Friday, October 2, 2009

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom...

A scathing Krauthammer article on Obama's miserable foreign policy, and I must sadly agree with Krauthammer. It's amazing how, after months of criticizing Bush's foreign policy, Obama has settled comfortably into continuing that which he thought was wrong. His war policy is a copy of Bush's. And despite all his talk of change here at home, he continues to support friendly dictators, like Egypt.

Where Obama has changed our foreign policy, it's been for the worse. His new policies can be summed up as "sacrificial appeasement": we must sacrifice those who should be our friends, in the hopes of making peace with our enemies.

- We sacrifice Israel to appease the Arabs.
- We sacrifice the Iranian protestors to appease the Ayatollahs.
- We sacrifice Honduras to appease Chavez.
- We sacrifice the Sudanese refugees to appease the Sudanese government/the Arab League.
- We sacrifice the Cuban protestors/exiles in order to appease Fidel/Raul & Co.
- And finally: we sacrifice our Polish/Czech allies to appease the Russians.

It all makes sense when you see it through Obama's looking glass. It's sad he doesn't realize that "sacrificial appeasement" will simply leave us with fewer friends and bolder enemies. It's even sadder when our own allies have taken notice, but Obama has not.


  1. Wow, talk about coming in with all guns blazing! Do you have a link to the Krauthammer article? I would agree there have been rumblings and dissenting opinions from some rather unlikely corners. It's quite something when a French president, of all people, has reportedly referred to Obama as being egotistical and naive, and worried about what this means for American foreign policy. Last night, career diplomat Lawrence Eagleberger was talking on TV about how in his opinion the Obama Administration has been about too much high minded talk and too little making the tough calls that leadership implies. At one point he suggested the administration should "shut up" and decide what it is it really wants to do and then to proceed to do it. In general, I think it's still early to tell what this administration will do and the kind of recriminating rhetoric you use is a little hyperbolic at this stage, more a concern about direction than any significant visible consequences, as of yet. One of those tough decisions is coming up, though. What to do about Afghanistan? Yesterday's resounding loss of the Olympic bid for his hometown of Chicago, I believe the first one in which a U.S. president becomes personally involved, and much criticised by the opposition given more serious pressing matters, is a humiliating if, symbolic defeat. It would seem to suggest limits for the Obama shine and its world appeal.

  2. The title of the post is a hyperlink to the article. Enjoy!

    You know there's a big on ideals/short on substance problem to this administration, when even SNL jokes that we really can't criticize Obama, 'cause after nearly a year in office, he's done nothing! :-D

    Afghanistan will be a serious, perhaps make-or-break, test for this Administration. It worries to see how, after announcing back in March a "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan," and placing a hand-picked general in charge, Obama now finds himself lost as to which direction to take. More worrisome is his apparent irritation at McChrystal's extra troop request. Will he reject his own general's recommendation?

    When faced with an unpopular war in Iraq, Bush made the hard, unpopular decision to commit more troops. That decision was key to improving our chances of success. Will Obama have the resolve to do the same?

    Obama is now realizing how much harder it is to play President than it was to play Candidate.