THE WASHINGTON POST\’S HONEST ASSESSMENT OF OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

My imaginary hat (I rarely if ever wear one) is not off to the folks on the Washington Post\’s editorial board very often.  But today is one of those days.

They have written an honest assessment of President Obama\’s foreign policy – and make no bones at all about what a disaster it has been/continues to be.

You can read the entire editorial by clicking here.  But let me give you just the first three paragraphs:

YOUCAN\’T fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winningelection in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq tozero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He hassteadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict inSyria. And on Tuesday he promised to withdrawall U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

TheAfghan decision would be understandable had Mr. Obama\’s previouschoices proved out. But what\’s remarkable is that the results alsohave been consistent – consistently bad. Iraq has slid intosomething close to civil war, with al-Qaedaretaking territory that U.S. Marines once died to liberate. InSyria,al-Qaeda has carved out safe zones that senior U.S. officialswarn will be used as staging grounds for attacks against Europe andthe United States. Libyais falling apart, with Islamists, secularists, military and otherfactions battling for control.

We hope Afghanistan can avoid that fate. But the last time the United States cut and ran from there, after the Soviet Union withdrew, the result was the Taliban takeover, al-Qaeda\’s safe havens and, eventually, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, after which everyone said, well, we won\’t make that mistake again.

I wish I could give the Post\’s editorial board an argument about this. I wish that President Obama had been successful in every one of his foreign policy decisions. But the harsh reality is that the exact opposite has taken place. 

President Obama never has a problem bragging about two foreign policy successes:

-He “got” bin laden – except  bin laden was “got” over a period of years which predate the Obama administration, through use of enhanced interrogation and surveillance techniques he is on record as being adamantly against, and never would have used;

-He “got us out of Iraq” – except the agreement to remove troops from Iraq was negotiated by President Bush, who signed off on it November, 2008.  And, while we will never know for 100% sure, it is a virtual certainty that Mr. Bush would have negotiated an agreement to leave a small standing force there, so that Iraq would not be left 100% of the responsibility to maintain the enormous progress it made as the result of that war.  Because we are not there, Iraq is rapidly descending right back into the hellhole it was under saddam.

I\’ve been around for a long time – long enough to have lived under 12 of our 44 Presidents.  Some have been good, some have not.  But not one of them comes close to being as incompetent, as inept, as complete a failure in foreign policy as Barack Obama. 

In truth, I cannot think of even one thing this man has been responsible for, foreign policy-wise, which has moved us forward or made us safer.  Can you? 

So my thanks, again, to the editorial board of the Washington Post.  It takes some intestinal fortitude to be this honest about a President you endorsed twice.  It is to your credit that you have sucked it up and done so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *