Obama's Foreign Policy: A Detailed & Lengthy Analysis

[patrioticintellect]

Written by this user, Kevin Gosztola.

In the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama published his plans for foreign policy under the title, “Renewing American Leadership”, which appears at the start of each section. In the same way that Bush repeated that Iraq had WMDs or Iraq was connected to 9/11, it seems Barack Obama wanted to make sure it was clear he will be renewing American leadership. But will that renewal bring necessary changes or keep America on the same path it is on? Will he simply be renewing America’s stranglehold over the world or will we be cooperating with others to bring about a more peaceful globe?

Obama's Introduction

The introduction cites Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms which defended America against fascism, Truman’s pairing of military strength with the Marshall Plan, and Kennedy’s modernization of our military doctrine, strengthening of our conventional forces, and creating of a Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress. Barack Obama then dove into how he plans to deal with threats just like FDR, Truman, and JFK did:

“Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century’s threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.”

Mr. Obama, the Bush Doctrine published in 2002, which can be found under the title, “National Security Strategy of the United States”, stated that, “We will defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants,” and also stated, “Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.” That rhetoric in Bush’s introduction is very similar to yours. Does that bother you? Do you think it will bother the American people? Or do you think that your personality and the fact that you aren’t George W. Bush will make it acceptable to continue talking with ignorance that promotes fear? We may their alienation and perceived injustice to be unfounded but they don’t and when America responds to them the way you just did, America inflames them further and guess what? Terrorism increases.

Continuing on, Barack Obama addresses how Bush responded to 9/11 with “state-based and principally military amenable solutions that showed conventional thinking of the past” and then added that the world has lost trust in us because of Iraq and Abu Ghraib. At this point, I think Bush and his cohorts could admit that is a harsh truth. Keep going:

“After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world by deed and example.”

Mr. Obama seemingly ignores that many of the threats have been produced because of years of flawed foreign policy that has involved interventions, cultural ignorance, and globalization that has economically depleted many countries. We have occupied sacred lands that have increased Islamic extremism yet failed to admit America is responsible for Taliban forces running crazy terrorist operations all over the world. But he did not stop there in his introduction. He had more to say:

“The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.”

Strikingly similar to this last sentence in the Bush Doctrine’s introduction which is, “Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.” Well, if you don’t agree that they are related, it bears the same tone and conjures up images of America leading missions and operations all over the world to convince the world that our way, the American way, is the right way and all other ways are the wrong way.

Obama on Moving Beyond Iraq

With respect to Iraq, Obama recognizes that “civilian leaders must acknowledge that military solution cannot be imposed on civil war” between the Sunnis and the Shiites. However, his way for solving the dilemma should cause many to stare in disbelief for Obama wishes to “pressure parties” so that they make a lasting political solution. He plans to pressure them by supporting a phased withdrawal that will remove all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.

I don’t know how this would work, Mr. Obama. Do you honestly expect to get the Iraqi people to do as we say by threatening to remove troops from the region? Is that what they want? Various news stories have pointed to Iraqi government officials wanting us to leave Iraq. And they want us to leave because our troops are targets for terrorism and are causing an influx of terrorists to move into the broken country and increase the chaos.

It gets better though because Obama states that redeployment could be “temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets security, political, and economic benchmarks.” These would no doubt be benchmarks we set. And yes, you read the quote correctly. Obama’s foreign policy involves leaving troops in Iraq if the Iraqis cooperate. So, Americans if you thought Iraq is fun now, just imagine what it will be like when Barack takes over.

In all fairness, Barack Obama in this section calls for dealing with the civil war more effectively, making it clear that we seek no permanent bases, and leaving behind a “minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel/facilities, continue training Iraqi security, and root out al-Qaeda.” So, don’t worry, Iraq. Those bases are only “temporary” if Barack wins. And you can expect American troops to continue to be in the way of the Iraqi people as they protect American contractors and military outposts while attracting al-Qaeda, which they will be “rooting out” as they defend American personnel. Oh, and don’t forget, while al-Qaeda is flowing in to kill Americans, these same Americans who are al-Qaeda targets will attempt to show Iraqi people how to maintain security in their country, which we may or may not let them run on their own at some point in the not so distant future.

Really though, Barack Obama does not want to deal with Iraq anymore. He believes in his policy that America needs to move from Iraq to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Bush has ignored. Pay attention because is where Barack Obama’s AIPAC connections come into play. For example, Obama believes the starting point for solving the conflict must always be “clear strong commitment to security of Israel”, our “strongest ally in the region and the region’s only established democracy.” Already the Palestinians are getting kicked to the side. The policy will be designed for Israel and maybe it will make the Palestinians happy. Who knows?

Obama’s reasoning for a “clear strong commitment to security of Israel” stems from his belief that it is necessary when “confronting strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, a resurgence of al Qaeda, and reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” With all do respect Mr. Obama, I don’t think propping up Israel will solve any of these conflicts with Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, or especially Hamas and Hezbollah. Unless you plan on nuking them off the face of the Earth, please do us all a favor and elaborate on how propping up Israel solves the conflict. Essentially, what you are advocating would breed terrorism. But terrorism may be what you need for your policy to thrive because terrorism will provide tactical target for you to carry out your foreign policy strategy of increasing Israel’s security.

For those skeptical that Obama really will do for the Israelis what they want and do for the Palestinians what Israel wants, just look at what Obama said about securing a lasting settlement with the two states. Obama wants America to “help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict/instability.” Through isolation, meaning killing, bombing, arresting and other horrific things, those who do not wish to do as Israel tells them to do will submit to the rule of Israel. And Israel will thank America for what it did and agree to police the region for us. And Muslim extremism will continue.

After laying down the policy, Obama details how it would be implemented. For one, he states that we “must not rule out using military force.” Of course not! Heaven forbid we keep our nuclear weapons to ourselves. No, as Obama went on to say, America must use its instruments of power---political, economic, and military---to support tough-minded diplomacy. I guess one must remind Obama that it was John F. Kennedy, whom he cited previously, that said, “Let us not negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.” Obama’s policy seems to be far from what Kennedy promised as his policy plans for American diplomats to come to the table with tools of aggression ready to be used at any given moment.

Obama on Revitalizing Our Military

The presidential candidate wastes no time cutting to the chase here and states, “Strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” Barack Obama continues saying, “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or threatened.”

Again, I refer to the Bush Doctrine. From goal three, which is, “Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends”, Bush states, “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.” Both Obama’s policy and Bush’s policy were waged to sustain peace. Both used peace as a cover for their primary objective, which is to spread American rule to more nations and convince more nations through instruments of power to listen to what we say or else.

Obama on Halting Spread of Nuclear Weapons

Obama opens saying:

“To renew American leadership in the world, we must confront the most urgent threat to the security of America and the world---the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology and the risk that nuclear device will fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Oh, so you support the bill that is currently circulating which would work towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons? Nope, while a bill calling for abolition of nuclear weapons was drafted in the House in 2006 and had 11 cosponsors, you did not sponsor it in the Senate or cosponsor it. Therefore, that leaves me no choice but to presume that you wish to allow America to hold on to its nuclear weapons while at the same time telling other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Hmm....does the insanity ever end?

It might a make a few of you feel better to know that Obama supports his call by mentioning that George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. George Shultz lied about Iran arms shipments in the Iraq Contra scandal, William Perry previously suggested launching a high-explosive cruise missile from a submarine to destroy the Taepodong on its launch pad in North Korea, Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, and Sam Nunn . In fact, this excerpt from Information Clearing House should help you understand how dangerous this group of advisors to Obama are:

“This time the media completely ignored---or should we say censored—Kissinger’s trip to Russia and his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, apart from a few short blurps in the Moscow Times and one measly article in the UK Guardian, no major news organization even covered the story. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of anyone in the American media.

Nothing. That means the meetings were probably arranged by Dick Cheney. The secretive Veep doesn’t like anyone knowing what he’s up to.

Kissinger was accompanied on his junket by a delegation of high-powered political and corporate big-wigs including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former Senator Sam Nunn and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.

Wow. Now, there’s an impressive line up.

The group was (presumably) sent to carry out official government business as discreetly as possible. The media obviously complied with White House requests and kept their mouths shut.”

This trip happened in July of 2007. These guys are moving in to take over after the Bush administration is done. And the group has connections reaching back to the days of Nixon just like Cheney and Rumsfeld. How dare Obama stand up deliver ad hominem attacks on Cheney and Rumsfeld and then turn around and allow his friends to advise him on foreign policy?

Obama on Combating Global Terrorism

Here Obama calls for refocusing efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan. You see, that bit about Pakistan wasn’t some flub. It was a slip that his supporters have been all too willing to give him a pass on. I am specifically referring to the supporters who expect him to be different on foreign policy than Bush was and think he would never go into Pakistan. To those supporters, here are his plans for Pakistan.

Obama says America should “insist, not request, Pakistan crack down on Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden & his lieutenants, and end relationship with all terrorist groups.” He also plans to get them to solve their border disputes with India over Kashmir and Afghanistan over the Pashtun border region. He adds, “There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans.” Well, Mr. Obama, what about having no safe haven for those that use “instruments of power” that may or may not include military? What about the fact that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and maybe these “terrorist groups” are gearing up for your arrival?

Barack Obama gets rolling here with this huge rhetorical and boastful pronouncement:

“To defeat al-Qaeda, I will build a 21st century military and 21st century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”

Are you ready for another comparison to the Bush Doctrine? Under goal three, Bush mentions that, “our best defense is a good offense,” and, “While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today's globalized world we need support from our allies and friends. Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.”

No longer is it strikingly similar. No, I believe the words are frighteningly alike.

That said do you think Obama can go toe-to-toe with Bush? Bush’s favorite mantra is “either your with us or against us.” Mr. Obama what do you got:

“Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists’ rest on fear. That is why we can---and will--- win this strategy.”

Good enough.

Obama on Rebuilding Partnerships

Obama feels that America needs to rebuild alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. I can’t imagine why this may be but I am sure Obama will explain it. Just what does he have to say?

“The United Nations requires far-reaching reform. The UN Secretariat’s remain weak. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new UN Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel---but not a single resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur or human rights in Zimbabwe.”

You are right that the UN requires far-reaching reform, but you should include the fact that America has chosen to ignore them and do as America pleases like for example, we invaded Iraq even though they didn’t want us to. America also sent them John Bolton. But on to your problem with the UN HRC, is this some ploy to get more support from AIPAC? Don’t they already support you enough? Anyways, I looked into this to see if you were right and you are, but I also don’t think we fully support this group anyways so what does it matter? America has the power to go finance human rights in Zimbabwe and Sudan. Why don’t we do it? I think you and I both know the answer is a sad and disappointing one.

Interestingly, Obama chooses to include a response to global climate change in his rebuilding of partnerships:

“We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.”

I have a tough time seeing America lead the way in enacting binding and enforceable commitments and then binding and enforcing itself when it fails to cutback on pollution. I have an easy time imagining that this will lead to more political strife and warfare as countries accuse each other childishly of not doing enough to reduce emissions and therefore, countries will not cooperate and any such commitment will dissolve after a few years. But forget my tough times and imaginations, why not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Obama? Isn’t that what America should do instead of starting a new binding enforceable commitment?

Obama on Building Just, Secure Democratic Societies

“We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.”

“People around the world have heard a great deal lately about freedom on the march. Tragically, many have come to associate this with a war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change.”

Forgive me, but doesn’t “freedom on the march” entail force that involves war, torture, and regime change? After all, we aren’t calling for “freedom through education”. This isn’t “freedom through open dialogue”. No, this is “freedom on the march”. And I have a tough time trying to figure out if you want to stop marching freedom out to countries or not.

People living in fear and want should be able to live in dignity and opportunity, but they are likely to be used if we help change their lives. As Obama says:

“But if America is going to help others build more just and secure societies, our trade deals, debt relief, and foreign aid must not come as blank checks. I will couple our support with an insistent call for reform, to combat the corruption that rots societies and governments from within.”

Precisely what he means is, do as we say and your lives will improve. Your life may not become exactly what you want or what it could be if we left you alone. But we need you to benefit America and make us a richer nation. So, look on bright side? Your life is better than before, right?

Obama on Rebuilding America’s Trust

A primal influence for Obama to write this was Bush’s failure to buld a consensus at home on the foreign policy that we are using. However, Obama need not worry because once elected he can do what Bush did and do as he pleases with foreign policy. The American people have no say in foreign policy. They can elect a leader to enact the foreign policy they want and can find that leader through research prior to an election. But once in power, that leader can do as he or she pleases with the bureaucracy at his or her disposal and the policymakers who have advised him on what his or her doctrine should be. The strategy and tactics, primary objectives and secondary objectives, etc. can all change whenever it is necessary to maintain our nation’s hegemonic power.

Still Obama says:

“No policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success---unless they trust that their government hears their concerns as well.”

It is not that way yet but as more and more read Chomsky, Zinn, Johnson, Fisk, Kinzer, etc. they will realize how out of control our foreign policy is. In a world of anarchy that we human beings must find a way to coexist in, America has taken it upon itself in the past century to pursue a monopoly of violence over the globe that elevates America to supreme status but leaves it open for failure at any moment.

In closing, Obama tells us how we can love his plans for the world because it will give us a story to tell:

“...it is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East.”

That’s a rosy little thought but I don’t see any great American stories coming from your policy. I see a policy that continues America down the same path we’ve been on with maybe a smidgen more of judgment of the disasters that could occur with each foreign policy move and perhaps more hindsight in America's foreign policy. However, that smidgen is nothing to tell the grand kiddies about when I retire and am struggling to find the health care money you refused to give me because you could not take on the insurance interests. No, I doubt I will be speaking of you like people speak of FDR, Truman, and JFK, which is your wildest dream to come out of this entire mess of a foreign policy.

If you like, Digg it on OpEdNews: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kevin_go_070914_obama_s_foreign_poli.htm">Obama's Foreign Policy

References

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-05.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13735.htm

http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/ houseworld/10nations.html?ex=1304913600&en=43001dee4e9d2156&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[frazzled]

1. I'm sorry you spent so much time on this ...

because your analysis, point for point, makes no sense and is completely unconvincing. Your comparisons between the Bush doctrine and Obama statements cannot be supported in any way by the words on the page; it exists rather in your personal reading of intentionality. Karnak!

Sorry, but this just doesn't convince one iota.

If you don't like Obama as a candidate, fine. But this kind of attempt at analysis by mindreading does not fly.

[patrioticintellect]

2. Well why don't you

Analyze the Foreign Affairs article and do an analysis that counters mine?