Obama: Guru or Gump? Part III

My final words, you will be glad to hear, on the subject of  President Obama's foreign policy as defined by Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic.  What struck me was the overwhelming concentration on Middle East affairs with only a brief mention of Sino-American tensions.  Of course, this might be more to do with Mr. Goldberg's priorities than the President's. Whatever, in my opinion China and its satrap, North Korea, are far and away the most crucial area in foreign affairs today - and tomorrow and for decades into the future.  It's impossible to deny that China is now a huge, and growing, world power.  Like all such powers throughout history, having built the muscles, it wishes to flex them and restraining them from doing so too enthusiastically is going to be the Devil's own job.

The first test is going to be in the South China Sea and I was glad to see that Obama, despite his shrewd mistrust of his military hierarchy, authorised USN ships to sail though waters claimed, entirely spuriously, by the Chinese as their territorial waters.  It was also good to read in Mr. Goldberg's article that the Obama administration was making great efforts to weave together as many of China's neighbours as it can to resist Chinese ambitions.  If ever there was a problem that is going to test the next POTUS to the extremes it is going to be relations with China.  It is going to take great intellectual ability and intelligence, some considerable courage and a lot of luck!  Given the two front-runners for next year's presidency all I can say is good luck with that one!

Of course, fascinating though Mr. Goldberg's article was, the fact is that we will only be able to offer a preliminary judgment on President Obama in about 25 years.  For a final assessment we will need to wait for the historians at the end of the century, to which I can only echo my old Jewish accountant, I should live so long, my life already!

ADDITIONAL:   No sooner had I written the waffle above than I turned to 'The Kraut' whose latest essay is at The Telegraph.  In it, he sums up the foreign policy attitudes of the four presidential front-runners.  Read it - and start digging your shelters now!

Comments

[Whyaxye]

"What struck me was the overwhelming concentration on Middle East affairs with only a brief mention of Sino-American tensions. Of course, this might be more to do with Mr. Goldberg's priorities than the President's"

I'm sure you are right, as Goldberg says that's where Obama would prefer to focus his efforts, along with South America and other developing countries. Problem is, the Middle East does pose a huge existential threat to European values in a way that China does not, as yet. Obama therefore comes across in this piece as a rather vain and hopeful man who would rather start something beneficial and constructive than do the same old necessary and shitty tasks which have hitherto defined the job for his predecessors.

The scale of the role is just staggering. Russia, as ever, needs keeping an eye on. The Middle East needs sorting. Europe needs to be kept sweet. On top of these "traditional" aspects, Obama wants (and in the case of China, must) take on more. Poot old America. The bigger, more powerful, and more gifted you are, the harder you have to work. And as you say, looking at the main candidates, the next few years are not going to be comfortable.

[Antisthenes]

If we equate the USA with the Roman empire we see that it was not other empires that brought it down but their own incompetent corrupt government and barbarians. The US has incompetence and corruption in abundance in Obama and waiting in the wings are others like him who wish to replace him. As for barbarians those are in abundance as well in the form of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and Muslim terrorists.

The West has it's hands full as the USA's client states(that includes European ones) all have the same problems. The USA has already partially withdrawn military support from Europe and is backed into a corner by Russia and China. Is unable to contain internal threats as is Europe to it's security because of the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa which is driving invasion size force migrants to both places either for sanctuary or to feed on their wealth. Although the both are synonymous. Dealing with the terrorist threat is proving next to impossible because like a hydra if you chop one head off two more pop up somewhere else.

So who will bring us down first the barbarians or an evil empire? Probably the barbarians as they are already here and growing in numbers. After which the evil empires will step in and pick up the pieces.

[Michael Adams]

Usually, I ridicule successive administrations' obsession with protecting the Muslims in our midst from a "Backlash" when someone among their bolder co-religionists commits its latest outrage. However, while I do not support mob violence in any way, the plain numerical fact is that now, and for the foreseeable future, a hundred and fifty million armed and dangerous Americans could handle the Muslims among us, in an afternoon. Really, now, the only strength the Muslims have is restraining governments in the West. It seems that they believe that there is no limit to how far they can push us. I strongly suspect that, ultimately, they are wrong. It is not at all pleasant to contemplate, but that reality is there, and not well hidden.

In Great Britain, the arms may not be there, and the will may be soft, but it was British police who allowed the Rotherham rotters to side-step the course of rude justice.

It just seems inevitable that one of these days, they will push one step too far.

[Whitewall]

An excellent post Michael Adams. I don't look forward to the next four years with the current line up of Presidential wanna bees. I think maybe the worst thing the West ever did was win the Cold War. Add to that the talent drop off when the generations changed from the WW2 generation to the baby boomer generation. Bush 1 to Clinton 1--and only I hope. The lack of talent in the White House makes dealing with Communist--never forget that--China.

At home, you are right about the number of armed citizens. There is a reason for it, and a necessity. The numbers are rising for good logical reasons. We don't have so many Muslims that they can't be dealt with, but I see little need for worry here as our culture is designed to assimilate and Muslims have done so pretty well. Some won't but good police and FBI work has been pretty well done with only an occasional failure.

Our lingering threat is what it has always been since 1789--Leftism. It is the genetic defect that comes along with democracy. It was Leftism at home as well as throughout the West that was the co-enemy along with Communism. Today Leftism is more powerful as it has infested every institution of Western Civilization. It is now the ally and enabler of Islam. This alliance has nearly killed Europe and it intends to continue until the Left is consumed by Islam as a reward.

We in America are armed against the ravages and consequences of Leftism. History and current events prove the need to be.

[jimmy glesga]

Whitewall, excellent piece as was Michael Adams previously. Here in Britain we totally depend on good intelligence and the forces of law and order. When the aforementioned fail we the citizen have no personal weapons to defend ourselves. The funadamentalists can just run amock at their leisure knowing we are unarmed.

[Whitewall]

Jimmy I've been watching Britain. It appears too much of national government as well as local government considers native Brits to be more a threat than run amuck Islamists. This is intolerable. What will the authorities do later, hand over the "Danegeld"? Something will happen and the civilian population will explode in rage and hopefully seize all government by the throat. When it happens, tell the MF'ers "enough"!