The attacks, then, will likely not degrade or deter anything really; they will be offered up only as a safety net to catch the falling reputation of the President as it drops toward the nether regions of strategic oblivion.Our "foreign policy" in a nutshell: leading from the nether regions.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Quote of the Day: Syria and "Strategic Oblivion"
Grrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeat:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is what I need to hear from President Obama or something to the same effect:
'President Bush was right and I was wrong. I'm sorry. And I'm here today - humbly - to ask for the support of my fellow Americans to help me fix the damage I've caused.'
Then I could take him seriously.
Won't ever happen, but that's what it'll take.
I know, right?
Have you seen this?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100233454/barack-obama-is-proving-an-embarrassing-amateur-on-the-world-stage-compared-to-george-w-bush/
The thing that really ties the point together, which Gardner doesn't go into, is the direct comparison that Bush's foreign policy was thematically liberal. Ostensibly, Obama and the Democrats also pursue a liberal foreign policy.
But whereas post-9/11 Bush focused on consequence and effect in achieving American liberal foreign policy goals, with the real costs and political risks that entailed, the Democrats only give lip service to the liberal foreign policy and skirt the real costs and political risks an actually effective foreign policy would require.
The Democrats will accept failure of US foreign policy, with whatever real-world consequences that result in the world, as long as the domestic political effect is contained.
The Democrats' primary focus is always shoring up their relative domestic political position, whereas Bush sacrificed his domestic political position to do his job.
Never has that been more infuriatingly obvious than right now.
Post a Comment