You remember the President’s new approach to dealing with our enemies. Let’s listen to them, talk to them, embrace them, apologize to them.
He said countries will be more apt to cooperate with the United States on tough issues, even if only on the margins. Resistance based on anti-American conceptions of the past will fall away.
Evidently N. Korea sees things a little differently.
Last month they fired a long range missile in spite of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s threat of “consequences.” Yesterday, the communist country defied Obama and the international community by detonating a nuclear device. The leader of the free world says this action poses “a grave threat” to the world community. And today the defiant Kim Jong-Il fired off more short-range missiles to dispel Obama’s naive vision of a world in which all nations smoke a peace pipe and sing songs of unity and cooperation.
But what would give the N. Korean tyrant pause? Why would he feel the least bit hesitant about challenging the most powerful nation in the world?
The threat of “consequences” for last month’s missile test proved hollow when they manifested themselves in the form of a Security Council resolution condemning the launch. A mere slap on the wrist. UN spokeswoman Michele Montas claimed the condemnation “sends a unified message of the international community on the recent launch,” but that message really amounts to nothing more than hot air–no more punishing than a mild rebuke.
One would expect far more punitive “consequences” to follow the North’s most recent escalation of the crisis, but that wasn’t to be. Today’s aggression by N. Korea drew a response almost identical to last month’s–another resolution condemning the action and demanding the rogue nation honor the previous Security Council resolutions which call on it to drop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and vehicles to launch them.
Didn’t someone once say stupidity is repeating the same process again and again, but expecting different results, or something along those lines? By that definition, stupidity is regularly exhibited in the “consequences” dealt by the Security Council.
The ineffectiveness of such “consequences” was evidenced again in today’s UN reaction to the latest escalation. The UN Security Council is no more than a dog who’s all bark and no bite. Of course a large vicious dog’s bark can be an effective means of intimidation, but the more this scenario–vacuous cries of outrage not followed with punitive consequences–is repeated, the more the Security Council begins to resemble a toy poodle or a pomeranian than a German shepherd or a doberman.
Yet Obama and his followers remain convinced that his is the path to follow. This would be understandable if there was evidence his “Kumbaya” approach was working in other parts of the world, but it’s not.
Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was forced to admit the Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s “surge” of 21,000 additional US troops, the Taliban is gaining ground, controlling more and more territory once considered secure, inflicting heavy casualties on US troops. The administration refuses to consider the possibility that the President’s “mea culpa” foreign policy is making the enemy stronger, but this appears to in fact be the case.
The “Blame America” policies of the current administration embolden our enemies, motivating them to step up their attacks as they sense an impending collapse of our will to maintain our commitment to continue the fight. In Stanley Karnow’s 1990 interview with Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, commander of Communist forces in the Vietnam War, the general emphasized the importance of “political” strategies in winning the war. Though many dispute the internet claims that Giap’s memoirs claimed the North would have surrendered but for the anti-war movement in the US, a quote from Karnow’s article makes clear that it was a factor that provided motivation to continue the fight in the face of overwhelming losses.
“And we wanted to project the war into the homes of America’s families, because we knew that most of them had nothing against us. In short, we sought a decisive victory that would persuade America to renounce the war.”–Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap
From page 6 of “Giap Remembers” by Stanley Karnow.
Can you imagine how much more invigorated the North Vietnamese forces would have been had Johnson or Nixon been repeatedly on the air saying “It’s America’s fault!”? Obama’s habit of spewing apologies for everything America ever did, claiming blame for virtually all that is wrong in the world on his country’s behalf is providing the same motivation for our enemies today.
An old African proverb says, “Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.” Obama has placed all our chips on the table, betting he can halt the hatred in our enemies’ hearts by blaming America for their dilemna. Thus far, the evidence is overwhelming that his approach yields miserable failure at every turn.
But still he persists.
Update 5/26/2009—North Korea Restarts Nuclear Plant
And so it continues.
by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com
In his latest address – on Guantanamo detainees – President Obama said something of extraordinary importance that seems to have been missed by the media:
“I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more…I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.”
As this President chooses his words carefully, these claims need to be understood.
Note that Mr. Obama did not say what nearly all opponents of water-boarding say – that water-boarding is not an effective method of extracting reliable, life-saving, information. He took no issue with former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s claims that water-boarding or “enhanced interrogation” saved American and other lives. Indeed, he clearly leaves open the possibility, even the likelihood, that this claim is accurate. Rather, what he says is that “methods like water-boarding were not necessary to keep us safe” – not necessary, not ineffective. And why does he believe this? Because they are not “the most effective means of
In other words, the President’s view seems to be that water-boarding the three terrorists did elicit vital, life-saving, information. However, he contends that we could have obtained all that information using means of interrogation that were both non-brutal and more effective.