Sunday, March 20, 2016

How a top general see's the Most Equal Comrade's foreign policy

He sees it as all sensible people do: As a narcissism-clouded failure to face facts - mainly the necessity for American leadership in the world:

A top U.S. Army general with nothing left to lose has publicly admitted something that conservatives have been saying for a long time — the rise of the Islamic State terror group can be directly attributed to President Barack Obama’s premature withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.
Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told Fox News on Wednesday that a continued U.S. troop presence in the region would have kept Iraq on a positive track.
“It’s frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.” 
Matthew Contenetti, writing at NRO, says that the Most Equal Comrade's supreme confidence that he knows better just because he has such a noble vision of how the world ought to me is what leads to boneheaded decisions such as that which frustrates General Odierno:

I used to think President Obama’s illusions were simply the product of his ideology, of his faith in the universality of human reason, in the idea of historical progress, of his ambivalence toward American power. But after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s epic, absorbing, revealing interview with the president in The Atlantic, I have come to a different conclusion. It’s not just ideology that drives Obama’s cluelessness. It’s narcissism.

If there is a theme to Goldberg’s article, it is this: Barack Obama knows better. He knows better than the “foreign-policy establishment” that his team snidely dismisses as controlled by Jewish and Arab money. He knows better than the elected leaders of Great Britain, France, and Israel, and the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, of whom he is so contemptuous. (Angela Merkel of Germany, Goldberg reports, is “one of the few foreign leaders Obama respects.”) And he knows better than his critics, whose arguments he pores over in obsessive detail, coming up with explanations, rebuttals, and straw men to dismiss them.
Why does Obama know better? Not out of any intense study of or reflection on diplomatic and world history and international-relations theory. Not because he served in the military or in the diplomatic corps or held senior posts in government prior to election as president. What graces Obama with superior insight and prudence is the simple fact of his own existence. He is his own proof of his superiority.

Goldberg tells us about one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visits to the States. “The Israeli prime minister launched into something of a lecture about the dangers of the brutal region in which he lives, and Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: peace negotiations.” So Obama interrupted him. “Bibi, you have to understand something,” Obama said. “I’m the African-American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”
Sounds a lot like the foreign-policy confidence of a certain public figure who says he primarily consults himself on these matters because "I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things."

16 comments:

  1. You'd think that if the American people wanted a continued military presence and more of the same hubris that got us there, Cheney would have been the candidate in '08. Romney made no secret of the fact that he would retain all the old military players. Where are they now? Crying their old refrain in the rain the goddam Muslims created for themselves. We don't even need their oil now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Netanyahu was behaving condescendingly! He thought he could capitalize on low approval ratings for Obama. Fail! I can't wait until the Israelis kick his butt out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This business of wanting to be conquered by jihadists I do not understand at all

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bibi understands that the West is existentially threatened. The Most Equal Comrade is willfully ignoring it, because reality is a threat to his esteem of himself as some sort of grand visionary

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bibi understands, well OK, but don't come here and try to run the show and treat our freely elected leader condescendingy by your words and actions. He could not get elected to dog catcher here. His hubris and rudeness to our freely elected Chief Executive was unprecedented. Yet you blame the Chief Executive. Oh, I forgot, your loyalties lie with America, not post-America.

    AT a Congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed "a very simple question" about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?" Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: "The vice president."

    But the blame for Iraq does not end with Cheney, Bush, or Rumsfeld. Nor is it limited to the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war, or with those, like Colin Powell or Hans Blix, who, in the name of loyalty or statesmanship, did not give full throat to their misgivings. It is also shared by far too many in the Fourth Estate, most notably the New York Times' Judith Miller. But let us not forget that it lies, inescapably, with we the American people, who, in our fear and rage over the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, allowed ourselves to be suckered into the most audacious bait and switch of all time.

    read more at http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

    ReplyDelete
  6. Opinion piece in today's Columbus Republic by Mickey Kim:

    “For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose
    of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs,” he said. In sum, “America’s never been
    greater.”

    Read more at http://www.kirrmar.com/media/inthenews_IBJ_20160312.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kim's article in the Republic in today's Sunday edition entitled "Buffett to Skeptics: America Has NEVER been greater is slightly different but I cannot find it in a format that can be linked here yet. A snippet: "The babies being born in America today are the luciest crop in history", Buffett wrote. "America'economic magic remains alive and well. Today's politicians need not shed tears for tomorrow's children."

    I have skin in the game with 6 of tomorrow's children. And that, kind sir, is why I do not and will not see decline everywhere I look these days and why I will not vote for anyone who says they do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So you can say this top general I never heard of before but maybe you have has nothing left to lose. Good for him!

    ReplyDelete
  9. You have that backwards. It's been the Most Equal Comrade, the West-hating dictator of post-America, who has been shamefully rude to the one world leader who truly understands the West's mortal peril.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Buffett may know how to pick winning stocks, but he is full of shit. He believes wealthy people ought to pay more in income tax. He supports the inheritance tax. He endorsed the Most Equal Comrade for Dictator of post-America. And Mickey Kim is a major figure in the Columbus IN party-line-crossing Establishment that goes in for quasi-governmental / quasi-private arrangements to oversee boondoggle projects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israel is in dire need of a new and different "diplomat." Nettie can go to straight to the hell he likely doesn't believe in, if I am understanding my studies of comparative religions correctly.

      Delete
  11. And the idea that because the US in the early 2000s assembled a 40-nation coalition to invade Iraq and depose its Baathist regime on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be faulty it must never again defend itself against any threats is a straw-man argument if there ever was one.



    Why you love the MEC's foreign policy and economic policy is beyond me

    ReplyDelete
  12. He does OK by me who is not interested in any World War III. You could be right and I could be wrong. Time will of course tell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who is interested in World War III? The aim is to prevent it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PS This is not wanting to be conquered by jihadists which you say do not understand at all.

    ReplyDelete