Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

Barack Obama’s Silly Month: From Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove

Nicholas M. Guariglia - 8/27/2007

By the time President Reagan met his Soviet counterpart, he had already been eleven months into his second-term. Mikhail Gorbachev was the new Russian premier, and the first to hold talks with Reagan (the three previous Soviet leaders all passed away within the span of a few years). Washington and Moscow negotiated the conditions of the summit, set to take place in November 1985, for months. Anticipation for the conference was building since at least that May.

And yet by the time the two men sat face-to-face –– where Reagan began with “Let me tell you why it is we distrust you,” followed by a prolonged diatribe on Marxist-Leninism –– the United States was countering Soviet instrumentalities all over the globe. The administration replaced the Cold War policies of détente and containment –– the cui bono doctrines since Truman –– with the strategy of “rollback,” or a sustained effort to undermine and push back Soviet interference around the world.

Efforts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America –– from Angola, to Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, Cambodia, and elsewhere –– were dramatically enhanced. Either anticommunist insurrections received U.S. assistance, or anticommunist governments were the recipients of U.S. help in their counterinsurgencies against Soviet surrogates.

It was a far different era from the Carter presidency, and Gorbachev knew it. Gorbachev, to his own credit, was far different than any of his predecessors, and Reagan knew it, as well.

Who in the mid-1980s would have guessed that twenty years hence liberal Democrats would be using the Reagan presidency as a template for diplomacy? When Senator Obama referenced Reagan-Soviet dialogue –– in order to defend his promise to meet, unconditionally, with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela –– he forgot to put it in this context. He also failed to explain the political intricacies of the previous bipolar paradigm, where our Russian rivals were ruthless and had thousands of warheads aimed our way, yes, but were at least sane and sober, loving life more than hating us. With Khomeinist apocolypticists this, sadly, is not so.

How low must one’s view of the Oval Office be if one proffers unrestricted access to it for the likes of Kim Jong Il? One of the more bizarre moments in American diplomatic history was watching Madeleine Albright travel to North Korea and clank champagne glasses with the little pigmy of Pyongyang, the famine-coordinator himself. Zen-like, Obama is trying to out-philosophize us, asserting such weakness is strength, whereas strength is truly weakness. That’s more wax on-wax off than the electorate can handle. Save it for Danielson, Miyagi.

But the nonsensicality only begins there. It is safe to say the upbeat novice, who has garnered credentials for being “well-spoken,” spoke not so well this past month. Messr. Barack could only ride the unexplainable teenie-bop lust for so long, as he now attempts to offset his compiling gaffes with an invocation of the blunt, Reagan image. Spare us.

Obama’s cheap populism rivals that of John Edwards, and his pandering is, thus far in the campaign, without precedent –– a hard feat when Hillary Clinton’s hanging around. It is a journalistic disservice that the press has allowed itself to be awed by the “articulateness” of this unimpressive neophyte. There are more than a few inconsistencies in his previous statements, some of which I take issue with, and others which would be sure to prompt questions from a moderate observer, or at least a curious child…

He has vowed to “stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar,” and at the same time deplores U.S. actions in Afghanistan, scolding, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians…”

While most serving in the Afghan theater would probably take issue with his characterization of their efforts –– “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” –– nevertheless, his promise to stay on the offense across the subcontinent raises a few queries. Would a President Obama send in forces to invade, say, Somalia? What does he think we are doing in Djibouti, anyway? And why would this regional “offensive” exclude the Iraqi war zone?

He states of Iraq, “We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield.” How does he respond to statements from Mr. bin Laden and Dr. al Zawahiri who swear up and down Iraq is the central battlefield in their jihad? Regardless of Iraqi state sponsorship of terrorism prewar (a separate debate which he would lose if debated by a quasi-eloquent equal), is Obama really implying that Iraq has not devolved into a whirlpool of terrorism? He explains, “The threat of terrorism has actually increased and we’ve seen a massive spike in terrorist activity, in part because we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and were distracted by a war of choice in Iraq.”

How can he simultaneously hold the two positions, that A) Iraq has nothing to do with the larger terror war and B) the war has made terrorist violence worse? He cites chaos in Iraq and contends we should leave –– too heavy a burden and the “wrong battlefield” to boot –– but because it is “getting worse” in Afghanistan, we should redeploy and send in more troops to control the spike in violence. Is this not incompatible logic? This is “I Want to Be President” for “One war is popular, the other is not, I’ll support the former, oppose the latter.”

He doesn’t talk about what he has done. He hasn’t done much of anything. He only talks about what he hasn’t done, namely, not voting to authorize the collapse of the most deviant psychopathic crime family in Arab history (I know there are many who do not take delight and comfort in the fact that Uday, Qusay, and Pops sleep with the fishes, but I can say that I do).

We know quite well how other Democrats feel about the current state of affairs in Iraq. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war “lost” months ago. He now ridicules General Petraeus –– possibly our most talented commander –– as aloof and out of touch. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., recently walked out of a military testimony, whining there was “only so much that you could take,” alluding to General Keane’s ongoing optimistic review of the troop surge in Iraq. The good news was too much to handle. And when Rep. James Clyburn, D.-S.C., warned that there might be “a real problem for us,” the “problem” he fretted was General Petraeus giving a positive war report to Congress next month, the “us” being Democratic politicians seeking reelection.

Even as it has become empirical that violence in Iraq is significantly down, and the new counterinsurgency playbook is working, Obama continues to be an activist of capitulation. He now quotes nervous Republicans, in a sad attempt to seek “bipartisan legitimacy,” who claim all is going downhill in Iraq. But one must wonder if Obama will routinely passage Petraeus during campaign fundraisers after the September war report? It is a sham that some tarnish the reputation and good name of John F. Kennedy, by forwarding bogus analogies to the rookie from Chicago, with obscure allusions to “optimism.” Obama’s wartime resignation is pitiable. He’s invested in defeat more than any other candidate.

It’s nauseating, not inspiring.

Lest you get the impression the uppity politician is a novice, a do-gooder’s do-gooder, the fella’ wants the world to know he’s just chomping at the bits to attack Pakistan. It was this seesaw mood swing, conceivably instigated by a chemical imbalance, which promoted Mitt Romney (unimpressive in his own right) to quip Obama went “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove” in a matter of weeks. But not only is Obama giddy on invading a sovereign nuclear state, and an irreplaceable ally nonetheless, but during his backpedaling he also promised never to use nuclear weapons against the terrorists on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

So he would invade Pakistan and never use nukes (let’s not get crazy, here). Is the White House aspirant aware that nobody is asking him to do either? Even if Obama held these beliefs, which I assume he does, does he not have the savvy or intelligence to comprehend that a presidential candidate’s words matter –– and a responsible person would not spew vulgarities which could destabilize a Muslim state teetering on the brink of mutiny, one heart beat away from becoming a nuclear al Qaidist theocracy, while simultaneously blabbering away our nuclear deterrent in the event this occurs? The new kid on the block clearly hasn’t thought it through.

Maybe Oprah as bankroller can sanction Obama’s idiosyncrasies? He wants to “keep the world’s deadliest weapons out of the world’s most dangerous hands” and create “stronger alliances.” One wonders if he’s ever even heard of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which does precisely that. (The PSI was constituted just four years ago, before Obama was elected.) He goes on, affirming that we need “a stronger push to defeat the terrorists’ message of hate with an agenda for hope around the world.” Now he’s just plagiarizing text straight out of Bush’s National Security Strategy.

The discrepancy and amorality continues. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence,” Obama admits. Yet isn’t an up-tick in bloodshed the casus belli for his appeal to send more brigades to Afghanistan? And what were to happen in Iraq if, after President Obama withdraws, the “increased bloodshed” reached genocidal proportions? “Well, look,” he cavalierly sermonizes, “if that’s the criteria (genocide) by which we are making decisions… then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now.” Apparently his professed humanitarianism halts at the Iraqi populace. That’s the bad war, you see. He can’t get over original sin.

The Sunni tribesmen in Anbar who have only now joined the Marines to confront al Qaida would probably sideline their enthusiasm if they were to discover the next U.S. leader is apt to leave their tribes and families to the whims of the jihadists, again. And what does he say to this? He renders, “protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate.” Cliché. Blasé. Blah.

Obama’s is the candidacy of platitudes. He believes in the power of his personality and persuasion disproportionately more to the skepticism of intentions he shows for the world’s crudest tyrants. He says of bin Laden, “The first thing I’d so is support his capture.” How maverick! Is that really what you would do, Senator –– “support” bin Laden’s capture? Fantastic strategy. And what happens when Obama catches Osama? “I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process,” to assuage the unease of worried Europeans. After all, his top foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, declares we are “neither the shining example, nor even competent meddlers” in international affairs.

Perhaps she’ll be Secretary of State?