This past week, Russia moved its nuclear Iskander missiles closer to the European border, while half a world away, Japan desperately searches for allies and ways to build a military strong enough to dissuade an assault from China. In the Middle East, both Israel and Saudi Arabia desperately attempt to develop a deterrent to an Iran that is rapidly becoming a nuclear power.
President Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the growing dangers from China and Russia and his illogical nuclear agreement with Iran are profound and dangerous alterations in our foreign policy that have been made by executive fiat.
Mr. Obama’s actions have enacted extraordinary changes, largely made without consulting either Congress or the American people. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) his un-vetted gambits have all worked out poorly for both the United States and its allies. Even the firmest of the President’s supporters, including Democrat mainstays Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Foreign Relations Chair Robert Menendez (D-NY) have split paths with the White House on the deeply flawed deal with Tehran, which has made no secret of its utter hatred for the West and Israel.
As 2013 draws to a close, the world is in a far more dangerous condition than when Mr. Obama took office, as a clear result of his international actions.
The entire successful framework which combined powerful American military might, the demonstrated will to protect the interests of peace and security, and several trustworthy alliances has been abandoned with almost no public debate or even prolonged discussion with Congress.
In the course of Mr. Obama’s consistent appeasement of Russia, China, Iran, and the Moslem Brotherhood, U.S. interests and those of its allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have been cast aside in return for no discernible gains to either the American people or international stability.
The President’s rather unseemly pursuit of Vladimir Putin’s favor has led to major problems.
The White House stunningly diminished relations with America’s firmest ally, the United Kingdom, as a result of both his personal snubs (returning the bust of Winston Churchill, etc.) and his sellout of British nuclear secrets during the “New Start” arms deal with Moscow. Since signing that treaty early in his first administration, which served Moscow’s interests more than Washington’s, the Russians have restored their military to Cold War levels of power, rejuvenated their strategic nuclear forces, and resumed armed atomic patrols with bombers and submarines off the eastern, western, and southern coasts of continental U.S., as well as our Pacific bases.
Across the European continent, the Administration’s attempts to renege on the anti-missile defense pact with Poland infuriated that government, which, since its liberation from the Soviet Empire, had staunchly supported U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps most tellingly, Mr. Obama’s tilt towards Russia has sufficiently frightened the Ukrainian government, which had steadily been moving towards the West in both its military and economic relations, to completely change course and fall into Moscow’s camp. This is a setback of historic dimensions that will have repercussions for generations to come.
As a result of the vacillation and bizarre choices made by the White House in the region, NATO ally Turkey is seeking arms arms not from its western allies but from China, Iraq is in the Iranian camp, both the Saudis and the Israelis are estranged from America, both sides in Egypt despise the U.S., and a nuclear arms race is beginning.
Before leaving the topic of Moslem relations, it must be pointed out that Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks with the Taliban set a truly unhelpful precedent.
In Asia, the astounding pacifism demonstrated by the White House has emboldened China to an unprecedented degree. Beijing’s armed disregard of Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone sovereignty went unanswered either militarily or diplomatically, emboldening China to act aggressively in other areas.
China, liberated by Obama’s weakness, has now openly threatened Japan by establishing air defense procedures over disputed territory, and engaging in other actions (along with its client state North Korea, which has doubled its uranium enrichment capacity and moves ahead ever more rapidly in missile development) which threaten that nation which has been a peaceful neighbor since the end of World War II. As a result, Tokyo is seriously rejecting its anti-war constitution and acquiring nuclear arms, signaling the start of an atomic arms race in yet another portion of the world.
The President refused to even acknowledge China’s hyper-aggressive cyber espionage against American corporate, civil, military and government targets until the White House itself was hacked. He has been reticent to acknowledge Beijing’s unprecedented and sophisticated military buildup, which exceeds in proportion the arms development of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the height of the first Cold War. It is now projected that by 2020, the Chinese Navy may have control of the western Pacific.
All this has occurred within the dangerous backdrop of the President’s sharp and unprecedented unilateral reduction in arms spending, as well as his proposals to further slash the American nuclear deterrent without any reciprocity from Russia or China.
Given the poor results of Mr. Obama’s international efforts, it is appropriate to ask why he hasn’t changed course. Other presidents have shifted direction following unwanted results on both domestic and foreign fronts.
There is a third, and significantly troubling, possibility. Perhaps Mr. Obama’s worldview is so radically different than that of the American people, and indeed, all of his White House predecessors, that what the general U.S. population sees as a bad result for the country, he sees as “progress.” The President promised profound changes in the nation; there is no reason to assume that this excluded the foreign policy that America has adhered to since 1945, through both Republican and Democrat administrations.
The radical views of some in his administration give credence to this. If this is the case, than Mr. Obama owes to both Congress and the voters an explanation of why he has preceded down this road without informing them of his goals.