How Foreign Is Our Policy?: Part II

Japan recently turned over to the United States enough weapons-grade nuclear material to make dozens of nuclear bombs. This was one of President Barack Obama’s few foreign policy “successes,” as part of his nuclear disarmament initiative. But his foreign policy successes may be more dangerous than his “failures.” Back in 2005, Senator Barack Obama urged the Ukrainians to drastically reduce their conventional weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles and tons of ammunition. Ukraine had already rid itself of nuclear missiles, left over from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.

Would Vladimir Putin have sent Russian troops so boldly into Ukraine if the Ukrainians still had nuclear missiles? The nuclear disarming of Japan and Ukraine shows how easy it is to disarm peaceful nations — making them more vulnerable to those who are not peaceful.

Ukraine’s recent appeal to the United States for military supplies, with which to defend itself as more Russian troops mass on its borders, was denied by President Obama. He is sending food supplies instead. He might as well send them white flags, to facilitate surrender.

Critics who say that President Obama is naive and inexperienced in foreign policy, and blame that for the many setbacks to American interests during this administration may be right. But it is by no means certain that they are.

Another and more disturbing possibility is that Barack Obama, in his citizen-of-the-world conception of himself, thinks that the United States already has too much power and needs to be deflated. Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza and some other critics have seen Obama’s repeated sacrifices of American national interests as deliberate.

Monstrous as that possibility might seem, it is consistent not only with many otherwise hard to explain foreign policy setbacks, but also consistent with Obama’s having been raised, literally from childhood, with anti-American mentors, beginning with his mother. He continued to seek out such people as an adult.

The ranting Reverend Jeremiah Wright was just one of these anti-American mentors.

President Obama’s undermining of stable and unthreatening governments in Egypt and Libya, opening both to Islamic extremists, while doing nothing that was likely to keep Iran from going nuclear, seems more consistent with the views of Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza, et al., than with the views of most other critics.

What is also more consistent with the Limbaugh and D’Souza thesis are such personal quirks as Obama’s gross rudeness to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House and his otherwise inexplicable public debasement of himself and the United States by bowing low to other foreign leaders.

There was nothing to be gained politically by such actions. Nor by such things as his whispered statement to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he should tell “Vladimir” that he — Obama — could follow a more “flexible” foreign policy after his last election was behind him.

What could be more “flexible” than denying Ukraine the military supplies needed to deter further Russian aggression? Or leaving Japan without material needed to create a nuclear deterrent quickly, while an aggressive China is expanding its military forces and its territorial demands in the region?

Domestically, the unbroken string of Barack Obama’s grievance-mongering mentors included Professor Derrick Bell at the Harvard Law School, author of rantings on paper similar to Jeremiah Wright’s rantings in his church.

Professor Bell was a man cast in the role of a scholar at top tier universities, who chose instead to take on the pathetic role of someone whose goal was — in his own words — to “annoy white people.”

Derrick Bell was not a stupid man. He was a man placed where he should never have been placed, where there was no self-respecting role for him to play, without going off on some strange tangent. That Barack Obama literally embraced Professor Bell publicly in law school, and urged others to listen to him, says much about Obama.

It says much about those who voted for Obama that they paid so little attention to his life and so much attention to his rhetoric.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I’m sure that Obama is moved in all his actions – domestic and foreign – by some pathology that is focused on demeaning America and reducing it to the stature of, say, modern Britain or France. I agree that he is dangerous in and of himself, and this is reflected in all his policies. While his hair is graying, one doesn’t get the sense he is a man laboring under the weight of the presidency on his shoulders. Glib aloofness is the impression he leaves in one’s mind. Over a hundred golf sorties at the best courses in the country, many taken during very real crises, dozens of appearances on talk shows and “rapping” with celebrities, the posturing like an extroverted teenager with a Justin Bieber-like syndrome, his complete indifference to the reported costs to Americans of Obamacare and other destructive policies, his expensive vacations, his being proof against all legitimate criticisms, his immature patronizing of world tyrants and dictators and his public deference to them – the man may be either a schizoid or a schizophrenic haunted by demons he is at home with and which he needs to justify his actions. JFK, for all his many, varied, and serious flaws, at least projected the image of a sane, responsible adult. Obama behaves like a reckless, irresponsible jalopy jock who must prove he’s the fastest guy on the track to impress the girls. These attributes were evident in him while he campaigned the first time and have swollen since 2009 to gross proportions so obvious that only a repressed evader would have voted for him twice and refused to acknowledge the man’s glaring character and policy failings.

  • Demosthenes

    This is an interesting argument for deterence from invasion through a powerful defense. However, you are perhaps overlooking the dangers of leaving weapons in the hands of Nationalistic governments that operate with indifference to US opinion. President Obama was aruguably not mistaken in asking Japan to return the weapons grade plutonium that it posessed. Nationalism in Japan is a dangerous concern at present, and it is fuelling tensions within the region. It has also been causing problems for the White House with denials of wartime atrocities by Prime Minister Abe’s associates.

    While it is true that China is currently being aggressive in the region, the tensions increased after Japan “purchased” the disputed Senkaku / Diaoyu islands that China claims belongs to it. Japan ought to have taken this island dispute to the UN, to have the islands ruled as theirs by an international body once and for all – this would have stopped China right in its tracks. Instead, Japan’s conservatives have seemingly been seeking to provoke angry responses from China through moves like this.

    Presumedly, the reason the US called for a reduction in arms in Ukraine was for similar reasons. The Ukraine government is accused of being nationalistic by Russia and, while its clear that Russia has acted wrongly in its annexing of Crimea, it does make one wonder if things could have gone worse if Ukraine had weapons to counter Russia’s recent incursion into Crimea.

  • Steven Smith

    Japan “operate(s) with indifference to US opinion?” You jest. Rather Japan cowardly kowtows toward the U.S.. Next time Mr president, please use your real name rather than a alias.

  • Demosthenes

    Japan certainly does not “kowtow” to the US. If they did, Reagan could have told Japan to drop its protectionist import tarrifs against US businesses – especially the car industry – back in the 80s. Half the reason the world is investing in China now, is because the cold war is over and the Chinese are offering western businesses a fairer deal than Japan did. Insofar as recent examples are concerned, Japan ignored Kerry and Biden’s advice to the Japanese PM to stay away from a controversial war shrine – this only fuelled tensions with China and Korea in the region. And even now, Japan is procrastinanting over supporting the U.S. by imposing sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Crimea.

  • Threnody

    Or, he’s a stooge, a pretty transparent one, accomplishing, calmly, what he was meant to accomplish…..