While it cannot be doubted that Obama has proven to be a
weak president, I think a few things ought to be mentioned.
First, I think as Christians we ought to be thinking in very
different categories when it comes to issues like national prestige and
American power.
As I've said before nationalism and even patriotism are
values incompatible with the ethical mandates of New Testament Christianity.
There's really no negotiation on this point. I am more than happy to engage
anyone on this matter.
Our allegiance is to the Kingdom of Christ. The kingdoms of
the world are self-serving and violent and will perish in the fires of
Judgment. Our status is that of pilgrims and exiles.
Those who would ally themselves to states and their causes
need to be cautioned. Allegiance to one nation is likely treason to the other.
You cannot serve both God and mammon.
So much of this criticism regarding 'strong' and 'weak'
presidents has nothing to do with what can be called a Christian Worldview.
Secondly, I am not a fan of president Obama. I think he's
proven treacherous. He has actually betrayed most of the people who worked to
elect them. And I say that as one who did not vote for him. I have never voted
for either of the major parties in a presidential election and never will. Despite
the arguments to the contrary his agenda has largely been continuous with that
of his predecessor.
However when I see the level of criticism levied against him,
especially by those who praised and venerated Bush, it does make me want to
speak out.
While it may seem like Obama has played a weak hand in the
whole Ukraine episode, it must be pointed out that the US sponsored the Orange
Revolution in 2004 which led to the Yushchenko-Tymoshenko government. This was
terribly embarrassing to Russian interests and was part of a nearly fifteen
year pattern of humiliation on their part.
The US allies largely failed and were voted out and replaced
by the Russian backed Yanukovych who had been part of the previous Kuchma
government. That alone was a slap in the face and rejection of US interests and
a sign of Russian resurgence.
However Yanukovych began to rise in 2006 and at that point
the American allies of the Orange Revolution were already in the process of
being undermined. The 'weak' hand of the United States was already beginning to
show in the waning days of the Bush administration. The Iraq War had undermined
the administration's ability to act on the international stage and Putin was beginning
to move. This did not begin under Obama who didn't take office until 2009.
I've already written about the US agenda in the region since
the fall of the Soviet Union as well as their activities within Russia, Central
Asia, and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty etc...
These things are not controversial. Read the literature
associated with the Neo-Conservative project. The PNAC and the writings of
people like Brzezinski make it very clear regarding what the agenda was in
Eurasia. A weak Russia was necessary.
All these things considered the fact that Putin has in
recent years stood up to the United States is hardly a sign of American
weakness. Rather it is more a statement regarding the resurgence of Russia as a
Eurasian power. They've been on their knees and are finally climbing back onto
their feet and attaining a very modest degree of parity...and that only on the
borders of their own land.
It is very ironic that if any president in recent years has
weakened the US hand it's not Obama. It's George Bush. His actions and those of
the cabal that ran his White House utterly destroyed American prestige and any
sense of unity that came out of the 1990's and the 9/11 episode.
Obama proved unable to act with regard to Syria for a couple
of reasons. First, more than a decade of war in the Islamic world made the
prospect of US intervention pretty shaky and secondly the world in the form of
a coalition wasn't interested in backing such a project.
Bush's unilateralism shook world confidence in the United
States. The defining moment was when the British Parliament turned down David
Cameron's proposal to join with the United States in acting against Assad. The
legacy of George Bush and Tony Blair loomed large over that vote. It had little
to do with Obama. No president in history harmed American prestige more than
George W. Bush.
His disastrous presidency created a situation that allowed
the first African-American president to be elected, but when Obama didn't
'change' anything, the world took a step back.
All of the programmes associated with surveillance and
spying all began in the 1990's under Clinton or under Bush in the post-2001
era. Obama is not the initiator. He's simply continuing these programmes, which
in itself is shameful enough. This is one of the reasons why the Left has
turned against him. These people thought he was going to put a stop to all of
these activities and do away with the treasonous Patriot Act.
Listening to the reports on Ukraine while riding in the car,
my kids are asking why Obama and Kerry are making these declarations about
Ukraine? What does it have to do with the United States? How is it any of our
business?
A valid question.
But again one that demonstrates American power... even under
Obama.
Of course the United States has a long history of involving
itself in the affairs of Latin America. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find
a single country in Latin America that hasn't suffered a US sponsored coup,
dictatorship or invasion.
Do we hear about post-Soviet Russia intervening in Latin
American politics? When the United States sponsored a coup in Honduras in 2009,
did China or Russia intervene or speak out?
They wouldn't dream of it. And would world opinion have listened
to them?
No one here even knows about any of it. Our media won't
report it.
Wow, if the media was really 'liberal' and anti-American
they sure miss a lot of chances to criticize the American regime!
The very fact that Russia is forced to meet with American
diplomats and interact with the United States over the issue of Ukraine is a
testimony to America's hegemonic power and prestige.
But according to his critics, Obama has failed to properly
wield America's power.
What about George Bush in 2008? Have we already forgotten
South Ossetia? I already mentioned the tide was turning in Ukraine by 2006. Did
Bush do anything about these issues?
Have we already forgotten about the bid to bring Georgia
into NATO which sparked the Ossetia conflict and put Georgia back into its
place? Russia was not going to allow NATO to move into the Caucasus let alone
plant ABM stations there. They've put up with American weapons in Turkey for
many years and there's little they can do about America's post-Soviet
relationship with Azerbaijan. Taking Georgia was a bit too much and Putin
decided to make a stand.
By 2008, Putin was no longer willing to tolerate American
aggression and the Bush administration was slapped down and humiliated. After
the 2006 mid-terms Bush was all but a lame duck president. His policies and
projects and failed. Have we already forgotten how weak he was by the time his
term ended? It could be argued the election of Obama was little more than a
backlash and rejection of his policies. Obama was made into an international
messiah simply because he was perceived as the Anti-George Bush.
Fools.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The war criminal John McCain was furious about Bush's wimpy
response to Putin, and if he had become president he would have most certainly
provoked a war both in the Trans-Caucasus and certainly in Ukraine.
Even Sarah Palin criticized the Bush administration over
South Ossetia. She didn't know where it was but she knew that Putin was rearing
his head.
But I don't seem to recall seeing little pictures and
cartoons of Bush the wimp. Was this because he started two unnecessary wars
that both ended in failure?
He failed to get Bin Laden. Of course I don't think the
Afghanistan invasion was ever about Al Qaeda to begin with. It was quite
obvious in 1999 and 2000 the United States was moving toward an invasion.
As of 2014 the Taliban have not been defeated. In fact
they've grown into a multi-pronged movement.
In Iraq, the United States bought off the Sunni tribal
leaders long enough to get out. And when that country erupts into another civil
war, what then did US soldiers die for, not to mention the hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis?
It was all for nothing. It was all part of some sick
Neo-Conservative plan to wage endless war and coerce the American public and
the world into going along with it. As Wesley Clark revealed they had big
plans. They thought they were going to get out of Iraq in a year or two and
move onto the next regime change.
They were dangerous and clueless and Mr. "Bring 'em
on" looked like a fool as thousands of American soldiers died.
What was his robust response, his inspiring plan to deal
with the Insurgency?
Stay the course.
Of course if we want to think in worldly terms and talk
about 'wimpy' presidents, maybe we could stretch our memories a bit and recall
Reagan in 1983. An early version of Hezbollah hit the Marine barracks in Beirut
and killed over two hundred American soldiers.
And how did Reagan respond? He packed up and left. I've
thought of that numerous times in recent years. What would the reaction be if
Obama pulled a stunt like that?
I guess the shadow of Vietnam was still on the horizon and
Lebanon was certainly a potential quagmire.
Instead we remember Reagan's other activities in 1983, when
his rhetoric and actions pushed the Cold War to the most dangerous point it had
been at since 1973. The USSR might have come down after Brezhnev, but the
Politburo was terrified of this new American president that was acting like
John Wayne.
The comments coming in about Obama are not accurate and not
Christian in either perspective or in their wisdom.
He's certainly worthy of a vigorous critique, but so was his
predecessor who will certainly go down as one of the worst presidents in
American history. And if we want to talk in 'worldly' terms a strong case can
be made that George W. Bush was a criminal and one who betrayed the
Constitution and his country.
In Christian terms, the leaders of Babylon come and go.
Criticize Obama if you wish, but don't do it in a framework of lies and
self-deception.
Russia may look ascendant right now and the Europe/US relationship
looks weak and divided. The world is trying to revert to a Multipolar
framework... which is the historical model. The US is doing everything it can
to prevent that and maintain Unipolarity. In doing so, some of the rising
nations are going to be provoked and when they can they will challenge US
dominance.
Either we're going to have some subsequent US presidents who
'back down' or the world is going to be increasingly pushed toward conflict.
The only way the US can maintain hegemony is to start using force but in a
world as complicated as ours there are many more ways to attack and hurt the
United States. The Empire can be fought with means other than military force.
If the world ever turns away from the dollar or loses trust
in the US economy America can be defeated without ever firing a shot. Like
Rome, America may burn itself out and in the end implode.