RSS
Home
Obama breaks with history
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
President Obama represents a complete break with history. He does the opposite of what his predecessors have done in similar circumstances. Although his body of work is far from complete, a pattern has emerged. In the international arena, Obama avoids conflict. Where his predecessors have represented American interests and presented a strong front against aggressors, Obama attempts to assuage fears about America which makes it appear that he supports and agrees with dictatorships as opposed to oppressed people worldwide. In politics, perception is reality.
On July 24, 1959 then Vice-President Richard Nixon visited an exhibition of American capitalism in Moscow. Earlier that year, the Soviets sent an exhibit to New York City. The American exhibit included a model kitchen with all the modern appliances. The American exhibit shocked the Soviets. They had never seen anything like it. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev challenged Nixon. He could not believe that America produced toasters, refrigerators, and other household appliances for the common man. This had to be for the rich. A spirited debate followed. Nixon defended capitalism while Khrushchev defended communism. Nixon clearly won the debate both in style and substance. As he left the exhibition, Khrushchev was seen marveling over a disposable pen.
Fifty years later, Barack Obama had an opportunity to defend America while attending the Summit of the Americas. Venezuelan dictator and frequent critic of America, Hugo Chavez, ran up to Obama and handed the president a book critical of America. Instead of challenging Chavez or declining the book, Obama politely accepted the gift. Later, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega went on a 50-minute diatribe about America. President Obama sat there like a child in the principal’s office. Other American presidents would have walked out. When placed in a similar circumstance, Richard Nixon challenged the American critic.
While Obama argues that he was simply being polite and wished to change the tone of American diplomacy, his actions at the Summit of the Americas have been repeated in his responses to real world events. Once again, his actions are the opposite of predecessors placed in similar circumstances. In December, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. President Jimmy Carter condemned the invasion, withdrew from the 1980 Moscow Olympics, cut off grain shipments to the Soviets, and began supplying the Afghan rebels. His actions became known as the Carter Doctrine. The United States would not allow any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf. Despite Carter’s reputation, the president acted forcefully.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Russia invaded Georgia. Obama rightly castigated the Russians for their invasion. However, he also blamed the Georgians. Obama placed moral equivalency on the Georgians. They were the ones on the receiving end of an invasion. The crisis defused when the Russians achieved some limited military goals and the Bush Administration placed troops in the region.
While the Russian invasion of Georgia hearkens to Afghanistan, current Iranian unrest is similar to events in Poland in the early 80s. The Polish trade union Solidarity formed in September, 1980. A year later, they elected Lech Walesa president and called for self-determination. They demonstrated in the streets and went on strike. In 1981, the Polish puppet government attempted to quash Solidarity. The communists instituted martial law in December, 1981. The United States not only condemned the action, but promised to defend Poland in the event of a Soviet invasion. Also, President Reagan imposed sanctions on the Polish government. Behind the scenes, the CIA, AFL-CIO, and Vatican smuggled money and supplies into Poland. Martial law ended in July, 1983.
Today, the people of Iran are standing against a totalitarian government in the same way Solidarity did in the early eighties. Iranians have taken to the streets following a rigged election. They are demanding liberalization and freedom. The Iranian government cracked down on the protesters and have killed many. Video of the crackdown is available on-line. In response to the terror in Iranian streets, Obama has remained silent. Meanwhile, desperate Iranians are chanting “Obama are you with us or against us.”
Obama has tried to make a complete break in the Middle East. His immediate predecessor waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq slipped into chaos as American policy drifted. Eventually, President Bush decided to reinforce the military in Iraq. In 2007, he launched the surge. Within a year, the extra boots made the difference and Iraq stabilized.
Today, Afghanistan has the potential to fall into chaos. The military recommends a surge to set things right. While Bush followed the military’s advice, launched a surge, and may have finished the Islamics in Iraq, Obama dithers in Afghanistan. Clearly, Obama is worried about losing the war, the peace, and his domestic agenda as opposed to the people of Afghanistan.
People gambled and voted for change when they elected Barack Obama president in 2008. He promised change and has been different than his predecessors. While previous presidents have been quick to defend American interests and those fighting for freedom, Obama has been slow to react to world events. His style involves less conflict. Based on his actions at the Summit of the Americas, the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Iranian crackdown, and the situation in Afghanistan, perhaps he needs to be more like his predecessors and their successful policies.
Related Articles:
Comments
