The Age of Obama through rose-colored glasses
Yesterday, our President spoke at the US Military Academy graduation ceremony. This morning, the Washington Post proclaims that a new security strategy arises from that speech;
“Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation,” he said. “We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice — so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don’t.”
In his speech — the ninth wartime commencement in a row — the commander in chief, who is leading two foreign wars, expressed his faith in cooperation to confront economic, military and environmental crises.
“The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,” he said in prepared remarks. “Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.”
That’s not a “new” strategy – it’s the same failed policy of Jimmy Carter. The policy that left Central America exposed to a communist insurgency, the policy that enabled the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan, the policy that brought on the Iran-Iraq War. The policy that encouraged the Soviets to station 9,000 combat troops 90 miles from our shores. The same policy that encouraged Iran to hold Americans hostage for 444 days.
Has the Obama policy countered violent extremism and insurgency, stopped the spread of nuclear weapons thus far? Are the Iranians running scared and no one told me? Are Hezbollah warriors packing their bags in Venezuela? Has al Qaeda in Iraq stopped bombing markets? Has the Pakistani Taliban ended their war on the civilian population?
George HW Bush waited too long to take the lead while the Euro-weinies diddled over Bosnia. Clinton realized that building a consensus and “steering…currents in the direction of liberty and justice” was going to be a failure in Kosovo. The consensus of the Organization of American States was that the US should invade Grenada in 1983. Hundreds of thousands of Hutus and Tutsis died horrific deaths while the world dithered over a solution with no US leadership.
“The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times.” Empty words of an empty policy. If no one does anything, how can anyone be blamed for the outcome? There is no international order – if there was, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela wouldn’t stand up to the world. Even little bitty Honduras stood against world opinion last year with no repercussions (not that they were wrong, just an example).
As if we need more proof that this is Jimmy Carter’s second term.
Greyhawk takes issue with other parts of the President’s speech yesterday.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy
Well said. What a crappy speech.
Jonn said: As if we need more proof that this is Jimmy Carter’s second term.
I’ll speculate that a second Carter term would have been preferable to what we have. Where Carter was pretty much a feckless boob, Obama is actually accomplishing something.
Can we call it “Irhabist” instead of “jihadist”? Because our President does not have the cojones to call it an appropriate english term, such as “Islamist extremism” or “terrorist,” I submit that it’s time for us to name our enemy, and it is entirely appropriate to use a term that Muslims understand.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/04/words-are-important/
“Hirabah” means “unholy war” i.e., war against civilians, and is the well-recognized term for terrorism among Muslims. That term is distinct from “jihad” which has some positive connotations.
OT, but here’s an update on that asshat Diabo
http://tinyurl.com/2969h5o
That’s very interesting, Valerie, and it is also in line with what I was told by a Muslim professor that I worked for years ago. I remember her telling me after the horror of 9/11 that the Islamic terrorists who committed those acts are not true “jihadists” because what they have done is a horrible crime, whereas true “jihad” means holy war, personal spirtual warfare, not killing civilians, which is terrorism. I always thought she made a lot of sense, but, alas…that was never the understanding of politicians and the American culture in general which continued to call the terrorists by the false name that they called themselves, i.e., jihadists. I always thought what the Muslim professor said made a lot of sense because, as Christians know, there is a similar analogy that is used in the Bible – the concept of spiritual warfare and putting on the full armor of God that is described in Ephesians 6, and I knew from studying the Bible that it is NOT about physical war or implements of war.
I think it is also the failure to distinguish between the true meaning of jihad from the false meaning ascribed to it – as you have pointed out, more accurately identified as “hirabism” – which has led to the dangerous attitude of extremists who advocate genocide of Muslims. In addition to the pure evil of committing genocide, something else that those who advocate that strategy have failed to take into account is that we would be hurting our own selves by embarking on such a path because the consequences and repercussions would adversely the whole world and all of mankind in a very bad way.
And the policy of Jimmy Carter was a loser one even to me and my 9-year-old buddies back then… someone takes over our embassy and holds out people hostage, and we only talk about economic sanctions? Screw that, bomb ’em! (Of course, we were healthy normal American boys… most left/liberals– male or female– don’t have that kind of spine or sense.)
More evidence that Obama is not only out to totally destroy America as history and we know it…..but is having some success unless we can undo the leftist majority this November. International Order? The New World Order by another name.