Of Pride, Falls – and Obama’s Foreign Policy
Of Pride, Falls – and Obama’s Foreign Policy by Richard Cohen, Washington Post
I’ve read a fair number of books on foreign policy in recent years, yet the one that has made the greatest impression on me was assigned in the sixth grade. It was Esther Forbes’s novel “Johnny Tremain,” and the lesson I took from it was the very one Johnny himself had to learn the hard way: “Pride goeth before a fall.” Maybe too late, I recommend the book to President Obama and his foreign policy team. Their pride has already turned to smugness.
For evidence, I suggest reading a lengthy interview with Benjamin Rhodes, the president’s supremely cocky foreign-policy speechwriter and, by his own admission, master manipulator of the moronic media. The interview, published in the New York Times Magazine, makes for gripping reading. It is not usual, after all, for a senior White House official to crow about how he deceived the press (and the nation) about when negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program actually began. It was not when the more moderate current regime took power, but earlier, under the auspices of more recalcitrant hard-liners. In effect, the White House lied…
Oh please. The Washington Consensus, heavily funded by outsiders including patrons from the Mid east, is panicking because it senses there might be an end to its foreign policy sinecures, back room deals and easy lobbying money. Spare me. What have you gotten right since the fall of the Cold War?
Re: Obama’s foreign policy, let’s look back a little ways — to a time just before George W. Bush’s foreign policies go into effect:
(And tell me if you think my depictions below are fair and accurate.)
a. Before the George W. Bush Administration, NATO’s expansion eastward had not, as yet, strained the NATO alliance significantly, and intensified Russia’s ambitions in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere.
b. Before the George W. Bush Administration, our relations with Germany, Turkey and other allies had not become strained; this, because of such things as these allies opposition to the Iraq War.
c. Before the George W. Bush Administration, the Middle East was a relatively stable region, where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi or Syrian civil war was considered remote.
Given that, due to George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policies, “a” – “c” above will all go “South” (NATO expansion eastward will strain the NATO alliance and intensify Russia’s ambitions in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere; our relations with many of our traditional allies will become strained due to the Iraq War, etc.; Iran will become the dominant force/power in the Middle East; and the Greater Middle East, generally, will begin to go to hell).
Given these matters, how then do we judge the Obama foreign policy; which must, I suggest, be seen, understood and judged within the context of the exceptionally adverse foreign affairs fait accompli that he inherits?
(And a matter that, also, must be considered in light of the exceptionally adverse economic fait accompli that President Obama likewise inherits; which is said to be the greatest economic disaster/challenge to face the United States, and the world at-large, since the Great Depression?)