Obama’s schizophrenic foreign policy; the inconsistent morality. I. e. Why Gadaffi and not Assad?

14 Jul

Obama’s schizophrenic Administration:

It is important for people and nations to exhibit consistent
morality, not one that sways with situations and is self-serving. This is
especially true for leaders; it is of paramount importance for the nation that
leads the world, the only super-power, the United States!

Holding different entities to different standards, as the
United States seems to be doing, is unacceptable for the leader of the world.
The United States must correct its schizophrenic behavior, and behave in a
consistent manner in all situations. This is not to say that behavior must be
adjusted to suit situation, but it does suggest that fairness and consistency
are necessary.   

President George W. Bush left office at a time when the
country was in the midst of an economic crises (one of chaotic proportions,) in
two wars that it was not winning, and while its image around the world was at
its lowest ebb since Jimmy Carter was President.

Even though no one man can determine the state of the
nation, a President is responsible for the welfare of the country while in
office, as Harry Truman said: “The buck stops here.” George W. Bush caused some
of the problems the United States was facing when he left office, but some
issues were due to external forces, some were inherited from previous
Administrations.

Some of the situations that the Bush Administration failed
to address were in a large part due to the President lack of communication and
administrative skills. It is said of George W. Bush that he would be a prime
choice for a drinking companion, but that he is not very effective when dealing
with large audiences, or in any but one-on-one situation…

Enters, Barak Hussein Obama, a charismatic person with
public speaking ability not matched since Winston Churchill. A 200,000 audience
in Berlin, and his speech in Cairo, were two events that started the United
States on a route to recovering its international image.  Other mesmerizing speeches followed, and the
United States image appeared to be on the way to recovering from the dismal
Bush years, however…

Domestic economic issues were some of the most important
situations that President Obama had to address. The young American President
did help shore-up the banking and automotive industries, perhaps keeping the
United States from a total economic collapse. President Obama’s early action
that did save the United States economy, did so while sacrificing many of the
President’s own ideological beliefs. Crises might have been averted, but the
economy remains anemic at best. Barak Obama and his team do not seem to be able
to effectively deal with un-employment, nor with fundamentals of the economy as
a whole.

In the international arena, words from early speeches caused
a quick improvement in America’s image were quickly overshadowed by very weak
performance by the Administration.

The beginning of Obama’s, and that of the United States
declining international image can be directly attributed to the fact that
loyalties to allies does not seem to be the Administration’s philosophy.

Some of President’s Obama failing seem to be due to an ego
that makes him believe that he can follow a track others fail to successfully
pursue. The most obvious of these situations is Obama’s insistence that he can
use diplomatic channels to deal with Iran. On more than one occasion Iran’s
Ahmadinejad, and others saved no words in telling Obama that Iran will not
negotiate with the United States. Obama tried to get the international
community to impose sanctions on Iran. Obama even went as far as to scrap the
European missile defense in order to get Russia to go along with sanctions,
which Russia, of course, did not do.

Very shortsighted policies by the Obama Administration seem
to have a strong and lasting negative effect on the image of the United States.
Such policies include the scrapping of the missile-defense system, its
treatment of Israel in public, allowing Assad to brutalize his people, while
going after Gaddafi. On that same vein, there are situations in the Sudan,
Yemen, and Bahrain that are not better than the one in Libya. If the United
States, with the United Nations and the European Union, insist on being the
guardian of international morality, the same standards must be employed for all
nations, not just those who have resource (such as oil,) and who have the
“right” color skin.

It is time for the United States to live up to the quality
of Obama’s speeches, not say the right things, and then act as if momentary
interest of the United States are the right thing for everyone.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: