By now everyone understands that foreign policy is not the
President’s strong suit. Just about everyone sees that he, with his two
secretaries of state, has done a very poor job managing America’s relationships in
the world.
For my part I have tried to give President Obama the benefit
of the doubt. He is obviously in so far over his head that he does not even
know that he does not know what he is doing. He has become a living example of
the problems that occur when someone takes a job for which he does not have the
requisite training or experience.
Others have suggested that Obama’s foreign policy enacts a
set of underlying principles that are none too friendly to America’s national
interest. When given the chance Obama has derided America’s friends and bowed down to America’s enemies. It’s reasonable to assume that it was intentional.
This morning Eliot Cohen blames the Obama foreign policy
failure, not only on inexperience, but on an adolescent attitude. Or better, on boyish charm. Cohen does
not use the term, but his description reminds us of a boy who refused to grow
up, who lived in Neverland, who was arrogant and insolent, full of himself and
totally confident of his abilities, regardless.
No, I am not thinking of Michael Jackson. I am thinking of
Peter Pan.
From taking selfies at Nelson Mandela’s funeral to
conducting foreign policy via hashtags, Obama has been anything but dignified
and presidential.
Cohen writes:
Clues
may be found in the president's selfie with the attractive Danish prime
minister at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in
December; in State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki in March cheerily holding
up a sign with the Twitter TWTR +5.90%hashtag #UnitedForUkraine
while giving a thumbs up; or Michelle Obama looking glum last week, holding up
another Twitter sign: #BringBackOurGirls. It can be found in the president's
petulance in recently saying that if you do not support his (in)action in
Ukraine you must want to go to war with Russia—when there are plenty of
potentially effective steps available that stop well short of violence. It can
be heard in the former NSC spokesman, Thomas Vietor, responding on May 1 to a
question on Fox News about the deaths of an American ambassador and three other
Americans with the line, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
Since the leader sets the tone, other members of the
administration also act like overgrown children:
Often,
members of the Obama administration speak and, worse, think and act, like a
bunch of teenagers. When officials roll their eyes at Vladimir Putin's
seizure of Crimea with the line that this is "19th-century behavior,"
the tone is not that different from a disdainful remark about a hairstyle being
"so 1980s." When administration members find themselves judged not on
utopian aspirations or the purity of their motives—from offering "hope and
change" to stopping global warming—but on their actual accomplishments,
they turn sulky. As teenagers will, they throw a few taunts (the president last
month said the GOP was offering economic policies that amount to a
"stinkburger" or a "meanwich") and stomp off, refusing to
exchange a civil word with those of opposing views.
Among other puerile qualities, the administration leaders
are completely self-absorbed and self-absolved. And they refuse to be judged by
the consequences that their policies produce:
Like
self-obsessed teenagers, the staffers and their superiors seemed to forget that
there were other people in the room who might take offense, or merely see the
world differently. Teenagers expect to be judged by intentions and promise
instead of by accomplishment, and their style can be encouraged by
irresponsible adults (see: the Nobel Prize committee) who give awards for
perkiness and promise rather than achievement.
Call it immaturity if you like, but it projects exactly the
wrong image.
Cohen explains:
If the
United States today looks weak, hesitant and in retreat, it is in part because
its leaders and their staff do not carry themselves like adults. They may be
charming, bright and attractive; they may have the best of intentions; but they
do not look serious. They act as though Twitter and clenched teeth or a pout
could stop invasions or rescue kidnapped children in Nigeria. They do not sound
as if, when saying that some outrage is "unacceptable" or that a
dictator "must go," that they represent a government capable of doing
something substantial—and, if necessary, violent—if its expectations are not
met. And when reality, as it so often does, gets in the way—when, for example,
the Syrian regime begins dousing its opponents with chlorine gas, as it has in
recent weeks, despite solemn deals and red lines—the administration ignores it,
hoping, as teenagers often do, that if they do not acknowledge a screw-up no one
else will notice.
Hoping that no one will notice the mess… surely that does
not inspire confidence, either at home or abroad.
4 comments:
"Like self-obsessed teenagers, the staffers and their superiors seemed to forget that there were other people in the room who might take offense, or merely see the world differently. Teenagers expect to be judged by intentions and promise instead of by accomplishment, and their style can be encouraged by irresponsible adults (see: the Nobel Prize committee) who give awards for perkiness and promise rather than achievement."
And we all know with what the Road To Hell is paved...
How to write a modern political article:
1. Find a photo that implies your desired narrative.
2. Offer a few random opinions that fit the photo.
3. Pretend you just proved something important.
4. Collect paycheck.
We have infantile leadership because we have and infantile population with high time preference that likes it that way. That's all there is to it.
Nice piece! Reblogged and quibcagged here:
The Obama Administration may not be competent, but it sure is cool and youthful!
Post a Comment