President Obama's Foreign Policy and Actions

Attached is an essay by one of my  associates on the subject of President Obama's foreign policy and actions. I have added my own comments in red at the end of each paragraph.

ACS

Unfortunately, we are enduring the dismal failure of Obama in both domestic and foreign affairs.  Domestic performance deficiency is obvious and may be the subject of a separate commentary.  This will trace the succession of his failures in foreign affairs.  It must start over eight years ago when Obama was elected senator.

No comment.

You may recall that, when he was present, he opposed most of the initiatives of George Bush after the attack of 9/11.  When Obama was elected president, his first move was to call for the closure of Guantanamo.  Even with total control of the Congress, he was unable  to accomplish this.

George Bush also had a poor foreign policy, but Pres. Obama has only made it worse. Calling for the closure of Guantanamo was ridiculous. Lack of Congressional approval for the closure was one of the few things that Congress has done right.

He had opposed our military intervention in Iraq which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the early, tenuous development of a representative government in Iraq.  It was the "wrong" war and Afghanistan was the "right" war.  As a result, he failed to get an agreement of forces for our continued military presence, and we left completely.  Kindly consider that this was the first abandonment since WW II.  We still maintain a military presence in Germany, Okinawa and South Korea.  As you have certainly noted, Iraq has fallen again into political chaos and is no longer an ally in the Middle East.

Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was correct. His approval of the war in Afghanistan was incorrect. There was no justification for either war. The US was not being attacked, nor was there an imminent threat of any kind. The only justification for either war was "nation building", which is not a justification. The US has no right to tell other peoples of the world how they should live. If the Iraqis didn't like Saddam Hussein, it was up to them to dispose of him, not the US. If we don't like opium production of Afghanistan because it negatively affects our society, wipe it out, but that doesn't need ground forces. Similarly, the Korean War and the Vietnamese War were also ridiculous. They were undertaken presumably on the basis of controlling the foreign expansion of communism. Sixty years later, we see that socialism/communism has failed in some societies through no direct intervention by the US. We also see that the US has developed an incipient socialistic-communistic society in its homeland.

After dithering for months, Obama increased our military presence in Afghanistan  However, he did not follow the recommendations of our military commanders and permitted only a more limited deployment.  He has now directed the full withdrawal from Afghanistan.  It is not difficult to forecast the outcome of this failure.  Military leaders try to win wars.  Obama treats them as political issues - to the detriment of our national security.

Obama is correct in trying to end the Afghanistan war. We have no basis of being there in the first place, as indicated above.

Along the way, with intelligence gained from prisoners at Guantanamo, Osama bin Laden was found and killed.  This led to Obama's proclamation that Al Qaeda had been defeated and was no longer a threat to our security.

Osama bin Laden was an active enemy of the United States and was justifiably killed. Pres. Obama and the US military deserve recognition for this accomplishment. However, the claim that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the United States is ridiculous. That threat is ongoing into eternity, because it is ideological, in the same way that internal socialism/communism are continuing threats to the economic well-being of the US.  

Then came Benghazi and the murder of four Americans.  Both Obama and Sec'y Clinton lied to us in claiming that the attack was a local response to some little known video critical of Islam.  At the time of their lies, they both knew that their statements were untrue.  Both finally had to admit that the attack on our consulate was organized and carried out by an Al Qaeda cell.  Obama's pledge to find the perpetrators was hollow and a cover-up continues.  Obviously, an open investigation would discredit his ridiculous claim that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat.

President Obama claimed to have Al Qaeda under control. When the Benghazi incident occurred, the combination of power and conviction to ideology led to the normal reaction of lying. Obama and Hillary Clinton fell into that trap. The conviction of ideology also led to negligence in supplying proper support for State Department employees in Benghazi, and the power aspect does not allow Pres. Obama to admit this, thus leading to continuing cover-up.

More important, State Department employees should not have been in Benghazi in the first place. Benghazi is a one-horse town in a country that is little more than an oasis. Other than a few dates from date palms, and a little oil, it has no significance to the US. In fact, all of North Africa has no significance to the US, except for Egypt, which controls the Suez Canal. Rommel's involvement in North Africa during World War II was only a prelude to eventually being able to occupy Egypt and take over the Canal. In the present time, Libya has only achieved significance because Obama has made it so. He decided to use it as an opportunity for another "nation building" operation, but it is failing, as do all attempts at nation building.

Now we are all watching the investigation of the bombing at the Boston Marathon.  Incredibly, in his first public statement, Obama called it a "tragedy" and later admitted that it was a terrorist attack.  This was the first such incident on American soil since 9/11.  It appears that the FBI is close to finding the perpetrators, and we shall soon know the details.  It is impossible for Obama to cover this up.

It is true that Obama had previously claimed that Al Qaeda had been neutralized, but at least after the Benghazi episode few persons actually believe that. It is likely that terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but has achieved more significance in modern times. There will always be those persons who object to something and are willing to take strong actions, such as attempts at personal assassinations or general population killing just to vent their spleen. Invasion by an organized foreign force will continue to be a possibility, for which reason we have a military. The newer aspect of terrorism, by individuals or small groups of either foreign or domestic origin, is a separate matter and is now recognized by the US as requiring attention. This is the basis for development of the Department of Homeland Security. Congress did a good job in establishing that Department. Unfortunately, it is administered by Pres. Obama and his team of which Director Napolitano is one of the most inept. I have previously called for her resignation.

To my knowledge, all of the statements above are supported by facts, but I would be glad to learn of any misstatements. It is a tragedy that our political leadership has failed abysmally.

Generally agreed.

 

CJ