West Point Folly

There is so much in the news these days that points out the increasing disaster that is the Obama Presidency.  The two things that are fodder for criticism this week are the shameful VA scandal and the dismantling of our position of world leadership through the dismantling of our foreign policy.  So let's just take a look at the latter issue because I'm still too disgusted by the former.

The President delivered a major foreign policy speech at West Point this week at the Commencement ceremony in which he laid out his agenda for the remainder of his second term.  It was, in my view as well as many others, a major failure.  Check out the opinion of the New York Times here.  The liberal, Obama-protecting New York Times!!  Here's the pull quote:

"...The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left."

This guy can't outline a coherent, “grand strategy" to save his life.  Since he took the oath of office President Obama has been a reluctant internationalist, focusing on domestic issues and allowing critical foreign policy decisions to languish.  The speech was supposed to be a re-evaluation/renewal of his foreign policy approach but there was nothing in this speech that will change the minds of the increasing number who find him weak on foreign affairs.  This speech seems to collect together some of the themes the President has, in the view of many, half-heartedly espoused throughout his presidency. As has been his consistent modus operandi, he can espouse theory with the best of them but when it comes to implementation he is clueless and ineffective.  At some points the President sounds defensive, and rather than building a vision for the future, he is listing achievements (or almost-achievements, such as an agreement with Iran) of the past years.  He does describe the requirements for any new military engagement – it must affect our core interests.  But what are those?  I don't think he has a clue.  But I suspect it would be something like a direct attack of some sort on the homeland.  And if that is the criteria, then we have totally retreated from our leadership position in the world.  And outlining so specifically what the US will and won’t do, will embolden some of our enemies to create more instability in certain regions. 

I fear it will take years and significant treasure to rebuild our position in the world.  And it's not just about power.  It's about trade, stability, coalitions, and diplomacy.  Without a strong position, without the belief by our friends that they can count on us and our enemies that we will not be pushed around, we will face many more crises.  We have robbed funding from our instruments of diplomacy and defense to the point that they can only do so much.  I hope we can hang on for a few more years until someone comes along who understands foreign relations and can implement solutions.