Obama's Global Retreat

   For the last 28 years, with the support of American presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Western Europe has been expanding to the East with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact, the addition of a dozen countries to the European Union, and a similar dozen to NATO. Some 100 million people that had previously taken their direction from Moscow chose democracy and economic integration with the West.  There were key symbolic events - Lech Walesa and Solidarity's uprising in Poland in 1980; the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 - and each country chose its own path. Several - notably Belarus, and several central Asian republics  - chose to remain centered on Russia while most central Europeans sought the economic and military security of alignment with the United States and our European allies.  

   Until Barack Obama became president. When he announced a reversal of President Bush's plan for a missile shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic, there was apparently no quid pro quo, and no engagement with these countries or our NATO allies in the decision. Secretary of Defense Gates has written about the military rationale for changing strategies, but that ignores the political implications for the East Europeans who cast their lot with the West despite Moscow's protestations and threats to withhold natural gas and oil. The choice of September 17, for the announcement - the day that Russia invaded Poland at the start of World War II - can be attributed to ignorance or arrogance. Hopefully it was no more deliberate than that.

   The reversal in Afghanistan seems to be in progress.  Obama's statement in March (when he committed to 21,000 more troops and a new commander)  that he had a “a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy” to win the  "necessary war" which Bush had ignored, is now being replaced with deferral of newly-appointed General McCrystal's request for additional troops until there is a viable strategy.  So much for the Afghans who have put their families at risk as they rallied to American leadership.

   So, how does this look from Tel Aviv or other capitals where governments have traditionally looked to the United States for support and protection?  "Change" is obviously global. If you are trying to figure out who you can depend on and  you are a long time ally in Columbia or Honduras, Pakistan or Taiwan, it is necessary to re-write your strategic plan.

   One corner of the world that has received little attention, but which is facing its own "hope and change" agenda is Japan. For the first time since World War II, Japan's center-right government has given way to a center-left coalition with the likelihood of questioning many of our mutual assumptions relative to bases on Okinawa, benign currency and trade policies, and our role as their nuclear protector from North Korea, China and Russia.  Hopefully, the Hatoyama administration will remain more reliable than the Obama administration.

   One Obama-friendly British paper, The Guardian, has expressed a growing anxiety:

    "Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their seat belts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line."  Based on his speech at the United Nations and the anticipated announcements from the G-20 meeting in Pittsburg, Obama will be leading the shift.

  Perhaps we need a global tea party.   

   -----

    This week's You Tube answers the question asked several weeks ago, "Where in the World is Hillary Clinton?"

Bill Bowen - 9/25/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Comments

[William McCormick]

Bo, Excellent piece! There is no doubt that Obama has a different mindset and approach than we are use to seeing since the Kennedy-Nixon-Reagan era. Somewhat left of Clinton and Bush Sr. And a 100% u turn on GWB. But there are aspect of what he is trying that are worth looking at.

For one the US and the Russians have conservatively more than 100,000 nuclear weapons between us. Far more than is needed to ensure Assurred Destruction, especially with modern GPS/Laser guidance and manuverability capabilties. And far more than needed for Tactical use against the Chinese or North Korean armies. So his attempt to lower the inventories is a good initiative. I would be happy to see the Chinese at the table as well.

Secondly, I believe that the Afghanistan strategy needs to be well studied and thought out. The US has an advantage over what the Soviet Union had in that we have very sophisticated weapons for cave busting including unmanned and very lethal drones. We have a friendly government to support our presence. And we do not have the Soviets actively supporting the other side. So we are in a better position than the Soviets were. However, until we get Pakistan more commited to help fight from their side of the border this will be largely a holding action. The poppy economics are also very tough to overcome without airborne erradication. So I am willing to let him try to get a handle on the strategy before a huge force build up.

Iran is the toughest on his plate. I give him credit for making tough speeches and for getting the Brits and French to make strong statements. He better have the Russians on board after his missile defense giveaway. I don't really think he can attack Iran but he may have to step aside and let the Isreali's do it. The new reactor site is the perfect excuse for them. Waiting for the German elections to end in December to impose more sanctions shows the priorities of politicians worldwide. Sanctions will slow the Iranians perhaps but they will not deter them from creating the bomb. The question that remains is will they really face the retalliation of the US and use one once they build it? This is the question that all of the nuclear powers face. The key to ending the Iranian terror threat is to change the government. Obama certainly seemed to miss out on an opportunity to help that process along during the Iranian elections.

It appears to me that Obama is using a similar strategy in International affairs that he uses in Domestic affairs. He tells the listeners whatever they want to hear in order to get them on his side and mask his true intentions. These true intentions are kept very cloudy and one has to almost imply them from his associations and his past dialogues. It is very frustrating and
uncertain to have such characteristics in a President. And, I believe it could be very dangerous as he projects weakness to try to gain negotiating position with world players, many of whom as we just saw at the UN are unstable. In the end like him or hate him GWB labelled the "axis of evil" as Iraq (now defanged), Iran and North Korea. Despite the seeming outrage it caused the far left to be so direct, we are never the less facing Iran and North Korea with this President as well. No change except that now Iran is willing to buy their enriched Uranium from us.

[flyoverstate]

Totally agree with my mid-west counterpart. Still hunkering down and praying. Economy won't get better if we cut all of our ties with the world. The China embarago is a joke! Just glad I don't live on either coast. Perhaps the nukes won't reach us.

[Financial conservativesocialmoderateLisainSt.Louis]

I do believe that this is one of the most frightening times in our history. The US, as many of us know and love, will never be the same again if we fail to let our representatives understand how worried and upset we are. Rational letters...not letters filled with anger...will hopefully get their attention. And is anyone talking with Michael Steele? The Republicans need a stated plan!

There is absolutely no way that had either John McCain or Hillary Clinton been elected we would be on this "ride". Hurry up 2010 elections and bring us new representation before it is too late.

Lisa in St. Louis