President Obama’s Misconception of Foreign Policy
The only purpose of foreign policy is to further national security and commercial geopolitical interests of the nation conducting the policy. The best foreign policy leads to maximum benefit for the nation and its growing impact on other nations. Foreign policy is self-destructive – unless it is selfish, materialistic, Machiavellian, realpolitik oriented on clear-cut national goals.
B.H. Obama is a quasi-communist ideologue whose sole aim is to bring nations together in a Wilsonian New World Order where the whole world will sit at a round table and peacefully discuss one another’s problems trying to help each other and maximize the other party’s benefits while not diminishing one’s own. We call that a “policy of appeasement” or “leading from behind.”
Both of these terms are antithetical: a policy of appeasement is not a policy but a tactical step which has a place in a larger strategy, which we do not have. Why? Obama lacks wisdom. Wisdom is judgment in action, which only great, experienced generals can provide. Obama never listens to his generals, changes them like socks, demotes, fires the good ones, and keeps the kowtowing aye-sayers. What is more a policy of “appeasement” implies you “appease” someone who is offending you, i.e. is at war with you. However, if you do not recognize this fact for what it is, then a “policy of appeasement” means just looking the other way – no more, no less. It leaves you fumbling for words, like Kerry did during his “deconfliction” meeting with Russian foreign minister Lavrov.
Next, “leading from behind” is what high-ranking generals afraid of combat or unable to fight used to do in the past. Granted, it is possible to “lead from behind,” but the general must have sufficient information and be constantly in action, engaged – otherwise “leading from behind” means “leading behind,” leading back, retreating from action, letting the enemy take over.
Our Commander-in-Chief is not only disengaged, playing golf or sleeping (during Benghazi) but does not show sufficient acumen, skill and situational awareness in order to make a sound decision. It seems to me that every blogger on the internet in more patriotic and knows more about foreign policy than President Obama, who is completely withdrawn, uninterested in our national standing, our benefits and prosperity. Yet, we have so many bright, smart, experienced men – all of them brave and many of them wise… For sure, all braver and wiser than Mr. Golfer-in-Chief.
“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” said president Bush on 9/11 2001. In political science, this is referred to as a “hegemony of powers” or “binary” understanding of the world. We have lived through it during the Cold War years where you were either with Soviet Union or against them, and vice versa. It is applicable in moments of crisis, impending war, when there is a threat to national insecurity. Its reintroduction by President Bush was purposefully intended to minimize the influence of Russia in the Middle East while sharpen the focus of our foreign policy and thus strengthen our geopolitical scope and standing.
When we left, as we all know, Iraq was stabilized, and the apparent need for the binary understanding of the world disappeared. I state “apparent” because Russia was watching, as was Iran. Anyone who read Hobbes’ Leviathan knows that it is impossible to introduce an “Obama-order” based on absolute equality and idealistic pacifistic negotiations in good will for the other party. This epitomizes communist thinking. All nations, just as all people, have foibles and will behave selfishly whenever they can. It is not wrong, it is human.
What Obama has been unsuccessfully attempting during his two terms in the Office is similar to what President Wilson conceived of (also unsuccessfully) with his League of Nations at the end of World War I. We should note the similarities: both Obama and Wilson have been progressives theoreticians and although Wilson was much better educated, they shared equally skewed understanding of statehood and foreign policy. They also both received the Nobel Peace Prize and wanted to be admired and remembered as, in Woodrow Wilson’s words, “savior of the world!”
Whence this fundamental lack of understanding of how the world works? It is my suspicion that neither Wilson nor Obama ever fully comprehended the concept of statehood. This modern concept dates back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War: European states agreed to respect one another’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. One of the parties to the Treaty was Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of many nationalities. These soon realized that the concept of statehood meant the right to self-determination, laws in their own language, borders and currency. What we call “Balkanization” started long before the Great War…
Significantly, Hobbes’ Leviathan was published in 1651, following the Peace of Westphalia, and those who read it would have foreseen that there is always diversity in unity – but not vice versa! Chiefly, states always crave for independence and always compete with one another. Even the peace negotiations treated states as if they were self-interested multi-national corporations. Needless to say that this realistic approach worked well for 150 years, until Napoleon came trying to take over the Holy Roman Empire and with it all of Europe.
Subsequent to Napoleon, the “Concert of Europe” was established in Vienna, whereupon it was determined that any inter-state aggression by one party would be counterbalanced by a “concert” of powers mitigating such aggression. The Balance of Powers system arose: Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed Holy Alliance, a conservative “federation” based on Christianity and traditional monarchy. Britain joined a few weeks later. However, this Alliance lasted only briefly, as the revolutions of 1848, rise of Marxism and nationalism shook Europe and prevented a lasting peace.
At the onset of the 19th century, the Balance of Powers emerged as the scales of Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) versus the Entente Powers (England and Ireland, France, Russia). Naturally, geopolitical view was different from the Isle of “splendid insulation” – Britain has never really ceased to view the rest of Europe as a board of checkers where powers align in their own interests. It was not until Germany invaded Belgium (which had been a neutral entity for over a hundred years, since the Peace of Vienna in 1814) that England entered the Great War scuffle.
Interestingly, by the end of this war, Wilson would still have been viewed more as a cook than a prophet. Who would have ever thought that Europe could diverge from the Peace of Westphalia and their precious balance of powers? After World War II, situation changed. Cooperation was needed to rebuild what had been destroyed. The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was an idealistic spur, hope for a lasting peace based on a New World Order. In 1951 in Paris, Under American influence, European states started to diverge from the Balance of Powers and the Peace of Westphalia. The first step was the creation of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) under the new heading of “supranationalism.” Subsequent establishment of EEC and its transition into EC and EU has been a long process of tearing away from the Westphalian system of statehood and sovereignty.
However, even before the influx of refugees and today’s crisis (which clearly shows lack of cooperation and competency in dealing with “supranational security”), EU was looked upon with distrust. No wonder, with their secret behind-closed-doors proceeding of the European Council and Council of Ministers, they brought less democracy and decision-making power to the people. By the same token, peoples – which is to say: nations – do not say “I am EU” but “I am English, French, German…” The national identity has not been erased by this supra-national monster.
To be fair, UN has been successful in one respect – we have prevented World War III and nuclear war. Knock on wood. However, it cannot “govern” as a supreme body overseeing a supranational entity consisting of the whole world. What we see in Europe as well as in the United States is longing for statehood and identity. It is that identity which had arisen from the Peace of Westphalia and given rise to independently competing nations. After all, we are only human and we want “to belong” to a nation, be a part of some clearly identified whole, not a potlach of cultures, an amalgam of races where no-one really knows who they are. I wonder, Mr. President Obama who do you cheer for as a “citizen of the world?” World peace? If so, you remind me of the innocent looking beauty queen pageant answering a well-rehearsed question: world peace and love everyone. Certainly. Have you ever thought about the fact that when you love everyone you love no-one? That is an old communist dilemma. I will let you sleep on it.
Thus, President Obama acts as if this world-wide supranational government existed as his creation, a matter-of-fact, as if he presided as a benevolent king over the imaginary “Concert of All Nations” who shall follow the wishes of His Royal Obamaness. First, his Iran Treaty is a “giveaway,” not a deal. For a deal, there must be give-and-take on both parts. Second, his approach to our immigration and national security shows that he is incapable of conceiving of statehood as nationhood – to him, statehood does not exist and nationhood has only one meaning: a part of the United Nations, which is yet another “giveaway,” for are we not financing majority of UN resolutions, actions, humanitarian and other support – without receiving anything of value in return? Next, like Chamberlain, he travels abroad as an apologetic messenger of peace, and war breaks out the moment he leaves. If you trust him, you shall be sorely disappointed – unless you are his golfing buddy.
Meanwhile, Iran is engaging in the bait-and-bleed strategy, letting US and Russia engage while watching and waiting. Kerry continues useless trips to Vienna and London (Jan. 13-15), meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. Saudis have cut ties with Iran, responding to the storming of its embassy in Tehran over Riyadh’s execution of a Shi’ite Muslim cleric. Saudis are in a similar situation we had been in in Lybia. As a result of Obama’s misunderstanding of what is going on, we have witnessed the birth of a new IRAN-IRAQ-RUSSIA (Shi’ite) coalition of “progressive” Muslims who want to kill us. Last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was seen on Iran’s state television threatening that “divine vengeance will befall Saudi politicians!”
Saudi Arabia represents a conservative Sunni monarchy. Thus, the divide between Suni and Shi’ite coalitions parallels our internal Democrat-Republican schism, which is probably why Obama sides with Shi’ites, although it threatens our very existence. Paradoxically, we are back to 9/11 and to President Bush’s statement: “You are either with us or against us.” Binary understanding is the modern Balance of Powers understanding. However, Obama wants to conciliate parties instead of building useful coalitions. The only way to prevent further turmoil is to establish permanent military bases in all countries around the world, renew the missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic, stay away from European Union’s internal politics, and build our national defense at home: borders, armies, militias. Empower citizens of the United States and weed out our enemies.
My foreign policy in the Middle East is as follows: support the Suni coalition so that Suni-Shi’ite powers are in balance. Otherwise, do not interfere. Further, definitely equip the Kurds, let them have a separate state if they can handle it; and, of course, give Israel everything they need to defend their nationhood (superior nuclear defense capability and fleet backing). We need to focus on building our civilization. We are a nation of builders. But the whole world must know that if someone steps in our way with malicious intent, they shall be destroyed. As General Patton said, take no prisoners. If there are any left, send them to hard labor – build for us! You know what that means, Mr. Obama – make Guantanamo a naval base with a missile defense system. ISIS is history. Iran will be too if they don’t stop calling us the Big Satan.