Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

Obama’s foreign policy is on target

See also

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy is spot on in the case of Israel and Russia. U.S. troops should only be called on to protect American interests. Defending Ukraine or Gaza are not in the best interests of the United States.

More Photos

Does that mean shooting down civilian airliners is acceptable? No. Does that mean invading a country is right? No. Does that mean targeting civilians for mass destruction is right? No. But the United States has done it anyway, so how can America tell others not to?

The airliner shot down in Ukraine was Malaysian loaded with Dutch citizens; the countries are in Asia and Europe. Terrorists started this round of fighting in Gaza and hide behind the innocent. Let Israel defend itself or the Gazans take control of their enemies from within.

In spite of what the media and neo-conservatives want us to believe, the Cold War really is over. Attempting to be the world’s super power bankrupted the United States to the tune of $17.6 trillion and growing. The U.S. military cannot fight throughout the world. Oddly, the same chicken-hawk war mongers who want to try will not write a bill for a draft.

The president understands America has no manifest destiny. Obama inherited a $10 billion debt from the Bush administration. In addition, the president had to wrestle with Bush blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. should have recognized his father’s wisdom in leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Instead, he lied and they died. Obama made the same mistake in Libya, but he is learning.

Wise words

“In acknowledgment of the world’s complexities and its own economic struggles and post-Iraq uncertainties, the United States is today obligated to follow the dictum of the physician: ‘First, do no harm.’ This appears to be what motivates President Obama’s foreign policy, and it won’t win him any statues — or any praise for that matter. This philosophy may, however, avert another disaster that costs America too many lives, torn limbs, ruined minds and tax dollars,” a Berkshire Eagle editorial concluded earlier this month.

Unfortunately too few recognize this. Take Dr. Ben Carson for instance. Some see him as a credible Republican candidate for an office in the near future. But if his writing in a July 30 Washington Times commentary is any indication, Carson’s thinking is a century behind the times.

“We have failed to adequately deal with Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine,” the doctor writes. “…As parts of Georgia fell under Russian rule, Russia annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and all we did was condemn it. Russia’s Vladimir Putin sensed our weakness and saw opportunity. Six years later, he annexed Crimea and now pro-Russian forces are trying to take over more land in Ukraine.”

Dr. Carson, read history. Russia has always claimed a Black Sea port, i.e. Crimea. It was only after the break up of the Soviet Union that they lost it. It was only a matter of time before the regained it.

What would Carson have done? He doesn’t say so maybe he is already running. As Carson notes Georgia was invaded in the waning days of the Bush administration. Russia annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia out of Georgia in 2008. They are post-Soviet de facto states, according to scholars familiar with the area. Georgia has the same uneasy peace with Russia that Ukraine had. That too is a European problem.

If Britain, France and Germany are unwilling to challenge Russia or Russian-backed terrorists in Europe, why should the United States? Dutch marines could move into the area where Malaysia Airliner 17 was shot out of the sky July 17. If the marines came under fire, NATO would have to protect them. Where are they?

“The United States should always stand on the side of freedom-loving people,” Carson says. That would of course include the Muslim Brotherhood elected democratically in Egypt. Hamas elected on the West Bank. That includes Putin elected in Russia. Right, doctor?

“For the past five years, Americans from all quarters have concluded that the manifold failures of Obama’s Middle East policies – from Iraq to Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and beyond – owe to a combination of Obama’s personal disinterest in foreign affairs and his presumed preference for withdrawal and isolationism over engagement,” says Caroline Glick in a 1,400 word hatchet job on the U.S. president in the Jerusalem Post.

Since Middle Eastern hatreds predate America by thousands of years, how are they President Obama’s “failures?” Imagine the audacity of one being appalled at children and other innocents being killed and maimed by rockets. What kind of beast is Glick and the Zionists who encourage the slaughter?

Advertisement