I read that this morning. I thought it was a poorly written article - it was disjointed and merely offered a whiney assessment without a practical alternative.
Time doesn't permit me to address all the points, but I'll go with the most obvious one first: Iran. President Obama is in a very difficult position, since overt support will not necessarily help the dissidents. In fact, it may hinder the very noble cause.
I have hunch that the Marks & I have similar objectives in foreign policy with a completely different path to that end. It is my view that Bush did a terrible job on the North Korea & Iran accounts (yes, I am blaming our overmatched, former president) and Obama has to rebuild many bridges to regain the anti-nuclear-proliferation initiative. It is terribly important and I know that we all hope our president will succeed where his predecessor failed.
Reagan's presidency has a mixed legacy, but one huge accomplishment cannot be denied. He hastened the end of the Soviet Empire. If he had been able to guarantee doing only that in two terms, I would have voted for him both times.
If President Obama is able to put the NPT genie back in the bottle - if the current proliferation breakout is arrested and walked back - his achievement will meet or exceed our 40th presidents. Failure really is not an option. If this problem is not addressed in the next seven years or so, I fear it is only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb detonates in the Port of New York.
I believe this will best be avoided through cooperation with our allies and other world powers. We have learned the hard way that a petulant, unilateral superpower holds very little power after all.
With year one drawing to a close, the truth of the Obama presidency is laid bare: retrenchment abroad, and redistribution and the intrusive regulatory state at home.
There was in the land a "liberal orientalism," if you will, a dismissive attitude about the ability of other nations to partake of liberty.
Everywhere there is on display evidence of the rogues taking the Obama administration's measure, and of America's vulnerable allies scurrying for cover.
We're now worlds away from that moment in history. The man who demolished the Iraqi tyranny, George. W. Bush, is no longer in power, and a different sentiment drives America's conduct abroad.
There was that "diplomacy of freedom," the proclamation that the Pax Americana had had its fill with the autocracies and the rogues of the Greater Middle East. There but for the grace of God go we, the autocrats whispered to themselves as they pondered the fall of the Iraqi despot.
The same genetic defect that somehow allows you to think you can micro manage economies, also seems to allow you to think that N. Korea and Iran can be "talked" into submission.
You are right, NP will be the issue of the day.
Do you really think Mini Kim gives a damn if there are 6, 3 or 1 party talks? He is starving his own people!
Do you really think the Mullahs are going to negotiate with "o" just because he is a nice guy?
George Bush projected strength and adhered to the "Bush Doctrine" of no tolerance of terrorist states or those that harbored them.
His (our) actions freed 50 Million souls.
I remember Crazy Rich trying to argue that the people of Iraq and Muslims in general just could not handle freedom. The prejudice of that line of thinking is beyond pale, yet is truly the underlying "logic" of liberalism.
Lastly, like the end of segregation here, it will take 2 or 3 generations for the true effect of liberty and freedom to become a way of life in Iraq and then spread throughout the Middle East (Just like in former Soviet Satellites) and there will be many bumps and steps backward along the way.
Years from now, G. Bush will be viewed as the one who started the march of freedom in the Middle East.
We are stronger - much stronger - when we work with our allies and other world powers. Unilateralism won't work. You eschew talking to PDRK and Iran, yet, what did your boy do?
I support working within the international community. I would begin by privately making it clear to all involved that there will NOT Be a nuclear N Korea and there will NOT be a nuclear Iran. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. We have proven rather feckless at nation building. We are quite capable of destroying things.
4 comments:
I read that this morning. I thought it was a poorly written article - it was disjointed and merely offered a whiney assessment without a practical alternative.
Time doesn't permit me to address all the points, but I'll go with the most obvious one first: Iran. President Obama is in a very difficult position, since overt support will not necessarily help the dissidents. In fact, it may hinder the very noble cause.
I have hunch that the Marks & I have similar objectives in foreign policy with a completely different path to that end. It is my view that Bush did a terrible job on the North Korea & Iran accounts (yes, I am blaming our overmatched, former president) and Obama has to rebuild many bridges to regain the anti-nuclear-proliferation initiative. It is terribly important and I know that we all hope our president will succeed where his predecessor failed.
Reagan's presidency has a mixed legacy, but one huge accomplishment cannot be denied. He hastened the end of the Soviet Empire. If he had been able to guarantee doing only that in two terms, I would have voted for him both times.
If President Obama is able to put the NPT genie back in the bottle - if the current proliferation breakout is arrested and walked back - his achievement will meet or exceed our 40th presidents. Failure really is not an option. If this problem is not addressed in the next seven years or so, I fear it is only a matter of time until a nuclear bomb detonates in the Port of New York.
I believe this will best be avoided through cooperation with our allies and other world powers. We have learned the hard way that a petulant, unilateral superpower holds very little power after all.
SEEMS PRETTY ACCURATE TO ME.
With year one drawing to a close, the truth of the Obama presidency is laid bare: retrenchment abroad, and redistribution and the intrusive regulatory state at home.
There was in the land a "liberal orientalism," if you will, a dismissive attitude about the ability of other nations to partake of liberty.
Everywhere there is on display evidence of the rogues taking the Obama administration's measure, and of America's vulnerable allies scurrying for cover.
We're now worlds away from that moment in history. The man who demolished the Iraqi tyranny, George. W. Bush, is no longer in power, and a different sentiment drives America's conduct abroad.
There was that "diplomacy of freedom," the proclamation that the Pax Americana had had its fill with the autocracies and the rogues of the Greater Middle East. There but for the grace of God go we, the autocrats whispered to themselves as they pondered the fall of the Iraqi despot.
Peace through strength.
You cannot appease madmen.
Liberty grows when protected.
The same genetic defect that somehow allows you to think you can micro manage economies, also seems to allow you to think that N. Korea and Iran can be "talked" into submission.
You are right, NP will be the issue of the day.
Do you really think Mini Kim gives a damn if there are 6, 3 or 1 party talks? He is starving his own people!
Do you really think the Mullahs are going to negotiate with "o" just because he is a nice guy?
George Bush projected strength and adhered to the "Bush Doctrine" of no tolerance of terrorist states or those that harbored them.
His (our) actions freed 50 Million souls.
I remember Crazy Rich trying to argue that the people of Iraq and Muslims in general just could not handle freedom. The prejudice of that line of thinking is beyond pale, yet is truly the underlying "logic" of liberalism.
Lastly, like the end of segregation here, it will take 2 or 3 generations for the true effect of liberty and freedom to become a way of life in Iraq and then spread throughout the Middle East (Just like in former Soviet Satellites) and there will be many bumps and steps backward along the way.
Years from now, G. Bush will be viewed as the one who started the march of freedom in the Middle East.
We are stronger - much stronger - when we work with our allies and other world powers. Unilateralism won't work. You eschew talking to PDRK and Iran, yet, what did your boy do?
I support working within the international community. I would begin by privately making it clear to all involved that there will NOT Be a nuclear N Korea and there will NOT be a nuclear Iran. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. We have proven rather feckless at nation building. We are quite capable of destroying things.
Post a Comment