President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy

Current events are indicative of the disdain many world leaders have of BHO and his elitist attitude.

By the Editorial Board from the Washington Post

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”

That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.

Rest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

I know the "walk softly, but carry a big stick" referred to U.S. policy in the Americas, but it can be expanded to how we handle things on a global scale. We still need to have that big stick.

Technology can make up for a few men on the ground, but there is no substitute to a strong military staffed with sufficient numbers of capable personnel. Yeah, it is nice to have sophisticated drones, robots, and guns with programmable bullets, but we need to have well-trained soldiers to operate these toys/weapons in sufficient numbers to be a deterrent to aggression.

In hindsight, it appears that we are hitting the fiscal tarbaby with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Way over budget (estimated $400 Billion, twice original estimates), delayed delivery dates, delivered incomplete ("fix it as you go"), and with a downgraded stealth rating ("very low observable" to "low observable"). A RAND report said that it would have been cheaper if each service branch had built their own plane from scratch than try to shoe-horn the F-35 into each branch's needs. I personally don't like us putting so many of our fiscal "eggs" into this one basket.

Eric wrote:

In hindsight, it appears that we are hitting the fiscal tarbaby with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Way over budget (estimated $400 Billion, twice original estimates), delayed delivery dates, delivered incomplete ("fix it as you go"), and with a downgraded stealth rating ("very low observable" to "low observable").  A RAND report said that it would have been cheaper if each service branch had built their own plane from scratch than try to shoe-horn the F-35 into each branch's needs.  I personally don't like us putting so many of our fiscal "eggs" into this one basket.

First - the Putin cartoon is spot on - and hilarious.

I agree 100% about the F-35, a program that foolishly tries to make a one size fits all airframe. I wrote a letter to the Navy Times several years about what a wasted proposition this variant program is, it was published but I guess the bad news was still well hidden because I didn't receive a lot of feedback. There are so many problems with the airframe and avionics every fix will add weight that further decreases performance and delay it even more. 7 years behind schedule! And Congress wanted to compound the issues by purchasing a second engine option for political reasons.

Speaking of "heavy", the vertical takeoff variant was too heavy to function in VTOL and they had to get rid of a bunch of weight.

I wonder what was compromised to achieve the weight reduction.

Eric wrote:

Speaking of "heavy", the vertical takeoff variant was too heavy to function in VTOL and they had to get rid of a bunch of weight.  

I wonder what was compromised to achieve the weight reduction.

Weapons and fuel capacity (with decreased range) would be my first guess.

I don't think the world has nearly as bad an opinion of Barack Obama and his policies as some people on this forum and Fox News do.

Fox is on a crusade to make him seem weak and some of their commentators are even in a worship Putin mode lately. Yeah, Putin is a strong leader. So are all dictators.
When Obama said he was going to get some things done without the aid of Congress, it was said he was seizing too much power and acting like he could do anything without reading our Constitution.
Now that he's not following John McCain's advice on Crimea he's suddenly too weak.

What is it- too weak or too strong?
I really wish conservatives would make up their minds on the subject.

Then I'd know how to argue with them.
It's hard to do when folks take both sides before I can jump in.

Otter wrote:

I don't think the world has nearly as bad an opinion of Barack Obama and his policies as some people on this forum and Fox News do.

Fox is on a crusade to make him seem weak and some of their commentators are even in a worship Putin mode lately. Yeah, Putin is a strong leader. So are all dictators.
When Obama said he was going to get some things done without the aid of Congress, it was said he was seizing too much power and acting like he could do anything without reading our Constitution.
Now that he's not following John McCain's advice on Crimea   he's suddenly too weak.

What is it- too weak or too strong?
I really wish conservatives would make up their minds on the subject.

Then I'd know how to argue with them.
It's hard to do when  folks take both sides before I can jump in.

Otter I think the real problem is that we are five years plus into this second term and you are correct there still isn't a definition of whether this administration is too weak or too strong. Just for the record one of the BEST moves made was certainly NOT following the advice of Sen's McCain and Graham on Syria. See....there's agreement and it was a POSITIVE post!

Otter wrote:

I don't think the world has nearly as bad an opinion of Barack Obama and his policies as some people on this forum and Fox News do.

Fox is on a crusade to make him seem weak and some of their commentators are even in a worship Putin mode lately. Yeah, Putin is a strong leader. So are all dictators.
When Obama said he was going to get some things done without the aid of Congress, it was said he was seizing too much power and acting like he could do anything without reading our Constitution.
Now that he's not following John McCain's advice on Crimea   he's suddenly too weak.

What is it- too weak or too strong?
I really wish conservatives would make up their minds on the subject.

Then I'd know how to argue with them.
It's hard to do when  folks take both sides before I can jump in.

The article cited in the start of this thread was written by the editorial board of the Washington Post. Hardly a conservative rag.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I don't think the world has nearly as bad an opinion of Barack Obama and his policies as some people on this forum and Fox News do.

Fox is on a crusade to make him seem weak and some of their commentators are even in a worship Putin mode lately. Yeah, Putin is a strong leader. So are all dictators.
When Obama said he was going to get some things done without the aid of Congress, it was said he was seizing too much power and acting like he could do anything without reading our Constitution.
Now that he's not following John McCain's advice on Crimea   he's suddenly too weak.

What is it- too weak or too strong?
I really wish conservatives would make up their minds on the subject.

Then I'd know how to argue with them.
It's hard to do when  folks take both sides before I can jump in.

The article cited in the start of this thread was written by the editorial board of the Washington Post. Hardly a conservative rag.

There was a news discussion show with three democrats one worked for Carter, and two for Clinton. During their discussion it was these democrats that called the cowh 'spineless' and 'clueless' on foreign policy. Agree with the comments or not but our standing in the world community is very low and even our closest ally Great Britian has back away from the US during the past two crisis in Syria and now Ukraine.

We need to stay the hell away from Crimea.  It is too far away, logistically.  And I have heard that the majority of folks there speak Russian, and there are a lot of folks there that seem to be happy with the Russian occupation.

I just hope that Putin keeps his troops in the Crimean part of Ukraine.  Perhaps Obama and his administration should keep his trap shut about threats.   Keep inflammatory discussions among the diplomats and implement sanctions (boycotting the G-8, or trade issues mentioned) when it becomes necessary.  I feel we should have expressed concern for the Ukrainian people, but to publicly threaten Russia was a taunt that Putin could act upon.

The USA appears bellicose and Russia (Putin in particular) appears decisive.  We show weakness by putting lip service to the world's issues, especially when we back down on public threats.  Now, I don't feel we should have invaded Syria or anything... but we threatened action over the use of chemical weapons and backed down when it came time to back up our threat.  Ergo, weakness.

The U.S. can do nothing about the Ukraine. If their government and people want to fall back into the Russia fold it's none of our business. Besides, BHO's meaningless posturing about sanctions and sending a destroyer into the Black Sea are like shooting blanks at a rabid bear. Putin has an agenda we don't know about (yet) but methinks it has a little something to do with the Trans-Siberian Pipeline.

nochain wrote:

The U.S. can do nothing about the Ukraine. If their government and people want to fall back into the Russia fold it's none of our business. Besides, BHO's meaningless posturing about sanctions and sending a destroyer into the Black Sea are like shooting blanks at a rabid bear. Putin has an agenda we don't know about (yet) but methinks it has a little something to do with the Trans-Siberian Pipeline.

That's exactly how he's made the European nations shut their mouths---he's shut the valve off before. Although you gotta wonder when their legislature is voting on whether to allow a vote to return to Russian control the building is surrounded by Russian troops. Or even better Kim Jung Dung Un in N Korea winning an election by 100%. Why bother to even vote? Well except then Vlad can say see they love us and want to join us. But it's none of our business if they want to return is correct.