Obama: On a Roll. Us: Getting Rolled
Obama is on a roll. A roll. It’s hard to keep up!
Last night he delivered an anti-sexual assault bit at the Grammys. Is anybody pro-sexual assault?
Then, in a Vox (!) interview released today, he continued his Terrorism: It Ain’t No Thang tour:
“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama said. “We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive.”
But, he added, “we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive.”
Um, the people shot in the “deli” in Paris weren’t randomly selected. Well, randomly selected Jews, maybe, which means it wasn’t random. And that is about the most extreme statement of terrorism is a law enforcement issue I’ve ever seen. Let’s get Mayor Quimby on it!
Then there was today’s Merkel-Obama presser. Where to begin?
When asked about arming Ukraine, he said he hadn’t quite made up his mind:
“It is true that if, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options,” Obama said. “But I have not made a decision about that yet.”
Sure! Take your time. It’s not like this situation hasn’t been metastasizing since the Minsk accords were signed in September. Why haven’t the options been explored long ago, and contingent decisions been made?
And about that diplomacy thing and contingent decisions. First, negotiation and diplomacy depend on threat points. Bolstering-or even threatening to bolster-Ukraine’s military capacity affects the outcome of negotiations by changing substantially the threat point. This idea that diplomacy floats in a world of its own is just cracked, and in fact dooms diplomacy to failure.
Second, Merkel and Hollande scurried to Moscow because Putin had flagrantly violated the Minsk accords. So now they are going to . . . Minsk, to negotiate new accords. With the guy who broke the last ones. Have I got that right? Am I missing anything?
Obama emphasized the unity of the allies on the Ukraine issue. Recall that earlier he has said he did not want to get ahead of the Europeans. Translation re unity: leading from behind, and deferring to the least common denominator, which in Europe is very low indeed. Germany is bad enough, let alone France, Hungary, Austria, or Greece.
(Sorry. “Leading From Behind” has been rebranded: It’s now called “Strategic Patience.” Same dog food, different label.)
He praised Russia for its constructive role on talks with Iran, and said he looked forward to their future cooperation. As if Putin has the slightest inclination to help out the US. Well, since the deal Obama is panting for will likely harm US interests, maybe Putin will pitch in on that one.
He said that the Ukrainian people knew that America stood behind them. Really. He said that. He didn’t say how far behind. All Obama is providing is warm blankets and hot air, and I am sure that Ukrainians can muster only a bitter laugh at his claim of support.
Obama reiterated his view that Russia’s isolation would bring Putin to heel:
“Even as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution we are making it clear again today that if Russia continues on its current course, which is ruining the Russia economy and hurting the Russian people, as well as having such a terrible effect on Ukraine, Russia’s isolation will only worsen both politically and economically,” he told a joint news conference after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Yes, Putin is so, so isolated. He’s a hero on the European right. Several nations in the EU are far more sympathetic to Russia than the US. And he was welcomed like a conquering hero in Cairo today: check out the photo here (h/t @libertylynx). Sisi greeted him at the airport-a first. The Egyptians did everything but treat Putin like Pharaoh, complete with a procession down the Nile on a royal barge.
By giving such a lavish reception for Putin, Sisi was also giving Obama the middle finger. Or two middle fingers. If Obama were to visit, Sisi would probably have him picked up in a cab and driven to the nearest Cairo slum.
Obama’s obvious affinity for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood is going over very badly in Egypt, and not just among the military and the government. Sisi and many Egyptians believe themselves to be in an existential struggle with the Brotherhood, and Obama’s meddling and continued support for it angers them deeply. (What, mayors can’t handle them?)
So glad he made that Cairo speech. It surely changed the world didn’t it? Really built a bridge between the US and the Muslim world, and healed all those wounds dating from the Crusades down to the evil Bush.
And speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember that supersecret meeting with Muslim “leaders” I wrote about last week? So yeah, among the “leaders” were ranking members of Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations, including one that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case. (But I forget: terrorism ain’t no thang.) No wonder he wanted to keep the guest listees and the subject matter secret.
What a week. The man is on a roll. On. A. Roll. And we’re the ones getting rolled.
Is anybody pro-sexual assault? Hmmmmm, lets ask these guys what they think about it… http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yazidi-sex-slave-escapes-isis-to-tell-her-story-they-took-us-away-like-cattle-9939770.html
I agree that Obama’s comment about mayors fighting crime is a good indicator of the fact that he just doesn’t see these things as a major threat to the U.S. (I agree that ISIS et al are not an existential threat to the U.S., but that doesn’t mean doing nothing.) I don’t hate the big city mayor analogy, though, at least when it is not being used disingenuously, Obama said it himself that this requires vigilance and aggression. Think New York in the Giuliani era, that is how mayors in big cities actually successfully fight crimes and make a real change to a city. Somehow, I doubt this is what Obama had in mind, or that he actually thought the analogy through to its logical conclusion. Dealing with a problem means actually dealing with the problem, which requires an honest assessment of what the problems actually are, not avoiding them at all costs.
Comment by JDonn — February 9, 2015 @ 8:23 pm
Can the media carry Presiden. Chauncey Gardner for another 23 months? “Strategic Patience” is practically self-mocking.
Comment by Mudak — February 10, 2015 @ 2:01 am
“And about that diplomacy thing and contingent decisions. First, negotiation and diplomacy depend on threat points. Bolstering-or even threatening to bolster-Ukraine’s military capacity affects the outcome of negotiations by changing substantially the threat point.”
Um, this outcome was baked in from the instant the Ukrainian government resorted to force in the east with an army that was in no condition whatsoever to conduct military operations. The only “bolstering” that would have had any actual effect would have been NATO troops on the front lines.
And not in a good way.
Comment by PailiP — February 10, 2015 @ 5:25 am
Prof, curious about who of the current presidential contenders you think would do the best job on foreign policy. Domestic issues don’t worry me as much because they can be straightened out later. The damage done abroad seems like the proverbial nails in the fence.
Comment by Jake — February 10, 2015 @ 6:33 am
Today’s shelling of Kramatorsk by heavy Russian MRLS systems kinda tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of Merkel/Obama approach to diplomacy.
Comment by Ivan — February 10, 2015 @ 10:36 am
@Mudak-Great minds. I was just thinking about writing a blog post using the Chauncey Gardner analogy. It fits perfectly.
@Ivan-“I see your disapproving looks and scolding words, and raise you an MLRS barrage. Oh. And nukes in Crimea.” VV Putin.
“@Ivan-“I see your disapproving looks and scolding words, and raise you an MLRS barrage. Oh. And nukes in Crimea.” VV Putin.”
That’s one way to put it.
Boiled down, the geography of this conflict means that the Russians can dominate the ladder of escalation. Vicki, Geoff, and Johnny brought cookies to an artillery fight.
So any of ya up for sending a few thousand NATO troops to the front lines? Cuz that’s the only thing, ever, that woulda made a difference. Fighting to the last Ukrainian soldier has just caused a lot of Ukrainians to die, to no purpose beneficial to Ukraine.
Except maybe the hungry tummies on the Maidan that got some cookies a year ago. A fat lotta good that does now.
Comment by PailiP — February 10, 2015 @ 5:07 pm
A few hundered thousend would be even better. And heavy armor. And airpower. Nip it in the bud.
Comment by LL — February 10, 2015 @ 8:33 pm
Okay, LL, mobilize ’em, transport ’em to the front, and watch ’em eat some tactical nukes before they even engage. Now you’ve run up *our* butcher’s bill.
Is there truly no price you’re willing for someone else to pay just so you can puff out your chest and strut your stuff on teh internets?
Comment by PailiP — February 10, 2015 @ 9:46 pm
>Boiled down, the geography of this conflict means that the Russians can dominate the ladder of escalation
whereas the economics of this conflict means that the Russkis will be spending most of their lives standing in line for their daily 200 grams of bread even before the West becomes half-serious about resisting their aggression. And it’s high time it did.
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2015 @ 2:29 am
“whereas the economics of this conflict means that the Russkis will be spending most of their lives standing in line for their daily 200 grams of bread even before the West becomes half-serious about resisting their aggression. And it’s high time it did.”
In 1981 when Reagan got going on Cold War II, the US was the largest international creditor, with the national debt/GDP ratio at a post WWII low of 0.33, while the USSR was a net debtor.
A few things have changed since then.
And with the ‘Pivot to Asia’ and “Air-Sea Battle’ widely advertised, the PRC know they’re next on the list, so this time the Russians have a major ally.
Then there’s the impact of the global financial crash, from which European societies are still reeling. Gonna be tough getting a major economic war effort out of them.
So lets have less posturing and chest-puffing, and more thinking, okay?
Comment by PailiP — February 11, 2015 @ 4:17 am
Thank you, PailiP, for bringing up the “tactical nukes” and thus confirming my point. Nip in it the bud NOW, before the morons get any ideas.
Comment by LL — February 11, 2015 @ 5:54 am
I am beginning to love this twisted logic. So the Russians should not worry about possible dead millions and a nuclear war but we should? Is this correct? So the fact of possesing nukes entitles the Russians to breaking any norm of international law but we are not supposed to say anything against, lest do anything?
Am I getting this right?
Comment by LL — February 11, 2015 @ 6:29 am
> A few things have changed since then.
You are right, Russia is relatively much weaker now both wr to the US and wr to China. The latter is about as much an ally for Russia as a heroin dealer is an ally for a dying junky. China is a medium-term strategic concern, but Russia is an imminent danger to civilization and must be dealt with now.
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2015 @ 8:32 am
“hank you, PailiP, for bringing up the “tactical nukes” and thus confirming my point. Nip in it the bud NOW, before the morons get any ideas.”
Sorry, ten years too late. The Russian gvt decided to make something of their wreck of an army. The Orange oligarchs running Ukraine at the time decided to fight amongst themselves.
And that is why this war has had the outcome it has had.
“I am beginning to love this twisted logic. So the Russians should not worry about possible dead millions and a nuclear war but we should? Is this correct? So the fact of possesing nukes entitles the Russians to breaking any norm of international law but we are not supposed to say anything against, lest do anything?
Am I getting this right?”
So any harebrained notion guaranteed to accomplish nothing but run up a huge butcher’s bill for Ukraine and NATO is good enough for you. Got it.
And Ivan, Russia isn’t dying. That meme is so Yeltsin-era.
Comment by PailiP — February 11, 2015 @ 7:06 pm
> And Ivan, Russia isn’t dying. That meme is so Yeltsin-era.
Good that you agree with my other points, as it wood seem for a moment that you wanted to raise some objections as to the rather self-evident economics of this conflict. Russia is a dying junkie economically and China will be all too happy to fleece it handsomely in the process. But if you were just trying to deflect the conversation to the supposedly improving demographics, that’s a losing direction for you as well. What with the ongoing massive liquidation of medical facilities, cancellation of suburban trains in areas where this is the only realistic way for the populace to reach any semblance of civilization, the recent govt decision to counter the freefall in living standards with cheaper vodka – and
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2015 @ 8:05 pm
you will be able to determine all by yourself where the Russian demographics is heading.
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2015 @ 8:08 pm
“Russia is a dying junkie economically and China will be all too happy to fleece it handsomely in the process.”
In 1990-2000 the Chinese learned from experience that once Russia goes down they get all our attention. And we’ve telegraphed that again with the ‘Pivot to Asia’ and all our loose talk about A2AD. The Chinese are anything but dumb.
Comment by PailiP — February 12, 2015 @ 4:55 am
SWP:
Obama has achieved Peace in Our Time. Yet again.
Flexibility. LL is the only little girl who sees that the Emperor has no clothes.
VP VVP
Comment by Vlad — February 12, 2015 @ 11:40 am
@Vlad-Peace in his mind. Because that’s all that matters, and the in Obamaworld the enemy doesn’t get a vote.