Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Barack Obama

Why Obama Wants Democrats to Lose in November

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:18:03 +0000

One word: re-election. I know it sounds ridiculous and unbelievable to some, but President Obama does not want the Democrats to retain the House or Senate this November. It all comes down to his bid for re-election in 2012. Quite simply: Obama wants to run against a Republican Congress in 2012. He needs to be able to point at someone else and blame them for his shortcomings as a leader. Right now, he can’t do that. If he points across the street to Capitol Hill he’s pointing directly at his Democratic brethren in the House and Senate. Think about Bill Clinton in 1996, he had Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to demonize. Obama needs an enemy–although he’s still trying to blame his sorry lot on George W. Bush, rather than his anti-growth, anti-business, redistributive economic policies.

While I think the GOP will succeed in taking back the House this November, capturing the Senate is a bit more challenging. Thinking strategically about 2012, it would not be the end of the world if we were unable to take back the Senate this November–as long as we have the majority in the House. Controlling the House will enable a significant check on Obama’s power. What we need in the Senate is enough votes to filibuster another Supreme Court nominee. If confirmed, Kagan will not shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Obama’s next pick will, however–hence we need enough votes for a filibuster. That’s what this upcoming election is about: putting the brakes on Obama’s policies. 2012 is about making sure Barack Obama is a one-term president. We need a president who loves this country unconditionally and who believes that the U.S. Constitution is more than a dated piece of paper.

Obama, White House officials: al Qaeda a ‘racist’ organization–really, ya think?!

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:12:06 +0000

Al Qaeda–racist? Really? Apparently, the Obama administration has just now reached this conclusion, nearly nine years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ”In short,” one administration official explained, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” Yes, al Qaeda does not value human life. And yes, it is happy to treaty people like cannon fodder. My question is: what are people doing in the administration who are just now realizing the truly despicable nature of this organization? Should they really be serving in important national security positions? Rarely do I find myself speechless but this is one of those times.

For the Obama Administration, the Rule of Law is Malleable (Very Malleable)

Tom Skypek — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:15:10 +0000

The Obama administration is going to sue Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law but they won’t prosecute these guys for voter intimidation? Really? It’s decisions like these that tell you everything you need to know about this administration and how they view the rule of law.

Romney on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:36:40 +0000

It’s hard to pick President Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake. As far as I’m concerned, his general conduct of American foreign policy has been subpar and a bit too Carteresque. According to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the New START Treaty is a leading candidate for this administration’s worst foreign policy mistake. In an op-ed in yesterday’s WaPo, Romney presented a very clear argument in opposition to the New START Treaty. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that the treaty, in its current state, should not be ratified by the United States Senate. Romney argues, “He [Obama] acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.” I have no problem giving something up to receive something in return–that’s how negotiations work. But it’s unclear to me what exactly we are receiving in return.

Entering into treaties is serious business because it reduces our sovereignty. How does this treaty advance the national interest? That is the question I would need answered, if I were voting on this in the Senate. Flowery language about “Global Zero” and nuclear disarmament would not suffice. To use an Obama phrase, let me be clear: I think a productive relationship with the Russian Federation could be a strategic asset in the coming decades, especially with the rise of China now upon us. However, a productive working relationship must be built on mutual trust and respect. This treaty is simply too one-sided to create the foundation for a stronger relationship with Moscow.

For an opposing view, check out Pavel Podvig’s response.

Breaking News: Obama Accepts McChrystal’s Resignation, Petraeus Named as Replacement

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:45:15 +0000

It’s not too surprising that this is how it ended up. Obama, who is already perceived as a weak and indecisive leader by many, would have lost pretty much all credibility as a serious leader had he not relieved McChrystal. Gen. David Petraeus is currently the Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and oversees the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. So this is a bit of a peculiar arrangement.

A friend just e-mailed me with the following comment, “one 2012 rival out of the way…”

Eliot Cohen on Why McChrystal Needs to Go

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:54:22 +0000

A great piece by Eliot Cohen on the McChrystal-Rolling Stone episode.

The president has not spoken publicly about Afghanistan in any serious way since December, and one wonders whether he has the nerve to act, in respect to Gen. McChrystal, like a serious commander in chief. If he leaves a wounded—and therefore more malleable—commander in place, he will have shown a calamitous weakness masquerading as political cleverness.

For the rest of us, there is a lesson about re-establishing fundamental norms of civilian-military relations. For years both political parties have used generals as props. Democrats cheered when disgruntled generals snarled at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Republicans, to their equal discredit, played up military disquiet with President Bill Clinton and may do so again in this case.

In wartime, generals become public heroes. In some cases—in Stanley McChrystal’s—they really may be heroes. But that does not change the fundamental imperative of maintaining order and discipline. And if doing so means relieving a hero of command, so be it.

I’d recommend that you read this piece in its entirety. Cohen echoes several of the points that I made yesterday regarding civil-military relations in this country. He does a great job of putting this particular incident into the proper context–that this entire episode is really just an extension of the Obama’s administration’s mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal Tests Civil-Military Relations

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:11:40 +0000

From Politico:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly rebuked Gen. Stanley McChrystal Tuesday, saying in a statement that the top commander in Afghanistan had “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment” in the biting remarks he and his aides made in a Rolling Stone article about President Barack Obama and others in the administration.

The statement from Gates followed news that McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has been summoned to the White House to explain the comments published in a Rolling Stone article.

President Barack Obama has to relieve Gen. McChrystal of his command. I don’t really see how this ends any other way. I guess McChrystal could tender his resignation, but even that would be a slap in the face to the Office of the President. If McChrystal did not have faith in his civilian leadership, he should have resigned. Civilian control of the military is one of the pillars of this Republic. To disrespect the commander-in-chief in such a blatant manner is an affront to the Office of the President and borders on insubordination.

There is clearly a perception within the U.S. military–in the officer corps and among the enlisted ranks–that this president is a weak commander-in-chief (which, I believe, is justified). He won the Democratic nomination by campaigning that he would have the U.S. out of Iraq within 16 months of being elected, remember? He doesn’t believe that the U.S. is at war with Islamic extremism and his conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been amateur, at best. Further, his decision to place additional stress on the force by repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” while fighting two wars is more than problematic. Still, he is the president. If he does not fire Gen. McChrystal, Obama will only reinforce the perception that he is a weak and indecisive leader.

According to Byron York, “…the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces.” York makes a good point here, but the general is merely an accomplice to a failed policy. In enforcing these restrictive rules of engagement, McChrystal is following the guidance passed down by the Obama White House. These rules of engagement put U.S. troops at risk. You can’t win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Here’s an excerpt from the article.

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”

It is odd that a four-star general would give such access to a media outlet. Even if some of the comments were “off the record,” it is peculiar that he would trust a journalist from Rolling Stone, or any media outlet for that matter. Maybe this was an elaborate plan to force a confrontation with the White House. I don’t know. Regardless, it puts the president in a tough spot. While the first order impact of this article is the McChrystal fallout, I hope it shines renewed light on the overall mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan and how the current rules of engagement are putting American lives at risk. If that’s how this White House wants to prosecute this war, then we shouldn’t be there.

I agree with most of what McChrystal and his staff said in the article, but I’m not a general officer in the United States Army currently running a war. I’m a private citizen and there’s a big difference. I’m not part of the chain of command. The bottom line is that if he disagreed with Obama’s policies he should have resigned. Making these comments while in uniform was not the way to go. Do you think this whole episode will help or hinder morale? If you were on the ground in Afghanistan and you found out that your commanding general thinks the president is a dolt and bungling the war–how are you doing going to react? The efficacy of any military organization depends largely on strict adherence to the chain of command. Some pundits will relish this episode as an example of Obama’s poor leadership and disconnect from the military (I don’t think this would be happening if it were President McCain). But I believe this issue is bigger than Obama or McChrystal. It really has to do with the Office of the President, the Constitution, and how we think about civil-military relations in this country.

Foreign Policy Amateur

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:25:03 +0000

The Obama administration’s inept management of U.S. foreign policy is finally becoming apparent, even to Democrats like Mort Zuckerman. Zuckerman writes,

The reviews of Obama’s performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America’s role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world’s leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America’s foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one’s own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the “special relationship” with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama’s visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president’s poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama’s lack of credibility as a competent leader limits our bargaining power abroad and invites provocations by our adversaries, who perceive Obama as a weak and indecisive leader. This administration has fallen short in both style and substance. There’s something wrong when you treat your adversaries better than your friends and allies.

Two Things the President Shouldn’t Do Tonight

Tom Skypek — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:28:38 +0000

I don’t anticipate that the White House will take my advice, but here’s two things President Obama shouldn’t do tonight in his address to the nation.

Blame BP and Big Oil. Good leaders focus 80% of their time on the solution and 20% on the problem. People want to hear about solutions tonight. They want to hear that the government has relaxed the necessary regulations to ensure a speedier cleanup and resolution to the problem. Blaming BP and Big Oil will score the president points with the Sierra Club crowd, but that’s about it. No one wants to hear excuses or listen to the president of the United States point fingers–just what he’s doing to address the problem.
Push a new cap and tax bill. The economy is in rough shape. The economy is still the number one issue on the minds of most Americans–not climate change. Using this forum to push a fringe bill that only liberal Washington elitists care about is a mistake. The president has proven to be politically tone deaf on more than one occasion. Trying to push a new energy tax bill is not the way to go. It’s bad policy and it’s certainly bad politics.

Now, having said that I will be very surprised if the president doesn’t make these points multiple times throughout his speech.

Five Options for Dealing with Iran

Tom Skypek — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:19:03 +0000

It appears to be just a matter of time before Iran possesses an operational nuclear weapons capability. While the United Nations Security Council recently passed its fourth round of sanctions against Iran, if history is any guide, it is unlikely that this sanctions package will be any more effective than the previous three. Each of these sanctions packages have failed to achieve their stated objective of stopping Iran’s production of nuclear fuel. The options for stopping Iran are dwindling–as is time. There are, in fact, no attractive options for U.S. policymakers. These include: (1) accept a nuclear-armed Iran, (2) continue with sanctions, (3) support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, (4) launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, and (5) facilitate regime change. As I said, not one of these options is attractive. In every case, the risks outweigh the benefits. Liberals believe that, in the end, diplomacy will work. Some conservatives believe that only military force will stop Iran, and while they are probably correct, the costs and risks associated with military action are extraordinarily high.

Accept a nuclear-armed Iran. This course of action is obviously not desirable for Washington, as long as the current regime is in power. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would alter the regional military balance in a fundamental way. Iran would stand to become the dominant military power in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would enjoy greater bargaining power diplomatically and largely insulate itself from a conventional military strike (in much the same way North Korea has done by credibly demonstrating its nuclear capability). Iran’s ability to coerce its neighbors and other actors will increase dramatically. While Iran does not yet possess a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, it working toward building such a capability. This means that Iran will be able to hold targets in the United States at risk. This will make the United States susceptible to nuclear blackmail (again, see North Korea, for an example). The assumption here is that Iran can be deterred from using its weapons–that its fear of massive retaliation by Washington would prevent their use. Of course, this is a big assumption.

Continue with sanctions. It is highly unlikely that sanctions will prevent Iran from going nuclear. This latest round of sanctions is the fourth attempt. The fact of the matter is that Iran sees nuclear power as a “right” and matter of national pride. The regime will stop at nothing to build an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions will only slow the process. In the end, sanctions will not work. As a policymaker, you can’t just stand around while Iran goes nuclear. Pushing sanctions is a way of delaying the inevitable.

Support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Secretly, this is what every Sunni nation in the Middle East is hoping for. Saudi Arabia is even prepared to temporarily de-alert its air defense system, in the event of an Isareli strike against Iran. However, these countries would never admit in a public forum that they support military action against Iran. There are several challenges associated with a military strike. In 1981, Israel used air strikes to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak. But Iran’s nuclear weapons complex has many more potential targets which are hardened and dispersed. A “surgical” air strike, if successful, might destroy a couple of the facilities but would not destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons complex outright. A more robust air campaign could potentially achieve that objective but with significant risks–namely conflict escalation. Iran will not sit idly by as Israel drops ordnance on its nuclear facilities. Iran has a capable air defense system that includes advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The SAM threat will pose a significant risk to combat aircraft. Iran could also decide to launch ballistic missile strikes against Israel, or U.S. forces based in the region. Iran could also fully activate its terrorist network to launch attacks against Israeli and U.S. forces in the region. This counterattack would carry with it significant escalation risks for Iran, however, and would draw the United States into the conflict. Iran is also investing in anti-access/area-denial capabilities such as ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, small high-speed coastal combatants,and advanced anti-ship mines, according to Andrew Krepinevich at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The big risk with any military action is the risk of escalation. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which a limited air strike devolves into a much broader regional conflict. If Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington would have no choice but to respond militarily.

Launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Again, the risk of conflict escalation is significant. Jamie Fly and William Kristol argue that this is not the case–that Iran would not seek to escalate the conflict since what the leadership in Tehran ultimately values is power and an attack on U.S. forces would likely result in “regime decapitation.” While this line of reasoning makes perfect sense, it is a major assumption and the type of assumption that statesmen have gotten wrong on more than one occasion throughout history–and with disastrous consequences. The United States could deliver a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear program using air strikes. However, even with perfect intelligence (which just wouldn’t happen), the United States would probably not be able to destroy Iran’s program outright. Further, if Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington policymakers would have to respond militarily. The problem is that the force is already under considerable stress from fighting the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and 2003, respectively. Fly and Kristol conclude, “Despite our global commitments and our engagement in two ongoing wars, the U.S. military is fully able to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the success of President Bush’s 2007 surge of forces into Iraq and of President Obama’s sending additional resources to Afghanistan means we are on better footing to deal with Iran’s nuclear program than we were a few years ago.” While there are already U.S. forces in theater that could be re-deployed if necessary, it is unclear to me the scope of the “mission” to which Fly and Kristol are referring: are they talking about a massive ground campaign? Surgical air strikes augmented with special operations forces? Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have placed stress on the force and have impacted the readiness of the U.S. military. This has to be a major planning consideration for anyone thinking about the use of force.

Facilitate regime change. If we woke up tomorrow and Iran was a pro-Western, pro-U.S. democracy, that would problem resolve this standoff. At that point, we probably wouldn’t care if they had civilian nuclear power program because we’d trust them to submit to a rigorous inspection regime. However, it doesn’t look like an organic, domestic revolution will occur in the near-term, despite calls by some senior policymakers to provide substantive support to the Iranian resistance–a course of action the Obama administration declined to adopt during last year’s unrest. Further, the costs associated with facilitating a regime change through military force are unacceptably high and such an operation shouldn’t even be considered because, quite simply, that is not the role of the United States military.

Not one of these options offers a low-risk approach for U.S. policymakers. While sanctions are a low-cost approach in the near-term, they will most likely be ineffective and will ultimately result in a nuclear-armed Iran. Conversely, while a military operation could halt the program for a period of time, the risks of escalation are considerable–even for a “surgical” air strike. If I had to wager, I would bet that the Obama administration will continue with the sanctions approach. However, this approach is, unfortunately, doomed to fail. It may very well be that Iran goes nuclear under President Barack Obama’s watch.