The National Security Strategy Has Arrived

-

National Security Strategy image.jpg
It will be released officially later today by the White House.
But here is the official pdf of the National Security Strategy report.
More on this important report later.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

46 comments on “The National Security Strategy Has Arrived

  1. Admin says:

    Just a system test

    Reply

  2. Don Bacon says:

    he propaganda:
    NSS: At the center of our efforts is a commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power.
    The truth (from Robert Reich):
    ——————-
    Last night the Senate okayed a $60 billion war-funding bill for Afghanistan. So far this year, the Afghan war has cost more than the war in Iraq, in part because the infrastructure in Afghanistan is so much more primitive than in Iraq that our tax dollars are needed to build it so troops and tanks can move more easily over the terrain. But spending on road-building in Afghanistan does little to boost the American economy.
    Meanwhile, state and local governments continue to slash and burn. They’re laying off even more teachers, fire fighters, social workers, and police; canceling more programs for the poor and working class; and raising sales taxes. The fiscal drag from all of this will be around $150 billion in 2010.
    ————
    and this just in: The House just passed H.R. 5136
    H.R. 5136 authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the national security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE). The bill would exempt enablers, such as force protection, medical evacuation, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) personnel from the President’s authorized 30,000 troop surge. The legislation would extend Building Partnership Capacity authority through 2012, and increases it from $350 million to $425 million, and allows this authority to be used to train and equip Yemeni Security Forces.
    The legislation authorizes $1.1 billion for DoD’s counter-narcotics efforts and extends DoD’s counternarcotics authorities for Fiscal Year 2011, and includes a provision that would require the Administration to develop a National Military Strategic Plan to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
    The bill would authorize additional funds for the protection of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $3.5 billion for measures to counter improvised explosive devices, $3.4 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and about $1 billion for up-armored Humvees.
    Military Construction: The bill includes $20 billion for military construction, base realignment and closure, and family housing.
    National Guard: The bill would provide $7.2 billion for new equipment for National Guard and Reserve units-$700 million more than the President’s request.
    etc.
    NSS: “At the center of our efforts is a commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power.”

    Reply

  3. john says:

    Thanks admin

    Reply

  4. Dan Kervick says:

    Tell you what WigWag. If you convert to Christianity, so will I.
    Mead is engaging in some wishful thinking if he thinks that dramatic new waves of Christian belief and practice are likely to prove “pro-American” in the long run. Christianity is an enduring faith that has gone through several periods of grass roots rebirth and revival, and whenever it has, it’s inherently anti-temporal, anti-imperial ethos has reasserted itself. Christianity’s core vision – which is always crumbling, but is reawakened during periods of revival – is an abstemious rejection of the manifold evils of the fallen world and its deadly sins, and a redirection of the believer’s life toward simplicity, humility and the supernatural vocation of man. The Christian follows Jesus in leaving the hurly-burly of profane and avaricious worldly life, awaiting the kingdom of heaven, which is not of this world. The kingdoms of this world are deplored, although one might tolerate and compromise with them in order to live in the corrupted material realm in which we sojourn, and might render unto them the mean and transient things that are theirs.
    During the recent Holy Week celebration, I had occasion to read and see again some of the accounts of the birth of Christianity. It is striking how the Christian movement took off and grew so dramatically, primarily on the strength of a practice of cultural and moral resistance to a materially prosperous but demoralizing empire and its horrors. The movement wasn’t inherently political, although it inspired and built on great acts of individual courage against the political order. These acts weren’t efforts at revolutionary overthrow of government and political system-building, but the sacrifices of martyrs willing to die rather than render their whole obedience to a political order demanding submission, and viewing itself as the “indispensable” maintainer of all legitimate order in the world.
    That empire maintained its hold over its subjects in part by torturing and crucifying its dissidents from one end of its domains to the other. The physical mechanism of execution became the symbol of the new faith, its emblem of conquest over death, fear and submission. And can there be any doubt among those who live in a more contemporary world that has seen this image:
    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-13034.html
    who is the Rome of our own time? It is not hard to imagine the silhouetted image of that hooded man complementing the role of the crucifix in revived religious faiths.
    If there is indeed an authentic, grass-roots rebirth of Christianity in the world, those new Christians will find little to love over time in the debased culture of 2010 America. Our society is permeated by depraved, sadistic, hate-filled bastards, frustrated by their vicarious failure to compel others to submit to their pathetic directives, and some of whom even practice grotesque and perverted forms of pseudo-Christianity that employ some of the texts and accouterments of the old faith, but are bizarrely ignorant of its teachings and spirit.

    Reply

  5. Paul Norheim says:

    The puritan organization my parents worked for (The Norwegian
    Lutheran Mission) was also politically radical in the beginning
    (1890-1949). They originally worked in China, but were thrown
    out by Mao.
    But after the persecution of Christians in Communist countries,
    this Norwegian organization became more conservative and
    anti-communist. Around 1910 they sort of supported a
    revolution in China, after witnessing the suffering and unjust
    conditions in the Empire. In Ethiopia, 50 years later, they
    supported Emperor Haile Selassie, due to anti-Communist
    sentiments and fear of Marxists spreading atheism and
    persecuting Christians. Russel Mead mentions this too in his
    essay.
    I don’t know specifically about Venezuela, but I would assume
    that the political position of the missionaries may often depend
    on the position of the radical leadership vis a vis the Church
    and Christianity. There has been a strong tradition of radical
    theology as well in South America.
    A bit of curiosa: The Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (in vogue
    in radical circles in the 60s and 70s, and a friend of Marcuse)
    was a major influence in the development of radical theology.
    He lived in Th

    Reply

  6. JohnH says:

    The Pentecostal movement is significant in Latin America, too. It is driven by the frequently cozy relationship between the Catholic Church, the aloof wealthy classes, and the powers that be.
    It is ironic that Hugo Chavez won the support of Pentecostals in Venezuela, while corporate Christianists like Pat Robertson, covetous of their access to power in Washington, ritually condemn Chavez.

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag, thanks for the Russel Mead link.
    I disagree with much of his take, but the the topic is extremely
    interesting and important.
    A couple of quotes:
    “And the fastest growing force within global Christianity is the
    most pro-American group within it: the global Pentecostal
    movement has grown from zero to something like half a billion
    members in the last 100 years. This is the fastest growth in
    percentage terms for any religious movement in world history,
    and in Africa, Asia and Latin America the growth continues
    today.”
    “In much of Africa and along the Islamic borderlines, the
    relationship of world conflict to local politics is very real. In
    these mostly poor countries, which are often undergoing huge
    social and economic transformations in the midst of a
    population explosion, the religion on offer isn

    Reply

  8. Paul Norheim says:

    Message to WigWag from Gallup, after 9.11:
    “Jihad — ‘Holy War’, or Internal Spiritual Struggle?
    by Richard Burkholder, International Bureau Chief
    Jihad /ji-hahd/ n. a holy war fought by Muslims against
    unbelievers.( Oxford Dictionary of Current English)
    This is how the West typically understands the word jihad. It is
    the fight against Islam’s enemies — infidel invaders or military
    occupiers. But within Islam itself, there is considerable debate
    about the true meaning of the concept.
    In the autumn of 2001, while still crafting the questionnaire for
    the 2002 Gallup Poll of the Islamic World, I telephoned a
    number of writers and journalists whose coverage I admired and
    who specialize in Islam and/or the Middle East. I asked each
    writer, “If you had the opportunity to ask a representative cross
    section of all the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims a single question,
    what would that question be?”
    Among the most unexpected and provocative suggestions I
    received came from Chris Hedges of The New York Times, who
    said, “If I could, I would simply ask each one of them what the
    concept of jihad means to them.”
    So we did. Given that the meaning of the word to Muslims can
    vary enormously from individual to individual, the result was,
    effectively one, enormous Rorschach test.
    The Word Itself
    First, the obligatory etymological detour. The word jihad comes
    from the Arabic jahada, which is perhaps best translated as
    “struggle,” “effort,” or “striving.” In its theological context,
    however, jihad’s meanings can easily encompass “

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    “In fact it

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    “Brennan is simply a dolt; his description of Jihad while accurate
    is incomplete; down through the generations, the generally
    accepted meaning of Jihad has been a violent struggle for
    conquest waged by Muslims against non-believers; the fact that
    the Koran justifies this violent struggle as concomitant with
    moral purification is irrelevant.”
    Sorry WigWag, but this is an absurd claim. English words like
    “struggle”, fight etc. can imply a struggle against inner demons
    or temptations – a moral struggle – or have military
    implications. Its meaning is not fixed, but defined by the
    context. The same goes for “Jihad” – and any insistence that
    there is a “generally accepted meaning of Jihad” implying
    “violent struggle for conquest” does not make any more sense
    then claiming that there is a generally accepted meaning that
    “fight” means “violent colonial attack on inferior people” or
    something like that.

    Reply

  11. JohnH says:

    As if Wigwag didn’t realize that a lot of ethnically cleansed Palestinians are Christian!
    But guess what, she selectively notes that “a disturbingly high percentage…Muslims live in nations where Christianity is banned or in which it is a criminal offence to convert to Christianity.”
    How about criticizing Israel and halakah for overt discrimination against Gentiles? But oh no, it’s only the OTHER side that practices religious discrimination! Wigwag’s usual moral quicksand…

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    “But very few of those 25% of Muslims actually live under jihadist rule. They’re just ordinary Muslims.” (Dan Kervick)
    Actually a disturbingly high percentage of those Muslims live in nations where Christianity is banned or in which it is a criminal offence to convert to Christianity. Tens of millions of those ordinary Muslims live in nations where Christianity is legal but brutally suppressed.
    No one is suggesting that these ordinary Muslims are all to blame; some support these policies others don’t. But what is clear is that whether the governments under which these Muslims live are Jihadist or not, they make practicing Christianity difficult if not impossible. While this behavior may not be precisely Jihadist, it is emblematic of the type of behavior that inspires violent Muslim extremism.
    The muddled thinking that suggests that if only we develop a proper nomenclature for interfacing with the Muslim world, many if not most of these problems would disappear is a fool

    Reply

  13. WigWag says:

    As usual, Walter Russell Mead has an interesting and different take on the competition between the Christian world and the Muslim world (make no mistake, it is a competition and it is taking place in the United States and abroad).
    While his essay is not about the National Secuirty Strategy, it is broadly about the topic Dan and others (including me) have been discussing on this thread.
    Mead’s essay is entitled, “Pentecost Power.” Anyone interested in the general topic of how religions (especially Christianity and Islam) impact international relations may find it informative.
    Those who might be interested can find it here,
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm

    Reply

  14. Dan Kervick says:

    “The Jihadists are waging a war against the West and Western ideas.”
    Sure. But it is absurd to compare the militant jihadist movement to the global communist movement of the 20th century. It is not comparable in either numbers of adherents, in scope, in its industrial potential, or in its prospects for seizing control of state power. It therefore doesn’t measure up in terms of the challenge it poses.
    Do you think the governments of China, Russia or the US are in serious danger of being overrun or overturned by the revolutionary Muslim hordes? Get real.
    To stretch and make this comparison plausible, you compare the 25% of people who are Muslims with the 25 percent of the world

    Reply

  15. Don Bacon says:

    WigWag,
    “During the Cold War, Presidents of both political parties were clear about who our adversary was;”
    It has been clearly established that that the US National Security State established in 1947, and which we still suffer from, needed an enemy and that enemy was world communism and the Soviets. We now know that the USSR was built on a house of cards and wasn’t really a threat. Neither was communism. Vietnam, a communist country, defeated the US military and is now a favored national friend. Bush-43 went there twice (after the war, of course).
    “The Jihadists are waging a war against the West and Western ideas.”
    Muslims properly want the US out of their countries. Initially it was Osama bin Laden’s desire to have the US military out of Saudi Arabia and that has been done. Unfortunately the US has a large, and increasing, military presence in many Muslim countries in Asia and Africa. Besides the onerous presence of brutal military actions there is the cultural and religious differences which properly rile Muslims, and are the cause of their terrorist acts. The US military is in effect a recruiting agent for terrorists. The amazing things are that terrorism is such a (statistically) minor threat and that it isn’t a greater one.
    So the “real enemy” is the US policy of brutal, culturally different military action in Muslim lands. If that were to stop then your problem of “Jihadists war against the West” would be over. But it won’t happen — there is no profit in peace.

    Reply

  16. JohnH says:

    Netanyahu rubs Obama’s nose in it: “I triumphed over the US administration, I had the upper hand at the end of the rift that happened between me and President Barack Obama,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a closed meeting with high-ranking officials of his government, Maariv newspaper reported.
    http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=139519&language=en
    Obama has no foreign policy. He simply responds to whatever wheel is squeaking the loudest. National Security Strategy RIP.

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    During the Cold War, Presidents of both political parties were clear about who our adversary was; they didn

    Reply

  18. JohnH says:

    Obama’s new “strategy” is meaningless. As Dilip Hiro points out, Obama’s track record shows that he does not have the balls to back up his words with action.
    http://www.lobelog.com/tomgram-dilip-hiro-obamas-flip-flop-leadership-style/#more-1624
    It would be interesting for Steve to offer a riposte to Hiro, but I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon. Hiro’s criticism is too hot to handle, though absolutely spot on.

    Reply

  19. Don Bacon says:

    kotz,
    One could do worse than be “an herb related to the carrot with aromatic leaves and seeds.” I like it!

    Reply

  20. kotzabasis says:

    Don Bacon you are a dill. You think that “actions” like Athena rise from Zeus’s head and not from men’s ideas and beliefs?

    Reply

  21. Don Bacon says:

    kotz,
    What Obama may or may not believe is irrelevant. Any man is properly judged on his actions, not his beliefs. That sucking sound you hear on the Tree of Freedom is Obama continuing the Bush policy of more war, in more places, wasting “the water of blood of past and present generations of Americans.”

    Reply

  22. kotzabasis says:

    In traditional Africa the medicine man by uttering a name he would identify and cure evil. In contemporary America, an Afro-American modern medicine man who by a caprice of a volatile electorate became president, believes in contrast, that by not uttering the name of

    Reply

  23. Don Bacon says:

    Daniel W. Drezner has done a count of mentions in the NSS:
    Al Qa’ida: 21
    Iran & Iraq: 19
    Afghanistan: 16
    terrorism: 14
    nonproliferation: 13
    Russia & Africa: 12
    One of my hobbies is keeping up with the US presidentially-declared “national emergencies” (so you don’t have to) of which there are now twenty-two (22). Those that were also mentioned (top eight) in the new NSS:
    *Terrorism
    *Terrorist Attacks
    *Middle East Terrorists
    *Weapons of mass destruction
    *Iraq
    *Iran
    “National emergencies” not mentioned in the NSS top eight:
    Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Syria (dropped this year as a national emergency). Burma, Belarus, Russian Federation, Western Balkans, North Korea, Liberia, Lebanon, Export Control Regulations, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, Sudan and Cuba.
    Boo!! All these scary threats is why we need a national security strategy.

    Reply

  24. Dan Kervick says:

    Yes, Don, this Afghanistan business permeates the strategy statement like and univited guest who won’t leave.
    It strikes me that a thematically similar document could have been written by a Soviet leader in the mid-eighties, or by Lyndon Johnson in 1968. It’s like Obama is saying, “I am so stoked to move on to all these great new plans for rebuilding American power and the world order or whatever, but first … MUST … WIN … AF-PAK! Ya’ll go on ahead without me. I’ll have myself pulled out of this quagmire momentarily.”

    Reply

  25. Dan Kervick says:

    “Pretending it isn’t so doesn’t make it not so. Obama’s desperate effort to develop a nomenclature that he thinks will be less offensive doesn’t fool anyone, including Muslims.”
    It’s not designed to fool anyone, WigWag. It’s just designed to focus attention on the people who actually engage in activities aimed at doing us harm – militant jihadists referred to by the conventional covering term “Al Qaeda” – rather than a diffuse and variegated ideological movement that seems to be on the decline anyway.
    Defining enemies in broad, but inherently imprecise and intellectually slovenly terms might be emotionally satisfying for people who like to chase phantoms and conceptualize their world in grand, crude polarities, but it doesn’t help either our leaders or our people deal smartly with complexity.
    Your sudden fondness for the old down home moral certainties of George Bush seems to be accompanied by some failures of memory. Bush was hardly direct in explaining who his enemy was, and he certainly never advanced the full monty war against global Islamofascism that you and Nadine seem to be advocating for, despite much urging by neoconservatives to do so. Bush was heavily criticized, by both the right and the left, for his choice of terms in defining the enemy. Obviously, his favorite was “terrorist”. He also liked “evildoer”. For a while during the second term they switched to “violent extremist” as Obama has, but then switched back.
    You seem to have softened your initial reaction, which took Obama to task for failing to call out “Islamic backwardness.” Using that kind of language, of course, would be ridiculously irresponsible talk for a US president. Maybe he should say our struggle is a global war against the retarded sand niggers, or the towel-headed cannibals?
    This reminds me of a passage from Steve Martin’s humorous piece, “A Public Apology”:
    “Finally, I would like to apologize for spontaneously yelling the word “savages!” after losing six thousand dollars on a roulette spin at the Choctaw Nation Casino and Sports Book. When I was growing up, the usage of this word in our household closely approximated the Hawaiian aloha, and my use of it in the casino was meant to express “until we meet again.” ”
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/martin-drivel.html

    Reply

  26. Don Bacon says:

    Actually, WigWag, the problem is that various Muslim countries are in a sustained conflict with violent Christians and Jews, with more violence from them than any Muslims have been capable of. I mean, if the Palestinians had received Apache gunships and drone-launched Hellfire explosive missiles I’m sure they would have preferred them to suicide bombers.

    Reply

  27. Don Bacon says:

    Dilip Hiro focuses on Afghanistan, which with the Gulf will be Obama’s downfall. Good riddance, if you ask me.
    While Barack Obama has been compared to Franklin Roosevelt, he has never been compared to Harry Truman. It’s a special pity that he’s let generals, particularly Petraeus and McChrystal, lead him by the nose. Obama, for one example, should have fired McChrystal when he showed up for his Copenhagen discussion on Air Force One with his commander-in-chief in his cammies. He didn’t.
    “It’s the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they’re gods in uniform that I plan to take apart.” –Harry S Truman
    The touts are now saying that McChrystal will be sacrificed to allow Petraeus head room for a run in 2012.

    Reply

  28. WigWag says:

    “Avoiding discussion of other people

    Reply

  29. Dan Kervick says:

    Is the new strategy document supposed to signal a new departure? Or is it just a summary of the strategy they have already been following?
    As for the approach they have already been taking, here is a searing indictment by Dilip Hiro, considering in turn the cases of Honduras, Israel, China, Afghanistan and Brazil:
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175254/tomgram%3A_dilip_hiro%2C_obama%27s_flip-flop_leadership_style/

    Reply

  30. Don Bacon says:

    Jonetta,
    A big problem is that ethanol requires processing (energy) and then provides only 70 percent of the energy that petroleum does, and hemp has only 40 percent. So either one takes more energy than it saves. And we need to eat corn (rather than meat) not burn it. Gotta go electric, which the US automotive industry will fight tooth and nail.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “It would be good for Wigwag to see the world beyond South Florida”
    She’s seen South Florida?? How’d she manage that with her head up her….oops…never mind.

    Reply

  32. jonetreynolds says:

    Don,
    I don’t you’re not getting it. And there are others potential crops like hemp that require no plowing, no fertilizers or chemicals and can produce as much or more bio-fuel per acre than corn. Kinda like growing weeds! Canadians are producing it right now.
    Would Ethanol spilled in the Gulf produce the ecological disaster we now face?
    Jonetta

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “WigWag, you and Nadine have really gone off the deep end in your reckless and dangerous calls for anti-Muslim crusading…….”
    GONE????
    Hell, these two have been “off the deep end” from their very first posts here. But I will admit that Nadine has done a fine job bringing Wig-Wag out of her shell. I imagine it has been somewhat liberating for the ghoul to be able to be herself. She owes Nadine a thank you.

    Reply

  34. Don Bacon says:

    recent news report (and I don’t have ANY financial interest in this):
    To avoid creating greenhouse gases, it makes more sense using today’s technology to leave land unfarmed in conservation reserves than to plow it up for corn to make biofuel, according to a comprehensive Duke University-led study.

    Reply

  35. jonetreynolds says:

    Here’s a green solution for national security.
    Why continue using foreign oil? Why not use ethanol which is a clean, American-made fuel?
    But you say your car can’t use it?
    And I don’t have ANY financial interest in this, but an internationally famous auto mechanic genius who has developed very inexpensive conversion kits for cars with turbos to run on 100% ethanol or 100% gasoline, or any combination of the two. One hundred dollars for four cylinders and $200 for six/eight cylinders. Labor is free for those capable — those who aren’t, figure an hour for your favorite mechanic.
    Ain’t that national security on a local level?
    http://www.mye85kit.com/

    Reply

  36. Don Bacon says:

    In the 2006 National Security Strategy, while it’s true that Bush didn’t use WigWag’s extremist jargon, he did (wrongly) tie terrorism to Islam.
    “While the War on Terror is a battle of ideas, it is not a battle of religions. The transnational terrorists confronting us today exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag, you and Nadine have really gone off the deep end in your reckless and dangerous calls for anti-Muslim crusading, and you are losing all sense of perspective and proportion. You say:

    Reply

  38. Don Bacon says:

    “Why, of course the people don’t want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” —Hermann Goering, 1946

    Reply

  39. JohnH says:

    “The great threats have disappeared! Or never were.”
    That constantly shifting bogeyman! Morphing to suit the latest whims of the political elite and the interests that drive them, such a defense contractors and oil companies.
    Even the Iranian threat has morphed over the years, the latest incarnation being the non-existent Iranian nuke program. Just like the Iraqi threat morphed over the years from being a friend to whom the US supplied chemical weapons to an enemy with a non-existent nuke program.
    The only thing certain is that there will always be a bogeyman to drive ever more outrageous “defense” budgets.

    Reply

  40. Don Bacon says:

    What a difference a few months make.
    VOA, Feb 7, 2010: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says trans-national Islamic extremist networks pose greater threats to the United States than the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
    AlJazeera, May 27, 2010: [The new NSS] drops some of the most controversial language from the Bush administration, like the phrase “global war on terror” and references to “Islamic extremism”.
    The great threats have disappeared! Or never were.

    Reply

  41. raf says:

    northern Iraq has made the U.S. a big mistake. who knows, this event will be the beginning of the end belkikde

    Reply

  42. JohnH says:

    Wigwag’s parochial attitude is very clear–“the Obama Administration goes to [great lengths] in avoiding mentioning Jihad extremism, Muslim terrorism or Islamic backwardness.”
    I have a friend who just got back from Iran and was impressed by the modernity and prosperity he saw there.
    It would be good for Wigwag to see the world beyond South Florida.

    Reply

  43. WigWag says:

    Having read the National Security Strategy once through, all I can see is that it is hard to imagine a document consisting of a greater series of banalities.
    Of course the naivety of the Obama Administration is on ample display; it’s hard to imagine a more vacuous Chief Executive and a more clueless group of advisors. The team put together by George W. Bush shines in comparison (which is really saying something) and despite his well deserved reputation as a dim wit, it is increasingly apparent that Bush understood the world in a far more sophisticated way than Obama does.
    It was particularly entertaining to see the lengths that the Obama Administration goes to in avoiding mentioning Jihad extremism, Muslim terrorism or Islamic backwardness. Apparently criticizing the Taliban and Al-Qa’ida’ are still okay (at least temporarily) but the President seems to think that if he avoids calling things by their real name that they will simply disappear.
    Of course if we followed Obama’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, we would avoid calling the current calamity in the Gulf of Mexico and off-shore oil spill. Perhaps if we just refer to it as BP’s under-water hole in the ground, the continuing environmental disaster will magically abate.
    What’s truly unfortunate is how much Obama has dumbed-down the Democratic establishment. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, instead of Obama rising to the sophistication level of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, Clinton and Biden are rapidly sinking to the sophistication level of Obama.
    It doesn’t bode well for the Democratic Party or for the security and prosperity of the United States.

    Reply

  44. Don Bacon says:

    Hillary Clinton recently refused with disdain a North Korean proposal to end the Korean War. The only real solution in Korea is to end the war and promote reunification, moves which are supported by Koreans but not by the US.
    The US obviously seeks continuing confrontation and instability in a country on China’s doorstep. A sort of counter-balance to Afghanistan, one might say, and no change from previous policies. It also gives the chief US “diplomat” another country to threaten.
    All of this actually weakens US security in various ways, but hey, there’s good money in it.

    Reply

  45. JohnH says:

    “Clinton Calls for

    Reply

  46. Don Bacon says:

    To Obama’s credit he takes the emphasis off of US military world domination. He still calls for US leadership in globalization but stresses the importance of other aspects of national power such as the economy. The US threat in the 2006 NSS to invade any country — “Deny the terrorists control of any nation that they would use as a base and launching pad for terror” — seems to be over.
    Obama is still fixated on Afghanistan, however.
    “. . .our military has been called upon to renew our focus on Afghanistan as part of a commitment to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. This is part of a broad, multinational effort that is right and just, and we will be unwavering in our commitment to the security of our allies, and partners.”
    Actually,
    1. Focusing an expensive and fruitless eight-years-and-counting huge military effort on Afghanistan, a poor mountainous country on the other side of the earth, has resulted in increased recruitment for anti-US terrorist organizations and the spread of AQ to other countries, as well as an increased danger within the US.
    2. The “broad, multinational effort” includes no other countries in Afghanistan’s geographical area and only faltering support in Europe. In the UK, defence secretary, Liam Fox, wants to speed up the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, saying that Britain is not a “global policeman”. In the world only Germany is holding fast.
    3. Even President Obama has seen limits to the US “unwavering commitment” — in December he said the US would “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
    The new NSS faults Iran and North Korea for “their failure to meet international obligations”, a curious position for a country that in most other matters disdains and discredits the United Nations, especially when it considers Israel. In the case of Iran that country has been in full accord with its treaty obligations, a claim that the US cannot make in its own case on nuclear matters.

    Reply

Add your comment

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