What a president is able to accomplish, or fails to accomplish, domestically, here at home, is obviously important. How is the economy performing? What’s the level of unemployment? Is the federal bureaucracy functioning semi-efficiently, and within the bounds of the law? All very important.
But just as important, in many ways even more so, is how well a president has handled U.S. foreign policy. Because oftentimes this can literally mean the difference between war and peace, between life and death. And in this area, in my view, President Obama’s record has been abysmal. And nowhere is this becoming more evident than in the Middle East.
Let’s start with Syria. Virtually everyone agrees that we should not have U.S. boots on the ground there, and we don’t. So far so good. A credible case can be made on either side as to whether or not the United States should have assisted in arming the anti-Assad rebels. The principle argument against sending in arms was that they could possibly end up in the wrong hands, and be used against the U.S. or our allies. On the other hand, failing to aid the insurgent forces has allowed Iran, Russia, al Qaeda, and Hezbollah to become the predominant powers in Syria, and potentially throughout the region. And Obama’s 11th hour decision to supply anti-Assad insurgents with small arms is probably too little, too late.
Dawdling, indecisiveness, and declaring red lines over the use of chemical weapons one day, and then ignoring them when they were crossed by Assad’s murderous thugs has caused the U.S. to lose credibility in the region. Our enemies will not fear us as much, and our friends won’t trust us as much. Both are dangerous to the United States.
Shifting now to Iraq. If there was ever an example of seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s Obama’s bungling of Iraq. At the cost of considerable blood and treasure, America prevailed in Iraq. A bloody despot was overthrown, the Sunni-Shia civil war was suppressed, and the U.S. had an opportunity, won at considerable cost, to secure a key ally, right next door to our principal rival in the region, Iran.
And what did Obama do? He threw it all away. He pulled all U.S troops out, despite the fact that our intention had always been to secure our gains and our influence in the region by maintaining a small residual force in Iraq. Now without that stabilizing U.S. force, the country is coming apart at the seams; civil war which could spread throughout the region seems likely; and Iran’s influence in Iraq is growing by the hour. Iran for example flies brazenly over Iraqi airspace to rearm and resupply Assad forces in Syria. And since we have virtually no influence in Iraq after out pullout, we can do nothing about it.
And finally, the President’s ideas relative to reducing our stock of nuclear weapons is naïve, reckless, and dangerous. President Obama has been pleading with Russia to further reduce both nations’ arsenal of nuclear weapons. Since Russia hasn’t been particular receptive, Obama has hinted that he may UNILATERALLY reduce U.S. nuclear capabilities, even if the Russians won’t reduce theirs. Utter stupidity.
One reason for Russia’s refusal to further reduce their stock of nuclear weapons is the rapid rise of the Chinese nuclear program. North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is likely to have them soon, further complicate matters.
Under no circumstances should the United States be weakening our nuclear capabilities, unless it is verifiably clear that Russia and China are comparably reducing theirs; and that other rogue nuclear states are under control (Iran and North Korea.)
The fact that President Obama would even consider unilaterally weakening U.S. nuclear capabilities is alarming, but really shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s but the latest in a long line of foreign policy missteps by this President.
Post Script: As I am posting this week’s blog, the Supreme Court has just announced its decision on same sex marriage. Elections have consequences.
