Obama Faces No Easy Debate

John Ransom
|
Posted: Oct 22, 2012 12:01 AM

And you thought Obama’s economic policies were indefensible.

Wait until you hear him debate foreign policy.

His foreign policy is unique in the history of the American presidency in that it almost completely ignores American self-interest. It can only be described as the first anti-American foreign policy crafted by an American president.   

Our contributor, former Congressman Bob Beauprez summed it up in September: Only America’s enemies are better off than they were four years ago.

Wrote Beauprez:

The question comes up a lot these days, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"  But, the question is almost always asked in a personal economic context.  Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense and widely published author, analyzed the "Are you better off…" question from a foreign policy/national security perspective.  His conclusion: "America's enemies are, not our allies."



Many of these same enemies Obama actually considers our friends.

Libya provides the most recent example.

In Libya, Obama helped topple one anti-American regime to help install another that was even more anti-American.

He’s even gone so far to condone the capture and sacking of our consulate in Benghazi and the death of American diplomats.

And by changing his story 26 times in a quest to avoid personal responsibility for the “glorious” outcome in his Libyan war, Obama has left the impression that the only people responsible are the ones who died.   

I bet you didn’t know that the country in which our consulate resides is ultimately responsible for the security of the consulate there. You didn’t know that because our anti-American regime under Obama won’t blame the anti-American regime the president brought to power in Libya for the security lapses in Benghazi.

Imagine if the Swedish consulate in Chicago was overrun by crazed, union-controlled, public school teachers who were offended by the many school choices offered by the tall, blonde, Nordic country. 

Hard to imagine anyone besides Obama trying to escape responsibility for THAT.

But the Golden Child almost reflexively avoids responsibility. 

And why wouldn’t he? The “free” press has more people assigned to protection duty for the president than all the secret service details through history- combined. 

Thank you Candy!     

Obama won’t even take responsibility for stuff he actually believes in, like the Chevy Volt. While is true that he says he’ll buy one of the GM electric vehicles when he’s done being president, he says a lot of stuff.

I won’t bet we’ll catch him on an eco-cation on the shores of Tripoli either. 

Whatever else may be said, Obama’s not a favorite of professional diplomatic, defense and intelligence types.                 

Libya just salted the wounds opened when Obama preened and politicized the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden.  

Many in the community resent the emphatic “I” used by Obama when announcing the operation.

But that’s not the worst of it.

By changing the story 26 times in a quest for personal glory, devoid of any personal responsibility, Obama has left the impression that he killed Bin Laden, even after the SEAL team that knocked out Bin Laden took huge casualties shortly thereafter.

Combat soldiers don’t actually like talking much with outsiders about their exploits. But they especially resent when outsiders try to steal their valor.

“None of us were huge fans of Obama. We respected him as the commander in chief of the military and for giving us the green light on the mission,” said former SEAL Matt Bissonnette in his book on the Bin Laden raid, No Easy Day. But they knew he’d grandstand. “We had seen it before when he took credit for the Captain Phillips rescue. Although we applauded the decision-making in this case, there was no doubt in anybody’s mind that he would take all the political credit for this too.”

No amount of face time with the commander-in-chief can repair that rift. The chain of command is supposed to support the troops who- and the diplomats- have followed their orders.

One can argue the merits of continuing the friendship with Pakistan and China, or even Libya, while ignoring their anti-American activities.  

But leaving members of the military and diplomats out to dry, well, that’s just anti-American.

Americans soldiers are being asked to fight wars against undefined enemies; and American diplomats are asked to make peace with those who are less than friends. 

The ambiguity eventually will hurt morale and our ability to protect American interests around the world.  

It's time we told our so-called allies that they are either for us or against us.  

It's time we threw a lifeline to troops and civilians engaged in the War on Terror by telling them who our enemies really are.      

For Obama, that’s no easy debate.