Kimberly Strassel argues in the Wall Street Journal that one of the main reasons for the Obama's administrations mishaps in foreign policy is not the inattentiveness of the President but rather the lack of serious people in his foreign policy appointments. This column is worth reading for partisans on both sides as it shows what type of people are running foreign policy. She writes:
If the Bergdahl uproar feels creepily reminiscent of the Benghazi uproar, or the Syrian "red line" uproar, or the choose-your-own- Obama -foreign-adventure uproar, it's because they all have a common denominator. This is what happens when political hacks formally take over foreign policy.
It's the "formal" point that bears some meditation. Barack Obama isn't the first president to make foreign-policy decisions on the basis of domestic political calculations. He does, however, win the distinction of being the first president to utterly disregard—to treat with contempt—the institutions and procedures that were designed to help the commander in chief insulate the serious business of foreign policy and national security from baser political concerns.
At the heart of this effort is the National Security Council, which has served presidents since its inception under Harry Truman. Made up of the president, vice president, a national security adviser, various Cabinet secretaries, and representatives from the military and the intelligence agencies, the NSC has been by procedure and fierce tradition a rare apolitical forum, a place for the president to hear hard reality. NSC staff are foreign-policy grownups, and its meetings are barred to political henchmen.
Or that was the case, until the Obama White House. By early March 2009, two months into this presidency, the New York Times had run a profile of David Axelrod, noting that Mr. Obama's top campaign guru and "political protector" was now "often" to be found "in the late afternoons" walking "to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council." President Obama's first national security adviser, former Marine General and NATO Commander Jim Jones, left after only two years following clashes with Mr. Obama's inner circle.
He was replaced by Democratic political operative and former Fannie Mae lobbyist Tom Donilon. Mr. Donilon joined Ben Rhodes, the Obama campaign speechwriter, who in 2009 had been elevated to deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. Also present was Tommy Vietor, whose entire career prior to NSC spokesman was as an Obama spinmeister—as a press aide in the 2004 Senate run, and campaign flack for the 2008 Iowa caucuses, and assistant White House press secretary. In fairness, his credentials also included getting caught on camera in 2010 pounding beers, shirtless, at a Georgetown bar. America's foreign-policy experts at work.
Not that Mr. Obama's first instinct is even to rely on his now overtly political NSC. This paper reported in September 2013 that as the White House struggled with the question of military intervention in Syria, it summoned all the old "Obama loyalists" for advice. They included his 2008 campaign manager ( David Plouffe ), his former press secretary ( Robert Gibbs ), a former speechwriter ( Jon Favreau ), and Mr. Vietor (who had by then left the NSC to form a political consulting group).
A serious-minded NSC, in the tumultuous aftermath of Benghazi, would have responded with a sober assessment for its president of the real and continued terror threat, and of the failings that resulted in four dead Americans. Instead we find the deputy NSA, Mr. Rhodes, crafting an internal email advising his colleagues to spin, and blame it all on an Internet video. Mr. Rhodes had no interest in advising the president on hard realities. His only interest was ensuring his boss got re-elected.
The same political Svengalis rooted for Mr. Obama's decision to set an Afghan withdrawal deadline, over the objections of military personnel. They were the architects of the president's decision to drop his "red line" warning to Syria's Bashar Assad on Congress, and then blame Congress for failure of action. They gave us resets, pivots and leading from behind, and in recent weeks have explained that Mr. Obama's foreign policy is best described as "Don't do stupid [stuff]." This is what happens when you give hacks control: Your foreign-policy "vision" gets reduced to a public-safety commercial from a vodka company.
Presidents bear ultimate responsibility for institutional dysfunction, but it is also the case that Mr. Donilon and his successor, Susan Rice, have ill-served their boss by tolerating (or even encouraging) political nonsense. Debate all you want over what motivated the White House to do the Bergdahl swap. What's beyond debate is that politics drove its rollout, and that there was nobody with enough seriousness or clout in the White House to stop it.
It was a political desire to sweep the Veterans Administration scandal off the front pages that put President Obama in the Rose Garden with Sgt. Bergdahl's parents—when Secretary of State John Kerry, or even a press release, would have given distance. It was a political desire to claim a foreign-policy victory that saw Ms. Rice again peddling a phony story, this time about how Sgt. Bergdahl had served with "honor and distinction"—when senior officials had to know that was questionable. Who failed to warn the president that Sgt. Bergdahl's fellow soldiers would surely speak out? Who failed to walk him through the ABCs of the statute he signed requiring Congressional notification, or warn him of the bipartisan fury his cold shoulder would inspire?
Most remarkable is that despite the endless loop of foreign-policy fiascoes, this White House seems oblivious of the need for institutional change. It has had its share of experienced hands ( Bob Gates, Leon Panetta ) come and go, but shows no evidence it learned from them. In Obama world, there is only politics. And so the world will continue to burn. Column
13 comments:
Sickening. And an indictment of American voters that they would fall for this twice.
I didn't vote for Obama mainly because of his association with dishonorable people. However, I was neutral toward him and wished him success, as that would be good for the country. The past year has made me realize that my instinctive reaction was right. He has surrounded himself with totally incompetent and as you say political hacks. The country is suffering as a result of his total lack of judgment and leadership.
"In Obama world, there is only politics". What has kept this guy from being impeached?
Here's the link to the free version of the story. The comments are enlightening.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kimberley-strassel-meet-obamas-kissingers-1402011139
That link is for subscribers only. It is not free.
Oh, how I long for the foreign policy of the Bush years. Wasn't it great? Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were just awesome and look how well they turned out. Too bad we didn't elect McCain as President, we could be at war with Iran and Syria RIGHT THIS MINUTE!
Oh well.
It turns out that the only thing Obama is good at is campaigning but he is only good at that if he is allowed to cheat. He was allowed to cheat by having his lies accepted and by not being vetted. The evidence of what he was, and wasn't, was readily available but the fifth estate let us down. Obama is truly a media creation. On top of that, he is so arrogant, believes his press, that he refuses to put strong, accomplished pros in critical positions. Just a nightmare. I have to admit that as much as I knew he was a fraud, I never thought he would have been this much of a disaster as an administrator. All he had to do was put competent people in place.
1:36, you certainly can't be claiming the Bush years were as bad as what we have now, can you? Seriously? Nothing in this country - and I mean NOTHING - seems to be going right in this country under this current administration. Economy? Nope. Stagnant as hell. Foreign policy? Are you kidding me..... Cultural issues? America's as divided as it's been since the civil war.
Let's face it: ObaMao HATES America! At least the America he "inherited." Now, I know all the liberal knee-jerk reaction of, "Well, you're obviously a racist or a XXXist or a xxxist, etc.," but you just have to look at what he DOES and not what he SAYS! As an example, just this week, ObaMao (yes, I think the facts support he's likely a Marxist) said the U.S. is safer now than it's ever been.
With someone THAT out of touch, you sincerely have to question his credibility, if not his sanity!
Some of you should try to get your information from objective sources.
And, I challenge any of you to tell me of a perfect President in either party. Even Lincoln was given to deep depression and his early handling of the war left much to be desired from a Union perspective.
I have many issue with Obama and voted for Romney, but I'm not so blind as to miss that our economy has improved and our deficit was reduced by a third just from last year.
I like that we don't share the planet with bin Laden.
I'm glad we got out of Iraq and are getting out of Afghanistan .
His health care plan is horribly flawed. There's some real question about the wisdom of his appointments and his ability to play political hard ball when needed.
I liked many things about Bush, especially his actions in early days after 9/11. Most of his actions to improve our security were well done. However, if you still believe there were WMDs or that some of the out of control appropriation bills shouldn't have been vetoed or that " Mission Accomplished " wasn't politically a mistake, or that Brownie was a great FEMA choice then you are delusional.
The only delusional ones are those who continue to make excuses for this guy because he's hip or young or listens to Jay Z or whatever hold sway with the kiddies this week. He has been an utter disaster, causing damage to the health care industry that will be felt for decades. His bumbling stumbling pull out from Iraq has cause that country to fall into chaos and oil futures are already skyrocketing. Education is a nightmare, with Common Core and the spiraling cost of higher ed.
But all that's OK, because this guy goes and sits between ferns with a second rate comedian and answers snarky questions in an effort to be cool, and does other juvenile crap that every president before him would not even consider because it would be beneath the dignity of the office.
I, for one, have had enough of the Celebrity President Experiment. I'm ready for adults to start calling the shots again.
This comment went over the line but made some good points so I edited it. ;-)
What an xxxx xxxx xxxx , the previous poster is. Kingfish, you can choose to not post this or be a man and let it stand on it's own. Words hurt, but truer words hurt the most, and m words are true. Someone can be passive aggressive and little caveat attempts such as yours to censor only begats those cowards. The previous poster is xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx. Our deficit wasn't reduced by a third. Wake up. You can't have a budget deficit without a budget. Secondly, the CBO projects the difference between what the federal government takes in in tax revenues and what it spends will be 1/3rd smaller.... predicts. That's due to increased tax revenues, dumbass. Increased tax revenues are NOT a direct indicator to an improving economy unless you are a democrat. You like Bush? You're an idiot. He single-handedly did more damage to U.S. individual freedom than the previous 35 presidents combined. Love the ends justifies the means argument. If you don't
The deficit went down some...... because of the sequester. The economy is improving a little because the sequester. Whenever you cut the amount of money the government spends or the growth of said spending, the economy usually does better.
The sequester actually worked although I think it took too much out of defense. Now we are getting rid of the A-10. bad idea.
Medicare hospital trust fund goes broke in over a decade. Haven't heard much about that one, have you?
One commentor blamed Afghanistan on Bush. So Al Quiada has a nice little sanctuary in that country. 9/11 happens. They are protected by the Taliban. Are you saying Bush should not have gone into that country? Just curious.
9/11 ruined the economy. How is Bush responsible for that?
By the way....Where is Trent these days. He did a whirlwind tour of the media outlets and blew off like a bad cloud. Or was that my imagination?
Hold on....I just got a call. Trent is working on a fed'ral jurdge-ship for Thad.
Post a Comment