Ukraine as a result.

Libya, Sudan, Yemen, oh hell, the entire Middle East has gone up in flames because of the irresoluteness and duplicity of Mr. Obama and his State Department. Having made a mess of that, Mr. Obama has turned his attention to the Americas.

The first casualties were the refugees from the repressive regime of the Castro brothers in Cuba. So anxious was Mr. Obama to claim another headline that he re-established diplomatic relations with the most repressive regime in the Western Hemisphere without a single concession or commitment from them. And in continuing to seek the Castro brothers approval, Mr. Obama has decided to insert himself into negotiations between the elected government of Colombia and the Cuban backed terrorist organization known as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).

For those of you forced to endure a teachers union directed education in the Portland Public Schools, Colombia has been in a near constant state of chaos with communist insurgents (backed by Cuba) and the narcotraficantes (backed by unlimited supplies of cocaine) challenging the government and holding rural areas of the country hostage to their own forms of terror. In the 21st Century the Colombian government gained widespread support from its people and significantly curbed the power and presence of the narcotraficantes. At the same time, support for FARC has diminished and the Colombian government has been engaged in negotiations with them to end the conflict. The United States has been a strong supporter of the Colombian government as it stabilizes its country – that is until Mr. Obama arrived.

Now Mr. Obama considers it more important to placate the Castro brothers than to support the democracy in Colombia (which also happens to be at odds with the primary troublemaker in South America – Venezuela, another Cuban client state). The presence of Mr. Obama’s State Department in the Colombian negotiations does not bode well for the Colombian government. As Mary Anastasia O’Grady noted recently in the Wall Street Journal:

“President Obama’s top priority in the region is normalizing relations with the Cuban military dictatorship. Raúl Castro says that cannot happen unless Cuba is taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism—even though the regime supports the FARC and gives members of its rebel army safe haven.“So the only way to fix the problem is to change the definition of the FARC through a peace agreement that the Colombian people approve. U.S. involvement is intended to raise the odds of that happening.

“Colombians, beware. The U.S. will be eager to put its stamp on a peace deal, no matter how much political or economic power it cedes to the FARC. But once it’s done, Colombians will be on their own. If things go wrong, nobody is going to pull their civil liberties out of the fire.”

And if you think that such concern is unwarranted, just ask the Venezuelan people, the Ukrainian people, the Yemeni government, the Free Syrian Army, the Israeli people and the myriad of other freedom loving people that Mr. Obama has stabbed in the back. So distrustful of Mr. Obama are the Israelis and the Egyptians that they froze the Obama administration out of the process that ended the active military conflict between Israel and Hamas (an Iranian backed terrorist organization). Resolution of the conflict including the terms were a complete surprise to Secretary Kerry and Mr. Obama.

It is the kind of action that has caused our allies to distrust us and our enemies to no longer fear us.

But what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton? Haven’t you been paying attention? With the exception of Cuba and the Colombians, all of this occurred during her watch as Secretary of State.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Cuba, Foreign Relations, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Israel, John Kerry, Leadership, Liberalism, President Obama, Terrorism, Ukraine | 13 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Obama is a real o’bummer. Continually talks of how guilty the U.S has been in taking advantage of nations in its history, and yet, here this joker helps the U.S. take advantage of Ukraine by not providing adequate military assistance to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia; Ukraine is owed this much from the U.S after having negotiated its giving up of nuclear weapons in order to help bring the cold war to an end.

    How come there are such short memories in the U.S electorate? It is Obama and Hillary Clinton who talked grandiosely about resetting relations with Russia, only to get an your-face-slam-dunk delivered from Russia (without love) over the top of Obummer and Hellary Clinton. Yeah, we sure are getting loved by the international community now with the so called soft strategy. Not. More like soft-in-the-head strategies.

    • Eric Blair

      Should we have gone to war?? Do you really think the Russians would have stood down on an issue as important to their security as the Black Sea? Don’t the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine have a right to self-determination? Thank God neither you nor Larry are President.

      • Dick Winningstad

        So Chechens should be able to break away from Russia then? I would suggest that borders are borders. The U.N. supposedly guarantees that nations will be secure in their borders. Member nationa are not supposed to grab land forcefully from other member nations. But that does not appear to be the case anymore.

        • Eric Blair

          Borders, historically speaking, have always been fluid. And, nations have always grabbed land from others.. or laid claim to lands they feel are their own. This isn’t to say that Russia is right, but I think a little historical perspective is necessary.

          The major question is… what are the ramifications of supplying the Ukraine with weapons? Do you honestly believe that will make the Russians back down? I don’t. And if they ramp up the issue… are you willing to confront the Russians with WW3?

          It seems to me that the United States has been more than willing to ignore the UN when it suits the purposes of our policy.

          Actually, I do believe that the Chechens should have self-determination.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm…… I will repeat myself; Both countries are members of the U.N. As members, countries agree to respect each other’s borders and not engage in aggressive war. The last time this happened Iraq invaded Kuwait with the goal of absorbing Kuwait into Iraq. This was stopped by a U.N. coalition. This would seem to be a good indication the U.N. is a spent force given the low response to the seizure of the Crimean Peninsula which gave Russia the incentive to grab a bigger chunk of a bordering sovereign nation.
            Given your response about the Chechen situation, are you for the break up of any nation if a group/region wants to leave? What is your position on our dust up over this issue back in the 1860’s?

          • Eric Blair

            Let me throw it back at you.. do you believe people don’t have a right to self-determination?

            And, would give back tribal lands in this country since they were the fruits of aggressive war?

    • redbean

      What “soft strategy” in Ukraine? We aided and abetted the coup that brought Neo-Nazis to power in Ukraine, not to mention our role in the IMF loans to these thugs, sanctions against Russia that hurt our European allies, and breaking our promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not hem Russia in.

  • Eric Blair

    “The two-fold naiveté of America’s far left is that 1) whatever the problem, it is our fault; and 2) you can pick up dog poop by the clean end …

    As contrasted by America’s far right (of which I count Mr. Huss a member) which is: 1) the United States is never at fault, and, 2) the United States doesn’t leave poop, it is always gold.

    • guest

      Wail spoken by a secular left wing supporter for new whorld ardor.

      • redbean

        I would guestimate much applause for your comment from the secular right wing supporter of the novas ordo seclorum, Asst. SOS Victoria New-Land, passer of the cookies to our Ukrainian boys in da hood.

        • guest

          Putin your kibitz into the arms of ISIS, akin, monsieur beanine, yes, no, mebe?

  • MrBill

    I think Obama is resigned to Iran getting nukes. He just wants to avoid having it happen on his watch. That would make him look bad.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)