Do you remember about a month ago, I asked a question, was there anyone out there in the world at large able to coherently identify an Obama Doctrine. From the too good to be true category, Andrea Mitchell has identified what it is. The coherent portion of my request was not adhered to, but then, when you listen to Andrea, you will understand why.
Logical acrobatics would be a gross understatement. Putting aside for the moment Mitchell’s obvious shilling for the Obama Administration while attempting to maintain the appearance of objectivity, how on Earth was she able to maintain a straight face while repeating this blather. It is so obvious that Obama has been shooting from the hip with his foreign policy that even his own administration is completely unable to identify what he is attempting to accomplish. Today for example, Obama has stated that regime change is not necessarily a priority at the same exact moment his deputy National Security Advisor was on T.V. stating that regime change was the goal all along. I have up till now refrained from writing about the Libyan thing for a few reasons. One being that I want both sides to lose. Moamar is a mad man and a thug. He has been an enemy of the United States for a long time and has been actively engaged with funding terrorism for 42 years. The world would be a better place without him in it. What he is about to be replaced with is just as bad if not worse. This revolution is the product of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. He is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who’s branches include Hamas, Al Queda, ISNA, MSA, CAIR, The Holy Land Foundation, and is responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, the 9/11 attacks, the Cole bombing, the Stark bombing, the 1983 attack on the Marine Barracks, Kobar Towers bombing, and far too many other attacks on Americans to list in this article. Our involvement in this could not possibly produce anything which would be in our national interests, no matter how it all turns out.
So, here is that Obama doctrine:
1) when a looming humanitarian threat has been identified,
2) and when a cost benefit analysis shows that intervention can cost effectively prevent a certain amount of human suffering???????????????
3) and when an international plan of action can be agreed upon????????
4) then we should proceed to participate while someone else leads.
It doesn’t have the same simple punch as Monroe’s, “hands off of our hemisphere,” Reagan’s, “peace through strength,” or Bush’s, “You are either with us or the terrorists.” I guess his whole kinetic military action meme is apropos. This is the nation’s first kinetic foreign policy doctrine. It would be much funnier if it weren’t so sad. This President is so far under water on ability for his current position that even many of the hard core Democrats are turning away from him. If this is what anybody had in mind when they voted for that smarter foreign policy of Obama’s, kill yourself. You are better off being reincarnated as a toaster or a pet rock.
Crossposted at Musings of a mad Conservative.
Tags: Foreign Policy
