Foreign policy and naiveté
I’m with Iowahawk, who said on Twitter (April 30), referring to some of Obama’s foreign policy aides such as Ben Rhodes, “I have a hard time believing a foreign policy brain trust made up of America’s top failed novelists and campaign van drivers could get things wrong.”
Anyone who read Ben Rhodes’ resume (as I did, in 2013) would not be the least bit surprised at how events have panned out for him and the policies he pushed.
But Rhodes would have been nothing without Obama, who not only chose him but shared his worldview. And as far I can see, the worldview of Obama hasn’t changed much since he was in college, a phenomenon I wrote about here. In it, I discussed an article he wrote for a student newspaper at Columbia—one of the few pieces of early writing we have from Obama, who kept a light paper trail—and how it combined ignorance, idealism, leftism, and arrogance. I’d say the same for Rhodes; Obama chose advisors who agreed with him (which of course is his prerogative).
Of course, one could say that Trump has no foreign policy experience either, and one would be right. This was one of the things that worried me so powerfully during the 2016 campaign. I still wonder about it. But he’s certainly chosen people to advise him who have plenty of experience in the arena, and what I’ve seen so far I mostly like.
What’s more, one thing you can say about Trump is that, although some of his behavior (and many of his Tweets) may seem and sound sophomoric and/or crass, his world-view on foreign policy is not. It’s cynical, hard-nosed, and it’s based on a ton of practical real-world experience in negotiating in a somewhat different but perhaps-related area, that of international business.
During the campaign and since, I’ve also been worried that Trump’s experience in the latter world would not transfer to the former world. But so far it appears that some of the negotiating skills are similar. And they’re a great deal more similar than writing novels and/or student articles are to negotiating foreign policy in the real world. A lot more similar.
I have no idea how the current approach towards Iran will work out. But I am firmly convinced that no one does. And the objections of Obama et al do not move me one iota. They have absolutely no credibility with me.
Trump’s lack of foreign policy experience is overcome by his business experience, and his honest commitment to doing what serves the USA best.
The mistake many make – Obama and his buddy Rhodes are just two examples – is that they believe foreign relations are best served by making as many friends as possible among the nations of the world. This is fundamentally wrong: we don’t want or need friends, we need, at most, allies and partners that will, for their own selfish reasons, work with us to do what is best for America.
Trump understands this, it is how successful businesses operate, through mutually beneficial arrangements. This is why he’s doing well. Doesn’t hurt that he’s had some experienced people to advise him.
I just read a NY Times article about Rhodes’s genius in selling the Iran Deal – that Irans’ government is now moderate and without the deal there would be war – when this though struck me:
The deal was an executive order. The only person who needed to buy it was the President, who didn’t really need the sales pitch. The media didn’t need the pitch either. To them, if the President was doing it, they were for it. Congress certainly didn’t buy it. The Senate couldn’t even get a majority, let alone a super-majority and 22% percent of the public polled were against it.
I ended up asking, “Where’s that genius you’re talking about?”
Doug Purdie:
We were told for 8 years about how Obama was a genius, but never told why (and certainly never shown why). I think this is more of the same. If you can’t make real arguments, or defend your position, just declare that your side is genius. It happens all the time.
Neo: “And as far I can see, the worldview of Obama hasn’t changed much since he was in college,…..”
If you have decided at an early age that the ills of the world are the result of U.S. “imperialism,” it allows you to visit Third World countries without considering that the lack of private property rights backed by courts and a reasonably honest democratic government are the real causes of their lack of prosperity and freedom. Since my first visit to Mexico in 1956 followed by travels all over the world, I have always tried to see why countries have prospered or not. I have always asked if U.S. “imperialism” was the cause? If it was, the connection was very hard to see. Inept/corrupt governments and lack of property rights inevitably emerge as the proximate causes. IMO, only a blind man or an ideologue could not see these facts on the ground.
Neo: ” And the objections of Obama et al do not move me one iota. They have absolutely no credibility with me.”
Everyone with anything beyond a sophomoric idealism, such as Obama’s world view, agrees with you.
Trump has surrounded himself with some highly intelligent and competent people. It is refreshing. His inexperience showed up as a lot of winnowing and adjustment in the beginning because he didn’t have a foreign policy team in place before the election, but I think one mark of a leader is that there *is* winnowing. At the beginning of US participation in WWII, Gen. Marshall was likewise quick to sideline commanders he found inadequate. I think the experience of the Civil War played a big part in that. Bush, OTOH, was too hesitant in that regard, and it cost him.
“I have no idea how the current approach toward Iran will work out. But I am firmly convinced that no one does.” neo
True, no one can foresee future events. But the results of decisively confronting bullies, fanatics and criminals is established to a fair degree of predictability.
The ill intentioned understand one thing; force. The greater the certainty in their minds that aggressive actions will result in quick and intolerable consequence, the greater the deterrent.
The Mullahs are fanatical but not stupid. Faced with the certainty of a terrible retribution, the less likely they are to court disaster. Power is their aphrodisiac.
Trump has given them no reason to doubt that he means what he says. They’ll test him and then, given the chance they’ll bluster furiously while backing down and bind their time. Just like Muhammad did with the Jews of Banu Qurayza…
We finally have a CIC who understands the Internet well enough to trap the top five ISIS commanders with it.
And the media still keeps taking him literally, but not seriously.
“I discussed an article he wrote for a student newspaper at Columbia–one of the few pieces of early writing we have from Obama, who kept a light paper trail–and how it combined ignorance, idealism, leftism, and arrogance. I’d say the same for Rhodes; Obama chose advisors who agreed with him (which of course is his prerogative).”
Or as I told my kids when we were first considering Obama’s campaign in 2008: he’s a jerk.
Tatterdemalian Says:
May 10th, 2018 at 4:29 pm
We finally have a CIC who understands the Internet well enough to trap the top five ISIS commanders with it.
And the media still keeps taking him literally, but not seriously.
* * *
Good news, but I hope our people had decided that they were justified in revealing how the captures occurred — as opposed to Obama just running his mouth to take credit as soon as possible.
It’s usually better to let the bad guys keep using their compromised methods than to reveal how you were finding them. Cf. Enigma in WW2.
Experience has to be looked at critically. Slow Joe Biden was added to Barry’s ticket, as some said, to bring needed experience. He had it, never mind that his positions had been on the WRONG side of history for at least 40 years. World view is important, but the concept of doing the right thing should be a large consideration. There have been many things that I don’t like about President Trump’s time in office, but there are many things I really like about the same time.
I like Trump’s tweets; they’re clear, they say something, they often are thankful for the good folk doing good; they often insult the media with a clear note of what the media is doing wrong, often summarized as WITCH HUNT.
although some of his behavior (and many of his Tweets) may seem and sound sophomoric and/or crass, his world-view on foreign policy is not.
Having the balls to insult others certainly does sound crass to (us?) beta male intellectuals, but it also sounds strong. Even a bit inspiring. Comey really IS a sleazeball, or whatever Trump called him.
Neo, you should be reading all of his Tweets now (are you, really?), and pick out some you think are sophomoric or crass. I suggest you’re getting your opinions more from the Dem Fake News media, rather than directly from the source. Given how short tweets are, there’s no serious scholar reason not to read them directly.
I like the 30 sec video of the 3 returning hostages, recently.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994517833357946882
His tweets are far more honest and meaningful than Obama’s oh-so-never-crass altruistic unrealistic BS.
And I’m pretty sure his direct tweeting to the American people willing to actually read him, which is not hard and includes millions so far, this direct communication will ensure his re-election. Along with good policy outcomes.
Twitter: what is that, something humans use to gild their bird cages as they live as human livestock for the elites and DS.
We finally have a CIC who understands the Internet well enough to trap the top five ISIS commanders with it.
So US counter intel doesn’t do any work, the CIC does their job for them… talk about micromanagement inconsistent with Trum’s usual style.
“Anyone who read Ben Rhodes’ resume (as I did, in 2013) would not be the least bit surprised at how events have panned out for him and the policies he pushed.”
Was it as skimpy as Obama’s resume? *That* skimpy?
A man who had a huge amount of personal/corporate foreign policy experience, Rex Tillerson, was briefly Trump’s SOS. He was soft and so disappointing, though he did downsize the Dept. Fortunately he is gone.
“So US counter intel doesn’t do any work, the CIC does their job for them…”
Whereas Obama would have refused to authorize the operation, citing “net neutrality.”
Why don’t you stick to the Amazing Karnac act? It suits the leftist “Harry Potter” narrative better.
The leader sets the tone for the whole organization and is responsible for whatever gets done, good or bad.
Trump’s leadership style, like every good leader, is to hire the right people, give them the power to carry out their mission and hold them responsible for results. That’s why he has fired so many people until he got ones that produced.
That’s how great leaders lead!
Trump’s foreign relations actions so far have been mostly successful, and the Democrats have criticized both the not-so-successful and the wonderfully successful.
Clintons and Democrats delende est.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/sarah-sanders-responds-to-iran-critics.php
Q Thank you, Sarah. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and former President Barack Obama all weighed in on the President’s Iran decision. …And what does the White House think about those former Obama administration officials commenting on this and the appropriateness of that?
MS. SANDERS: I think based on each of those individuals’ lack of success in this entire process on foreign affairs, they would probably be the last three people that we would look to for advice and counsel, and whether or not we had made the right decisions.
* * *
Sarah for the win.
Whereas Obama would have refused to authorize the operation, citing “net neutrality.”
This isn’t about President Hussein, unless you think he is still the President.
I know you want to distract the issue, but try to keep in mind that this is 2018. Your President Hussein isn’t in power still, at least try to tell yourself that.
Everytime someone critcized Hussein’s policies, the reaction would be “you’re a racist” or “Bush is still causing problems and the President needs time to fix them”. Their defense of the current President Hussein in 2012 was always “Bush broke it and is at fault”.
You’re going to have to do better than that, American.
Why don’t you stick to the Amazing Karnac act? It suits the leftist “Harry Potter” narrative better.
Try calling me a Leftist, I dare ya. I was here before the Alt Right taught you the Alpha and Beta games. You’re gonna have to do better than that Omega act.